5 ms·

These lawsuits make no sense. The schools can already ban phone usage and have no authority to dictate things outside classrooms. 1st amendment will squash thes

These lawsuits make no sense. The schools can already ban phone usage and have no authority to dictate things outside classrooms. 1st amendment will squash these (and if they didn’t you should be concerned at the implication). But since we are filing ridiculous suits they should sue fast food companies and junk food ones as well. It’s already well established that poor nutrition affects student outcomes significantly. They should also sue state governments for blocking housing too since student homeless is a problem.

xg15 3y ago
That might actually be a good idea, considering the obesity crisis is well-known.
llamaimperative 3y ago
What legal theory is that? The whole point of lawsuits is to exercise power over things you don’t have direct control over. And that’s a good thing.
kristiandupont 3y ago
>These lawsuits make no sense Do you mean legally? Because ethically, I think they make perfect sense. And I would think similar about going after fast food companies and possibly other industries.
- ifdefdebug 3y ago
  Since it's a lawsuit, there is unfortunately only one way for it to make sense: legally.
  - kristiandupont 3y ago
    I guess you and I disagree on what "make sense" entails.
bthrn 3y ago
The first amendment only applies to state actors. I’m not sure why it’s so frequently used broadly as a blanket for free speech in any context.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  Yes, however meta and Google are inclusive of speech against the government. Under what grounds would wholesale ban be allowed then? The entire suit will fail and they know it. More waste of tax payer dollars. If they care about this they can simply ban phones in their school districts. This suit is analogous to banning fedex and ups because kids are addicted to mailing each other scandalous notes. Clearly will fail. If there’s specific content posted by specific groups that are a concern the school should go after them.
  - xg15 3y ago
    To my knowledge, the reason why free speech is held in such high regard is the idea that only citizens who are well-informed and have equal access to all arguments can make reasonable decisions - which is what a democracy rests on. If that is the reason though, I'd doubt that speech that deliberately attempts to subvert rational thought and manipulate the audience would fall under that protection.

xg15 3y ago

That might actually be a good idea, considering the obesity crisis is well-known.

llamaimperative 3y ago

What legal theory is that? The whole point of lawsuits is to exercise power over things you don’t have direct control over. And that’s a good thing.

kristiandupont 3y ago

>These lawsuits make no sense Do you mean legally? Because ethically, I think they make perfect sense. And I would think similar about going after fast food companies and possibly other industries.

ifdefdebug 3y ago
Since it's a lawsuit, there is unfortunately only one way for it to make sense: legally.
- kristiandupont 3y ago
  I guess you and I disagree on what "make sense" entails.

bthrn 3y ago

The first amendment only applies to state actors. I’m not sure why it’s so frequently used broadly as a blanket for free speech in any context.

endisneigh 3y ago
Yes, however meta and Google are inclusive of speech against the government. Under what grounds would wholesale ban be allowed then? The entire suit will fail and they know it. More waste of tax payer dollars. If they care about this they can simply ban phones in their school districts. This suit is analogous to banning fedex and ups because kids are addicted to mailing each other scandalous notes. Clearly will fail. If there’s specific content posted by specific groups that are a concern the school should go after them.
- xg15 3y ago
  To my knowledge, the reason why free speech is held in such high regard is the idea that only citizens who are well-informed and have equal access to all arguments can make reasonable decisions - which is what a democracy rests on. If that is the reason though, I'd doubt that speech that deliberately attempts to subvert rational thought and manipulate the audience would fall under that protection.