A Cheerleader's Vulgar Message Prompts a First Amendment Showdown:
WASHINGTON — It was a Saturday in the spring of 2017, and a ninth-grade student in Pennsylvania was having a bad day. She had just learned that she had failed to make the varsity cheerleading squad and would remain on junior varsity.
The student expressed her frustration on social media, sending a message on Snapchat to about 250 friends. The message included an image of the student and a friend with their middle fingers raised, along with text expressing a similar sentiment. Using a curse word four times, the student expressed her dissatisfaction with "school," "softball," "cheer" and "everything."
[...] The school suspended the student from cheerleading for a year, saying the punishment was needed to "avoid chaos" and maintain a "teamlike environment."
The student sued the school district, winning a sweeping victory [PDF link] [...] [in which the] court said the First Amendment did not allow public schools to punish students for speech outside school grounds.
Next month, [...] the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear the case. [...] The Third Circuit's ruling is in tension with decisions from several other courts, and such splits often invite Supreme Court review.
In urging the justices to hear the case, the school district said administrators around the nation needed a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court on their power to discipline students for what they say away from school.
[...] "In the modern era, a tremendous percentage of minors' speech occurs off campus but online," [legal author and Yale law professor Justin Driver] said. "Judicial decisions that permit schools to regulate off-campus speech that criticizes public schools [...] empower schools to reach into any student's home and declare critical statements verboten, something that should deeply alarm all Americans."
So, during this time of on-line learning, how does one draw the line between school activities and on-line activities?
Also at: Bowling Green Daily News
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @03:36AM
I've never seen a cheerleader that wasn't packin' .44 Magnum pom-poms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @03:37AM
Nuke them from the orbit.
And nuke'em again, just to be sure.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mojibake Tengu on Monday January 11 2021, @03:48AM (1 child)
I would consider a teen satisfied with either "school" or "everything" guilty of conformity, under depression breakdown or in psychotic disorder, thus extremely dangerous in any case.
Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @03:49AM
Fuck nonconformity!
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday January 11 2021, @03:49AM (13 children)
Make the students live on campus.
What kids do off campus is the parents' responsibility. If the schools want control, they have to be held liable.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 11 2021, @04:50AM
Probably best to just take them away from the parents entirely.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday January 11 2021, @04:55AM (7 children)
Ummmm... online schooling? You know, covid and all that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @05:04AM (2 children)
If your schooling includes snapchat messages you are doing it wrong.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday January 11 2021, @06:52AM (1 child)
Can you, tho', stop the kids snapchatting while at home but during school hours?
at least condom wearing while teaching [xkcd.com] is a moot point in online schooling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday January 11 2021, @05:10PM
Yes. If they are using school-provided hardware with school-provided filtering on it. And, just for drill, they could make the learning enviornment require an authorized hardwired device to access it.
Now if the kid whips out their cellphone and are doing during instruction time.... no, they can't, and they shouldn't IMO.
(Oh, and hi everyone! Meesa back! Happy new yearing!)
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2, Touché) by fustakrakich on Monday January 11 2021, @05:21AM (3 children)
I hope online schooling is not 24/7...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday January 11 2021, @06:48AM (2 children)
No, but for some good hours the kid is still under the teachers/school attention except out of school premises; what rules are applicable?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday January 11 2021, @08:12AM (1 child)
During the online class... Just like they were present at school.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @01:14PM
I agree, but many schools don't remind students or parents of that fact, so they are not taking the same effort to hinder scrutiny they would if a school official was asking questions about their home life.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Monday January 11 2021, @01:46PM (3 children)
And cut off the internet for all of them, which is so much better than mildly punishing a few idiots who abuse it. In case you missed the last 20 years, the internet has made geographical boundaries increasingly irrelevant.
Then her parents should have banned her from cheerleading themselves - not helped her sue the school. Usual case of demanding rights without accepting responsibilities.
Problem is, they are: if another student or staff member complains that they're being harassed online by another student, they're gonna sue the school (no point suing the parents unless they're rich).
Perspective here, too: has she been thrown in prison? No. Has she been fined? No. Has she been thrown out of school? No. Those things would be worrying. She's been banned from cheerleading (which she's apparently given the finger to, anyway) - oh the humanity! Perfectly proportionate withdrawal of privileges for unsporting behaviour. And that's assuming that there isn't more to this story...
If you post online that your coach is a fucking asshole then enjoy your right to not be treated as a criminal - but don't act all surprised when you get thrown off the team... and do remember to respect their right to free speech when they badmouth you to every other team that you might try to get a place on.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 11 2021, @01:54PM (2 children)
Or the coach gets fired, because they really are a fucking asshole. There's multiple outcomes possible here. But those other outcomes won't happen, if nobody talks.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Monday January 11 2021, @04:37PM (1 child)
No, A civilly-worded complaint, backed by clear reasons and evidence of the alleged wrongdoing, starting with "the proper channels" and only going public if those are ignored should get them fired... if it doesn't, then all you achieve by publicly spouting profanities is to undermine your own credibility, damage the credibility of their other critics and create problems for the platform that you are abusing.
And, yeah, in our imperfect world "doing it properly" may still just get you fired, but then you might actually have a case worth listening too.
Heck, if the student in TFA had written a cogent, reasoned article about the faults of the US school system then a self-respecting school should have given her extra credit. But she didn't, she just flipped them the bird. Now, she's forcing a supreme court decision that, if it goes against her, could be a gift to those who do want to suppress freedom of speech. This is why we can't have nice things.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday January 12 2021, @06:38AM
Sounds like proper channels were used to me! You have to remember that school administrations are breeding grounds for the worst sort of responsibility dodgers. Things like "proper channels", zero tolerance, criminalizing misbehavior (a US specialty), punishing dissent even when it doesn't occur on campus, and an environment where it's trivial to pull a paycheck until one retires are all ways to successfully evade responsibility and deep-six criticism.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 11 2021, @06:06AM (5 children)
School administrators hold authority over students during school functions. Classroom hours, the football game, school sanctioned field trips, and - - - well, that's just about it. When the bell rings, and the student walks off of school property, the school has just about zero authority over the student.
I realize that armies of authoritarian assholes have been working hard to extend their authority for the past 30 years or more. It's long past time that parents stood up for their kids, and remind all the authoritarian assholes who works for whom. The highest ranking authoritarian asshole in any school system works for THE PARENTS!!
And, that remains true right on up to Betsy DeVos, and whoever is replacing her.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @03:46PM (3 children)
The challenge there is that what happens off school property doesn't necessarily stay off school property. What's more, with social media, there's increased issues with bullying continuing off school property.
Not that I support leaving schools responsible for things that happen outside of school hours, just that it's not like it used to be where there was some possibility of getting away from it when school wasn't in session.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 11 2021, @05:04PM (2 children)
Challenge noted. But, we seem to agree that school officials aren't the proper people to put in charge of your kid's lives.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @10:34PM (1 child)
Yes, school officials should only get a say in what students do during school hours. They should also only be responsible for what the student achieves during that time. One of the big issues is that we hold schools accountable for educating students even when the home life is a drag on their performance.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday January 12 2021, @06:42AM
What's missed here is that is the correct thing to do. Schools are not here to fix home lives. They're here to educate students regardless of their home lives.
(Score: 2) by bussdriver on Monday January 11 2021, @08:47PM
I've seen it going on my whole life. American parents don't even know how bad they are or even take blame for their failure; they want schools to raise their children for them. But don't you dare tell their brat something they don't believe in! Also, they assume they know how to best raise their child despite having zero education and most haven't even read anything on parenting either. The previous generations gradually dropped the ball as well; as TV helped substitute for them.
PARENTS are suppose to handle how their child behaves and correct it. All they do today is overcompensate by mindlessly attacking the world for not sheltering their snowflake from the weather.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Monday January 11 2021, @06:18AM (21 children)
If a teen giving the finger and saying a naughty word after school can create lasting chaos within the school, there are much deeper problems and the administration is most likely responsible.
Student speech criticizing the school is to be especially protected, particularly public school.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday January 11 2021, @09:11AM (16 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Monday January 11 2021, @11:08AM (15 children)
School is compulsory and public school is a government function. Citizens have the right to criticize their government and it's functions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @01:21PM
Not just a right, it's a civic duty to speak up and oppose the government when you believe it's wrong (and I learned that in public school). Democracy can't work without that engagement. Schools should never discourage free expression.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by rcamera on Monday January 11 2021, @01:59PM (4 children)
school is compulsory. extra-curriculars are not. and they often pre-define a code of conduct to participate. break the agreed-upon code of conduct, be removed from the activity. not sure what the issue is here.
if she was suspended from school for a year i could understand the argument - but being suspended from a non-essential extracurricular seems totally reasonable.
/* no comment */
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 11 2021, @05:08PM
The issue is, participation in an extracurricular activity does not grant the school authority in the student's off-campus life. The school may dictate standards of conduct during those activities, but the school's authority ends when those activities conclude.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday January 11 2021, @06:24PM (1 child)
It's a reprisal for exercising her Constitutional right. If cheerleading was a completely separate private entity that the school administration had no input into, you would have a point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @08:30PM
exactly. the coaches are petty bitches who wanted to show her who was boss. fuck those fucking losers.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 13 2021, @03:32PM
Public school and the Catholic Church have little in common - aside from authorities over young people. Give an extracurricular activity person authority over a bunch of young people, such as cheer leaders, and you have all kinds of potential for abuse. Why do we want to grant such people any more authority than is absolutely necessary?
Had this particular student shot her mouth off in person, while addressing these authority figures, I would go along with the suspension. Maybe, perhaps, if the student shot her mouth off on school grounds, and was overheard by said authority figures, I would go along with the suspension. If the student had been off of school grounds, maybe at a burger stand, and was overheard by an authority figure running her mouth, then no suspension would be warranted.
Facebook is kinda like that burger joint where kids congregate. Free speech should be the rule.
Let's not set up school coaches and the like, with the power to abuse more children.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday January 11 2021, @02:30PM (5 children)
That'll be 10 euros. Please feel free to try again. Try five times for only 48 euros!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday January 11 2021, @06:20PM (4 children)
But school attendance is, and barring her from cheer is a reprisal for exercising her Constitutional right.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday January 11 2021, @09:10PM (3 children)
You call it reprisal, I call it punishment. You call it just a right, I call it also a wrong. There is such a legal thing as defamation, and bringing into disrepute.
Whiny bitch got slapped. Get over it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday January 11 2021, @10:19PM (2 children)
Government isn't allowed to punish (your word) the exercise of the 1st amendment at all. Public school is part of government. It isn't freedom of speech if you say "the king is a fink" and the king "invites" you to shout that from the tower for the next year.
Note that punishment of things that go beyond speech (for example, defacement of school grounds) is permitted, but that didn't happen here.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 12 2021, @11:33PM (1 child)
You're up to 30 euros now, were you doing the five-fer?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Touché) by sjames on Tuesday January 12 2021, @11:52PM
No, I've made an analogy and you had an autistic moment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @03:50PM (2 children)
Students don't have full rights though. That's a detail that folks seem to miss. Schools have legal responsibilities that wouldn't be possible if the students had all of their constitutional rights. Good luck ensuring that every student is free of harassment and bullying if the students get the full range of constitutional free speech that adults get, as an example. The schools also have a responsibility to maintain order and to teach the students how to function in society, which is probably the justification that was being used when they decided to punish her for the speech. The issue here isn't so much that they punished her for the speech, just that they did so for speech which happened off school property. Had she said, or written that, at school, the school would likely have had the right to punish the speech.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 11 2021, @05:13PM (1 child)
That is debatable - and in fact, court cases have been ruled on that support and refute your position.
Before that debate can go very far, it would be necessary to establish exactly what rights minors have. They don't have the right to enter into contracts, for instance, or the right to vote, or the right to consent to sex. Minors, whether on campus or off, do not have the full rights of citizenship.
If and when minor's rights are defined down to the last detail - the school may not infringe on those rights.
But, authoritarians love to infringe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @10:38PM
It's really not debatable. Anything that happens at school or during school sponsored activities is subject to some restrictions on their constitutional rights and there have been cases for many decades covering that. Outside of the physical school is where things get to be somewhat murky at times. But, the case law is settled in terms of students having some limitations on their rights for the purposes of conducting school business. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that schools can search lockers and restrict speech in service of educating students.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @02:14PM (3 children)
News flash! Teens are sometimes annoying and rude. Who would have thought it.
The teen was punished by the school for being a teen off school grounds, off school time, and not reflecting on the supposed reputation of the school.
That is an unhealthy abuse of the school administration's opinion of how to raise a kid.
If it was on campus, then perhaps there could have been an overriding safety concern, but I don't see that the actual act would justify this.
If during a scheduled activity, then perhaps an overriding disruption, but not one warranting a 1 year timeout.
The school is way out of bounds here an needs calibration from the court.
So, what were these administrators like as kids?
Seems like they are lacking in common sense which comes from making mistakes which comes from pushing the rules a bit.
Who is providing the bad example here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @03:53PM (1 child)
Precisely, while schools have a legal obligation to maintain order at school and to teach students how to live in society, they don't have the relevant powers to do so outside of school hours with limited exceptions. Barring something like a post where she indicated she was going to shoot up the school because she didn't get her way, there's not much that the school has authority to do in this case. There's no legal requirement for them to punish it either.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 11 2021, @05:17PM
Just a nitpick here:
Had she made a bomb threat, or a death threat, that wouldn't give the school any authority over her while off campus. At such point, the school's only possible legal act would be to notify police authorities. If the threat were imminent, the school could go into lockdown, but they wouldn't have any authority to go off campus to deal with the threat. Their only option would be to rely on the police.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday January 13 2021, @08:30PM
This issue crosses a lot of gray areas. The school is required to provide the student with an opportunity for an education. I don't see that right being abridged in this case. She hasn't been kicked out of school. Cheerleading is an extracurricular activity, and it can probably be assumed that participation in such activities is a privilege, not a right (as long as equal access is granted to all). One of the things these activities are supposed to be providing for students is learning about competition, and how there are winners and losers. She lost and had an over the top reaction. Did it warrant suspension from the activity for a year? We don't have the full story of course (how disruptive a presence is she?), but that does seem excessive for an emotional teenager, especially as the reaction was not on school grounds or directed at anyone in particular. I know plenty of coaches have kicked plenty of students off teams for reasons better and worse than in this case. I think there were probably better avenues for reinstatement she and her parents could have pursued, and maybe the school should have offered such opportunities, but applying to the courts for redress in a case like this seems excessive to me as well.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ledow on Monday January 11 2021, @08:11AM (40 children)
And yet I've spent 20+ years on the Internet being told how wonderful that America has freedom of speech, etc. etc. etc. when really they have EXACTLY the same restrictions that every other country has.
We just don't all codify it into our laws because we know that it's not complete, by any means, and can't be in any free society (your freedom ends at the boundary to my freedom not to be subjected to you).
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @08:56AM
Fuckin-A right! 'Cause you unwashed furriners copy every fucking little thing we do, ya fuckers!
USA! USA! USA!
We're fuckin' number fuckin' one!
*This message brought to you by the US Chamber of Fucking Commerce
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @09:09AM (1 child)
Not exactly. Schools in central Europe wouldn't give two shits if a student said "fuck this school". They would start caring if a student said "fuck Islam" or "why are we letting foreign criminals from stable countries claim refugee status" though. So pretty much the inverse of the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @08:33PM
or "is the holocaust even true" or "why are jews bringing in non-whites to rape, murder and replace us?"
(Score: 0, Touché) by FatPhil on Monday January 11 2021, @09:18AM (7 children)
SCOTUS has alas muddied the waters in recent years with some abyssmal decisions in this regard.
No right-on bakers should ever be forced to enter into a contract to make a cake saying "fuck the gays", and no bible-bashing bakers should ever be forced to enter into a contract to make a cake saying "man love rules". Take your business elsewhere if they don't want to perform the task you wish to commision them for.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday January 11 2021, @09:18AM
s/consent/speech/
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @12:17PM (1 child)
Public school != private business
Give me back my taxes if you want freedom of association.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday January 11 2021, @02:03PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @04:09PM
WTF?
(-1) word salad
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 11 2021, @05:23PM (2 children)
It is necessary to point out that we are discussing teenagers.
If a 30 year old person says "fuck the school", he probably means it. Children often say things they don't really mean. What parent has never heard a child proclaim, "I hate you!" because the child was denied a third helping of ice cream? Older children can be said to be less impulsive than very young children, but they are still children.
This is a big part of the reason children are prohibited from entering into contracts, prohibited from consenting to sex, etc.
Children shouldn't be punished for being children. Adults are supposed to deal with poor behaviour with careful, considered reactions. When the school system reacts in a childish manner, it only reinforces that maybe the school should be fucked.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday January 11 2021, @09:02PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2021, @12:12AM
Which, as much as I hate to say it, bolsters Runaway's argument.
Children do stupid things. The children you mention did *incredibly* stupid, dangerous and destructive things.
The girl mentioned in TFA expressed herself in a vulgar and obnoxious way. Which is unproductive and rude.
However, she did so on her own time away from the school. I suppose that the school (which in this case is the local government) could sue her parents (as she's just a child) for defamation, but schools only have authority over students when they are on the school grounds and/or actually engaged in school activities.
As such, the appropriate action of the school would be to inform the parents that their child was acting out in what they consider to be inappropriate and anti-social ways. It would then be up to the child's parents to decide what to do about it.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Bethany.Saint on Monday January 11 2021, @01:30PM (6 children)
I'm sure you're aware but we often forget it applies ... the absolute freedom of speech as provided by the constitution only applies to speaking out about/against the government. Other speech falls under whatever society (the courts) deems appropriate for the times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @01:35PM
Citation? I don't think you're correct. Even so-called reasonable limitation doesn't go that far.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 11 2021, @02:07PM
That is wrong. What it applies to is any action by government, federal, state, or local - which incidentally includes public schools - to censor or inhibit speech. I believe the courts acknowledge some restrictions are permitted at the public school level in order to maintain a scholarly environment.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 11 2021, @05:26PM
School IS government. Betsy DeVos holds a governmental position, from which she imposes her will on students all around the government. Freedom of speech applies to DeVos and every one of her subordinates within the government education agencies.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday January 11 2021, @06:28PM
Public school is a government function, so it fully applies here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2021, @12:28AM (1 child)
Even if that were true, and I don't believe it is (the First Amendment doesn't specify what sort of speech the government may or may not abridge, only that it may not abridge it), a public school *is* the government.
The school grounds are owned/leased by the government. The faculty and staff are employed by the government. The curriculum is defined/approved by the government. School functions are paid for through taxation.
In every respect, a public school *is* the government.
And even though the First Amendment (and extended to those state/local governments through the 14th Amendment) forbids the government from abridging the freedom of speech, courts have ruled that on school grounds or during school activities, the school (read: the government) can restrict the speech of persons.
However, no court has ever ruled that a school can restrict the speech of *anyone* off of school grounds or not during school activities.
I'd be interested to understand how you came to the conclusion that "the absolute freedom of speech as provided by the constitution only applies to speaking out about/against the government" or that a school (government) can restrict speech that doesn't occur within the school or during school activities.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Bethany.Saint on Tuesday January 12 2021, @01:51PM
Yeah, I was hyperbolic in my comment. Typing without thinking seems to be my specialty on the internet.
We're arguing the same side about school. I don't think it will be found the school can restrict this speech.
Replying to others here.
Public schools are local government, not federal. Betsy DeVos is not in charge of them. ED's primary action is to steer by moving money. Mostly grants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @01:32PM (10 children)
Well, we can criticize heads of state and monarchs, which quite a bit of europe cannot legally.
(Score: 2) by ledow on Monday January 11 2021, @04:39PM (7 children)
By "quite a bit" do you mean the absolute minority of some of the most Eastern European states, most of which haven't joined the EU because of such laws not being seen as fair in the grand scheme of things?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday January 11 2021, @06:26PM (6 children)
His "quite a bit" is more accurate than your "when really they have EXACTLY the same restrictions that every other country has."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by ledow on Tuesday January 12 2021, @08:12AM (5 children)
-- English. I can say "fuck the Queen". I just did.
Now tell me which Western European countries you can't say that, as a proportion of those countries.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday January 12 2021, @04:38PM (2 children)
I never said anything about Europe. You, however, opened this "argument" by claiming 100% of the world has the same laws about freedom of speech, which is laughable.
You even all-caps'd it, dude. WTF
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by ledow on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:54AM (1 child)
Are we even reading the same thread?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 13 2021, @03:41PM
I don't know--you keep arguing details after I pointed out your initial post was ridiculous in the first place and warrants no further discussion. But I guess just keep on beating that horse
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2021, @07:24PM
Her majesty's a pretty nice girl, but she doesn't have a lot to say.
Her majesty's a pretty nice girl, but she changes from day to day.
I wanna tell her that I love her a lot, but I got to get a belly full of wine.
Her majesty's a pretty nice girl, someday I'm gonna make her mine, oh yeah, someday I'm gonna make her mine!
Not directly on topic, but I do love that song [youtube.com].
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 13 2021, @03:59PM
Have some numbers, courtesy of that Lese Majeste link above:
Denmark
Germany
Iceland
(Italy has no citation so we'll ignore it)
Netherlands
Poland
Russia (only the parts in Europe)
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey (only the part in Europe)
So that's 11/44 countries in Europe, or 25%.
By population, my math is telling me ~45.9% of Europe lives in that geographical area.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday January 11 2021, @09:05PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2021, @07:58AM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Oakenshield on Monday January 11 2021, @04:05PM (10 children)
Over the past five years there has been a concerted effort by authoritarians to remove the freedom of speech from all aspects of American life. Unfortunately, the bulk of the proponents for restricting speech seem to be twenty somethings and younger which means it will take a long time before passing. There was a poll last year that showed half the American people wanted to "rewrite" the First Amendment. This was unthinkable just twenty years ago. I am worried for our country and my children's children's freedom.
(Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Monday January 11 2021, @04:21PM (2 children)
Copyright has limited free speech for centuries. Fraud too. Roth v United States in the 50s claimed obscenity wasn't free speech. More directly in this case the supreme court has ruled (back in the 80s and 90s) that protecting children is more important than protecting free speech. Lady Chatterley's Lover banned book printing nearly 100 years ago.
It's not the last 5 years.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Oakenshield on Monday January 11 2021, @05:35PM
I would argue that up until five years ago the trend was toward more freedom of speech (and press which you were co-mingling). Yes the Supreme Court clearly blew a number of precedents when the Constitution and Federalist Papers were quite clear on the subject. (and this is why you want Supreme Court Justices who can read simple English text) We were seeing more and more freedom from censorship leaving behind the the censoring of the likes of Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Hustler Magazine, The Comstock Act and yes, Lady Chatterly. This is different. The current shift is a movement from the public. This is not directed from the government over the will of the governed. THAT is what's new.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @08:44PM
Much of which is a complete violation of the first amendment. Though, copyright is explicitly allowed by the Constitution, and fraud has elements beyond just speech.
But banning obscenity, books, and certain words over public broadcasts? Completely unconstitutional. The fact that authoritarian courts approved of these measures does not make them Constitutional; the Supreme Court also approved of Japanese internment camps, which were absolutely and obviously unconstitutional.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @08:36PM
stop sending your kids to neo-bolshevik brainwashing centers like a Goi slave.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2021, @07:25PM (5 children)
Please provide examples. Note that private citizens aren't bound by the First Amendment as the government is.
I'll wait. And I'll need to wait a long time too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2021, @08:02PM (4 children)
Fuck you. That's the bullshit excuse you assholes have been pushing since this started. When you censor from a position of power, it's still censorship and nobody mentioned the First Amendment but you, dickhead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2021, @08:29PM
Still waiting. I'm very patient, friend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2021, @10:02PM (1 child)
If you come to *my* house, I can damn well tell you what you can say and what you can't.
And if you don't comply, I can throw your ass out. That's *my* freedom of speech, bitch!
And that goes for people/organizations other than myself.
So, what you're *really* saying is that you want to restrict the free speech rights of others, just not yours.
How very authoritarian of you. Cunt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @03:44PM
What? No, that's...freedom of listening, or association, or something. *Your* freedom of speech has nothing to do with what you *listen to* other people saying.
...you really don't see the irony here, with the above?
projectiiiiing
aaaaand we're done here
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @08:31AM
Aww! Poor baby.
Are you sad because here they don't love your sparkling repartee like they do over at https://thedonald.win [thedonald.win] ?
Boo hoo!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Dale on Monday January 11 2021, @02:07PM (4 children)
This one is a bit harder for me. On one hand, what students say when not under the control of the school is none of the schools business. The school should not be punishing a student for expressing frustration for not making the team. This never should have escalated to where it has. On the other hand, there are way too many students that systematically bully others in the online space and that has a direct correlation to things that are happening on/during school. It would be nice for the school to have some means of using that information to prevent/punish on campus bullying issues. Of course, the schools combine those two concepts in the worst ways. They ignore the bullying and use the information to punish non-harmful speech.
I also don't see how we can possibly craft any sort of rules/laws to help prevent bullying (related to schooling) that doesn't infringe on first amendment speech issues. Any rule that is strong enough to be useful will absolutely be used to prevent protected speech that the school just doesn't like. Like most things, there isn't a simple answer to the issue. If there was, the solution would have been put in ages ago. Life is complex and there are a lot of gray areas where binary yes/no or good/bad rules just don't cut it.
The school needs to lose this specific case and their ability to try and do this needs to be curtailed. To do otherwise would be a miscarriage of justice for this specific student. I worry about the consequences of that decision and the impact on others that cry out for help when being harassed or bullied though and the inability of the school to assist.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday January 11 2021, @05:06PM
I agree this is tricky, and there are many places in the above philosophical discussion for this comment. This link might provide some insight into how the legal system / judges view these types of situations: https://loweringthebar.net/2020/06/the-middle-finger-and-the-law.html [loweringthebar.net]
So, if you're really up for the adventure, flip away. But it might cost you a lot, including job loss due to time spent in jail, by the time you win your Supreme Court case.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday January 11 2021, @06:35PM (2 children)
Our existing body of law allows that bullying may rise to the level of assault. That is actionable as a crime committed by the bully against the target.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday January 12 2021, @08:48PM (1 child)
before any assault has occurred, quite often damage has been done.
Someone who is afraid of going to school because of what people say to them is suffering pretty badly - and bullies are very good at not doing anything where there are witnesses, so it is often one person's word against another's..
waiting until bullying behaviour becomes actionable by the police and courts is NOT the answer.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday January 12 2021, @10:13PM
You mis-understand, making someone afraid to go to school because of threats (even if only implied) and other utterances *IS* assault in itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @08:25PM
"the school district said administrators around the nation needed a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court on their power to discipline students for what they say away from school."
or you could just not be a authoritarian piece of shit, but whatever it takes, i guess.