4 ms·

I'd be more inclined to agree but the Snap was hardly public - it disappeared long before school resumed - and her parents were heavily involved, appealing this

• giantg2 6y ago
  It sounds like it was pretty disruptive to the cheer squad with the bullying and interference with the team dynamic. They didn't suspend her nor cut her from the softball team. The only "discipline" she recieved was being cut from the cheer squad that year due to the disruption she was causing there. She became an active participant in speech that is contrary to the purpose of the cheer squad. I don't know of any sport that will let you be on the team if you are sabotaging the goals of the team. What other speech would be interfered with? It's not like she was suspended, given detention, etc like we see in other cases of off-campus speech issues. It seems this case is fundamentally different from those other cases since formal discipline was never taken and only involved an extracurricular activity. So I don't really see this impacting other areas of speech and I would hope the court acknowledges these differences and greatly restricts their powers. But I think this case would meet whatever guidelines they come up with.
  • hluska 6y ago
    Two judges have held that: - BL did not waive any constitutional rights when she signed the cheer contract. - BL’s Snap was off campus speech. - BL’s Snap did not cause any actual or foreseeable disruption of school activities. Here’s the appeal court’s ruling: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/191842p.pdf https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/191842p.pdf
    • giantg2 6y ago
      "BL did not waive any constitutional rights when she signed the cheer contract." This is very interesting. I guess they mean any off campus rights. Many rights are clearly restricted on campus, including school events at any location. I also see the bring up that the prohibited conduct in the contract is not strictly defined. Yet we have plenty of laws which are also not strictly defined and they are upheld (so much for lenity). Thanks for the link. It's interesting that the judges contend that they should only be looking at the first snap even though the background contains quoted testimony that both captions were part of the concern. Then they go on to say that the first caption is not information, which might be true. But the second one does have negative information about the selection decision. Although it's also interesting that opinions are not considered information, when by any other test they would be. I just find it odd that they would overlook the testimony they quoted in the background previously. And a similar issue with when they talk about the act occurring between seasons, yet tryouts were supposedly just held for that season. It's also interesting that they didn't examine it from a performance aspect. They do mention a test of whether the person can be punished off campus for the speech. They only investigate this from the standpoint of the team being "the government". They do not look into whether private teams punish students for similar issues, and thus if the school team requires the same customary practices to effectively function. Essentially the same reasoning that schools are allowed to restrict other rights in the classroom - that they need the customary authority that comes with the implementation of activity (school, team, etc) because being restricted to only the role of government would make them an ineffective institution. It makes one wonder if the government should be involved in education at all if it requires constant exceptions to constitutional rights, that essentially the elements of running a school are in contention with the laws of the government and the rights of the students. I guess we just have to wait for the SCOTUS decision to remedy the split.
      • dragonwriter 6y ago
        > This is very interesting. I guess they mean any off campus rights No, they mean any Constitutional rights. > Many rights are clearly restricted on campus, including school events at any location. To the extent that that is true, that’s not a waiver by the student. But while it allows considerable regulation, the limitation on free speech on schools is quite narrow. > Yet we have plenty of laws which are also not strictly defined and they are upheld (so much for lenity). Lenity is not absence of strict definition of what is prohibited, but government’s power to not fully prosecutr what is prohibited. Strict definition is about the boundary of what may be enforced. > They do mention a test of whether the person can be punished off campus for the speech. They only investigate this from the standpoint of the team being "the government". They do not look into whether private teams punish students for similar issues, and thus if the school team requires the same customary practices to effectively function. That’s because the government has no inherent right to do what private entities may do that trumps Constitutional limits on government. If cheerleading teams need things that exceed the legitimate power of government to function (which I doubt, but whatever), then the solution is for the government not to run cheerleading teams, not for thr government to assume unconstitutional powers. > Essentially the same reasoning that schools are allowed to restrict other rights in the classroom - that they need the customary authority that comes with the implementation of activity (school, team, etc) because being restricted to only the role of government would make them an ineffective institution. That is not the basis for the (fairly narrow, in the case of free speech) power of government to regulate conduct in schools beyond what it can do in other contexts.