3 ms·

> Love how me and [another student, whom Levy identified by name] get told we need a year of jv before we make varsity but that doesn’t matter to anyone else?

> Love how me and [another student, whom Levy identified by name] get told we need a year of jv before we make varsity but that doesn’t matter to anyone else? I don't see how that can constitute bullying; the student mentioned here is her friend. It's critical of some freshman getting on the varsity team, but it doesn't appear here that she even mentioned said freshman. Privacy laws are not really relevant; I was speaking of privacy in a broader sense, in the sense that what she said was meant for just her immediate circle of friends, and not wider dissemination. If she had been disruptive in person at the school, that's a completely different story, but I would expect we would have heard of that if that had been the case. Judging it as a case of purely off-campus speech, there's no way this qualifies as disruptive. Extracurriculars can carry additional responsibilities, but if they are provided by a government institution, then they have to follow the Constitution. As for the definition of censorship, punishing a student for their speech is censorship. 'Team policy' is not an excuse if it is unconstitutional. If speech restrictions can apply off-campus and outside of school events, a 'team policy' could just as well include things like never making political statements, or never making left/right political statements, and so on.

giantg2 6y ago
If you're the only freshman making the team, then you don't need to be named to be identified. I did just see that text and agree that the text was not bullying. You realize she sent this snap to 250 people? Do you have any privacy expectations when sharing stuff with that many people on a social media platform? I wouldn't expect anything to stay private if you put it on thr internet and tell 250 kids. This is not just a circle of friends. I don't see how privacy/recording laws would just stop applying if it was considered private. Which is sort of my point. If there was a valid invasion of privacy, I would expect legal action to be taken. It seems that did not happen. "there's no way this qualifies as disruptive." Unless it's disrupting team dynamic. It does goes directly against the goals of the team - promoting school pride and spirit. "then they have to follow the Constitution" That's not really true as that's not happening now. There are tons of Constitutional rights that are essentially ignored by schools including 1st, 2nd, and 4th. This case is basically up for seeing if those exceptions apply here or if a new exception is to be created. I think that this team policy will be found to acceptable because it's really a performance issue, not a speech issue as she is going against the goals of the team.
- mannerheim 6y ago
  > If you're the only freshman making the team, then you don't need to be named to be identified. She didn't really even mention a freshman making the team, although it was vaguely alluded to. > You realize she sent this snap to 250 people? Do you have any privacy expectations when sharing stuff with that many people on a social media platform? I wouldn't expect anything to stay private if you put it on thr internet and tell 250 kids. This is not just a circle of friends. I don't see how privacy/recording laws would just stop applying if it was considered private. Which is sort of my point. If there was a valid invasion of privacy, I would expect legal action to be taken. It seems that did not happen. The point was that it wasn't intended for a larger audience outside of her circle of friends. > Unless it's disrupting team dynamic. It does goes directly against the goals of the team - promoting school pride and spirit. Could complaining about the school off-campus and outside of school events disrupt student morale, justifying suspending a student? Anyway, even the judge who dissented in the appeal agreed that it wasn't disruptive: > Judge Thomas L. Ambro disagreed with his colleagues regarding off-campus speech and said it would have been enough for his colleagues to simply have ruled in Levy’s favor because her speech was not substantially disruptive. > That's not really true as that's not happening now. It did happen. She was already restored by a judge to the JV team years ago. > There are tons of Constitutional rights that are essentially ignored by schools including 1st, 2nd, and 4th. There are tons of Constitutional rights that are ignored by government at every level.

giantg2 6y ago

If you're the only freshman making the team, then you don't need to be named to be identified. I did just see that text and agree that the text was not bullying. You realize she sent this snap to 250 people? Do you have any privacy expectations when sharing stuff with that many people on a social media platform? I wouldn't expect anything to stay private if you put it on thr internet and tell 250 kids. This is not just a circle of friends. I don't see how privacy/recording laws would just stop applying if it was considered private. Which is sort of my point. If there was a valid invasion of privacy, I would expect legal action to be taken. It seems that did not happen. "there's no way this qualifies as disruptive." Unless it's disrupting team dynamic. It does goes directly against the goals of the team - promoting school pride and spirit. "then they have to follow the Constitution" That's not really true as that's not happening now. There are tons of Constitutional rights that are essentially ignored by schools including 1st, 2nd, and 4th. This case is basically up for seeing if those exceptions apply here or if a new exception is to be created. I think that this team policy will be found to acceptable because it's really a performance issue, not a speech issue as she is going against the goals of the team.

mannerheim 6y ago
> If you're the only freshman making the team, then you don't need to be named to be identified. She didn't really even mention a freshman making the team, although it was vaguely alluded to. > You realize she sent this snap to 250 people? Do you have any privacy expectations when sharing stuff with that many people on a social media platform? I wouldn't expect anything to stay private if you put it on thr internet and tell 250 kids. This is not just a circle of friends. I don't see how privacy/recording laws would just stop applying if it was considered private. Which is sort of my point. If there was a valid invasion of privacy, I would expect legal action to be taken. It seems that did not happen. The point was that it wasn't intended for a larger audience outside of her circle of friends. > Unless it's disrupting team dynamic. It does goes directly against the goals of the team - promoting school pride and spirit. Could complaining about the school off-campus and outside of school events disrupt student morale, justifying suspending a student? Anyway, even the judge who dissented in the appeal agreed that it wasn't disruptive: > Judge Thomas L. Ambro disagreed with his colleagues regarding off-campus speech and said it would have been enough for his colleagues to simply have ruled in Levy’s favor because her speech was not substantially disruptive. > That's not really true as that's not happening now. It did happen. She was already restored by a judge to the JV team years ago. > There are tons of Constitutional rights that are essentially ignored by schools including 1st, 2nd, and 4th. There are tons of Constitutional rights that are ignored by government at every level.