Utopia Talk - Politics - PA 1st amendment case

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Apr 19 05:22:35 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / PA 1st amendment case

habebe
Member Wed Apr 28 22:28:05
http://www...chat/ar-BB1g9pDo?ocid=BingNews

So, this seems pretty clear cut.

A girl tried out for HS Cheerleading and didnt make it.

she later vented on Snapchat saying "Fuck cheerleading, Fuck HS " etc.

A coach seen the post and they suspended her.

She went to the school admin. they said the coach was in the right.

She sued in court and the court said, freedom of speech bitches.

They appealed, The court again went in the girls favor.

So now it goes to the SCotus.

She was still actually on cheerleading, but not where she wanted to be.So the punishment was actually to just suspend her from that.

I'm really shocked the school has continued to press the issue, seems pretty clear cut.

habebe
Member Wed Apr 28 22:30:21
But then I remember in like 10th grade I got in trouble for my abstinence poster.

"It takes a lot of screws to build a crib.

Pic of a crib

But just one to fill it"

I thought it was kind of witty, the admin. not so much.

I argued the detention and they dropped it.But still pulled it from display.

tumbleweed
the wanderer Wed Apr 28 23:01:46
how does the 1st amendment apply to one's right to be on the cheerleader squad?

(not that the school wasn't stupid about it)

Habebe
Member Thu Apr 29 00:12:07
The issue is whether or not school rules apply to her Snapchat.

If they don't , then the school can't kick her off for cause.

School rules can't be enforced over a personal Snapchat.

This case could have far reaching precedent.

Dukhat
Member Thu Apr 29 00:20:15
Fucking retarded case. Someone harmlessly letting off steam isn't worth all these resources. The people who punished her should be immediately fired for wasting everyone's time.

Wrath of Orion
Member Thu Apr 29 01:19:24
"School rules can't be enforced over a personal Snapchat."

Not really true, Retard Rod 2.0. It comes down to whether the "speech" can be shown to be a material disruption of the school's educational activities (this goes back to a Supreme Court case in the 60's, I believe).

From the little bit of information provided here I don't see how it could be considered a material disruption, though. But still, students CAN AND DO face action when it can be shown as a material disruption of the school's educational mission.

Habebe
Member Thu Apr 29 06:02:04
Pedo-woo,Your thinking of "Tinker". But, even when your nit picky, your not good at it.

This is speech that occurred OFF-campus, thus, not Disruptive to IN-school learning..

See the difference? Tinker eas about armbands in school property.No question wqs ever raised about the kids wearing armbands off school property.

And as far as I know, no precedent shows that off campus speech can be materially disruptive on campus.

Unless your just pointing out random facts.

Wrath of Orion
Member Thu Apr 29 14:03:09
I love how you completely misunderstand my post and then just go on further making yourself look like an even worse retard. Good lord, how embarrassing for you.

Lower courts have sometimes ruled that off-campus speech has constituted a potential material disruption. These are typically things like threats of violence, etc. There have definitely been some contradictory rulings (and reversals), though. Typically a relatively high bar is set for showing material disruption (or potential for material disruption) for off-campus speech.

So you're wrong again, as usual. Also notice how my original post said, "From the little bit of information provided here I don't see how it could be considered a material disruption, though."

I'm simply pointing out that you're wrong and off-campus speech is not fully protected from action by the school. That's not nitpicking you stupid fuck. It's a pretty goddamn important distinction.

habebe
Member Thu Apr 29 14:07:38
Lower courts have ruled twice now that ypur wrong in this case. But yeah, sure keep complaining how your right somehow on a nitpicky issue where ypur clearly wrong, two courts and soon the SC will rule, likely in the same manner.

yes, some court somewhere over the rainbow may have ruled that a personal Snapchat is governed by HS rules. But lower courts have ruled all sorts of dumb decisions at some point or another

Wrath of Orion
Member Thu Apr 29 14:11:09
I just a did a quick search and this article seems instructive. Notice how it points out that rulings from the lower courts have been contradictory, which is exactly why the SC needs to weigh in on it.

http://splc.org/2016/06/legal-analysis-student-speech/

That said, I'm a bit baffled why this case has made it to the SC. Unless there is more going on here, I just don't see how the listed post could be construed as disruptive to the school.

Wrath of Orion
Member Thu Apr 29 14:12:28
See my link, Retard Rod 2.0. And I love how suddenly this is now only about Snapchat for you. Nice attempt to worm your way out of your idiocy.

habebe
Member Thu Apr 29 14:20:16
"And I love how suddenly this is now only about Snapchat for you. Nice attempt to worm your way out of your idiocy."

Umm, did you read my post?

"The issue is whether or not school rules apply to her Snapchat.

If they don't , then the school can't kick her off for cause.

School rules can't be enforced over a personal Snapchat."

But yeah, sure it was never about Snapchat..... (Saracsm*)

Wrath of Orion
Member Thu Apr 29 14:21:33
Except it's not just about Snapchat, it's about any social media. Narrowing it down to Snapchat is just retarded and the SC is certainly not going to limit their response to just Snapchat. How fucking stupid can you be?

Wrath of Orion
Member Thu Apr 29 14:22:31
So let me clarify - if you actually think this is just about Snapchat then it's even worse for you, lol. So take your pick of what level of retardism you're going for here.

habebe
Member Thu Apr 29 14:32:04

Talk about worming out of idiocy.

Of course this will impact social media in general with precedent.

Never said otherwise.

Typical woo style to not read something, accuse others of being retarded and then weasel out some excuse that has little to do with the initial argument.

Wrath of Orion
Member Thu Apr 29 14:35:16
I'm not worming out of anything, Retard Rod 2.0. This has always been about social media as a whole - Snapchat is just the platform of the moment for the case. I have been clear about that from the very start. YOU are the one that keeps bringing up Snapchat and focusing on it like it means something beyond just being a stand-in for social media. Retard fail.

Now, let's also get back to your retard fail regarding how lower courts actually HAVE ruled (on occasion, which has always been my position) the off-campus speech can be punished by schools under certain circumstances. Another blinding retard fails by our king idiot on the board, Retard Rod 2.0.

Congrats!

Wrath of Orion
Member Thu Apr 29 14:38:14
Btw, those "certain circumstances" go back to the 60's case and must rise to meet the bar of potential material disruption to the school's educational process. So once again, my bringing up on the 60's case was entirely on point. Retard Rod 2.0 fails again.

habebe
Member Thu Apr 29 14:52:21
Whatever makes you feel better.

kargen
Member Thu Apr 29 15:11:49
Some people were claiming the post and her attitude was affecting morale of the cheer squad. That seems to be a stretch.

My opinion is it really doesn't matter where she was when she posted it. If she didn't post on an official school site then the school should just fuck off.

Habebe
Member Thu Apr 29 16:56:05
kargen, Yup. Plus like someone said earlier its a teen girl venting after not making the squad or whatever its called.

Im glad to as WOO said, get some SC clarification on the issue. But it seems pretty cut and dry.

I mean even if hypothetically they are arguing she was on school Wi-Fi ( which AFAIK is NOT the case) that would open up such a can of worms.

If I were to venture a guess this is a case of a Karen's run school gone wild.

show deleted posts

habebe Member	Wed Apr 28 22:28:05 http://www...chat/ar-BB1g9pDo?ocid=BingNews So, this seems pretty clear cut. A girl tried out for HS Cheerleading and didnt make it. she later vented on Snapchat saying "Fuck cheerleading, Fuck HS " etc. A coach seen the post and they suspended her. She went to the school admin. they said the coach was in the right. She sued in court and the court said, freedom of speech bitches. They appealed, The court again went in the girls favor. So now it goes to the SCotus. She was still actually on cheerleading, but not where she wanted to be.So the punishment was actually to just suspend her from that. I'm really shocked the school has continued to press the issue, seems pretty clear cut.
habebe Member	Wed Apr 28 22:30:21 But then I remember in like 10th grade I got in trouble for my abstinence poster. "It takes a lot of screws to build a crib. Pic of a crib But just one to fill it" I thought it was kind of witty, the admin. not so much. I argued the detention and they dropped it.But still pulled it from display.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Apr 28 23:01:46 how does the 1st amendment apply to one's right to be on the cheerleader squad? (not that the school wasn't stupid about it)
Habebe Member	Thu Apr 29 00:12:07 The issue is whether or not school rules apply to her Snapchat. If they don't , then the school can't kick her off for cause. School rules can't be enforced over a personal Snapchat. This case could have far reaching precedent.
Dukhat Member	Thu Apr 29 00:20:15 Fucking retarded case. Someone harmlessly letting off steam isn't worth all these resources. The people who punished her should be immediately fired for wasting everyone's time.
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Apr 29 01:19:24 "School rules can't be enforced over a personal Snapchat." Not really true, Retard Rod 2.0. It comes down to whether the "speech" can be shown to be a material disruption of the school's educational activities (this goes back to a Supreme Court case in the 60's, I believe). From the little bit of information provided here I don't see how it could be considered a material disruption, though. But still, students CAN AND DO face action when it can be shown as a material disruption of the school's educational mission.
Habebe Member	Thu Apr 29 06:02:04 Pedo-woo,Your thinking of "Tinker". But, even when your nit picky, your not good at it. This is speech that occurred OFF-campus, thus, not Disruptive to IN-school learning.. See the difference? Tinker eas about armbands in school property.No question wqs ever raised about the kids wearing armbands off school property. And as far as I know, no precedent shows that off campus speech can be materially disruptive on campus. Unless your just pointing out random facts.
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Apr 29 14:03:09 I love how you completely misunderstand my post and then just go on further making yourself look like an even worse retard. Good lord, how embarrassing for you. Lower courts have sometimes ruled that off-campus speech has constituted a potential material disruption. These are typically things like threats of violence, etc. There have definitely been some contradictory rulings (and reversals), though. Typically a relatively high bar is set for showing material disruption (or potential for material disruption) for off-campus speech. So you're wrong again, as usual. Also notice how my original post said, "From the little bit of information provided here I don't see how it could be considered a material disruption, though." I'm simply pointing out that you're wrong and off-campus speech is not fully protected from action by the school. That's not nitpicking you stupid fuck. It's a pretty goddamn important distinction.
habebe Member	Thu Apr 29 14:07:38 Lower courts have ruled twice now that ypur wrong in this case. But yeah, sure keep complaining how your right somehow on a nitpicky issue where ypur clearly wrong, two courts and soon the SC will rule, likely in the same manner. yes, some court somewhere over the rainbow may have ruled that a personal Snapchat is governed by HS rules. But lower courts have ruled all sorts of dumb decisions at some point or another
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Apr 29 14:11:09 I just a did a quick search and this article seems instructive. Notice how it points out that rulings from the lower courts have been contradictory, which is exactly why the SC needs to weigh in on it. http://splc.org/2016/06/legal-analysis-student-speech/ That said, I'm a bit baffled why this case has made it to the SC. Unless there is more going on here, I just don't see how the listed post could be construed as disruptive to the school.
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Apr 29 14:12:28 See my link, Retard Rod 2.0. And I love how suddenly this is now only about Snapchat for you. Nice attempt to worm your way out of your idiocy.
habebe Member	Thu Apr 29 14:20:16 "And I love how suddenly this is now only about Snapchat for you. Nice attempt to worm your way out of your idiocy." Umm, did you read my post? "The issue is whether or not school rules apply to her Snapchat. If they don't , then the school can't kick her off for cause. School rules can't be enforced over a personal Snapchat." But yeah, sure it was never about Snapchat..... (Saracsm*)
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Apr 29 14:21:33 Except it's not just about Snapchat, it's about any social media. Narrowing it down to Snapchat is just retarded and the SC is certainly not going to limit their response to just Snapchat. How fucking stupid can you be?
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Apr 29 14:22:31 So let me clarify - if you actually think this is just about Snapchat then it's even worse for you, lol. So take your pick of what level of retardism you're going for here.
habebe Member	Thu Apr 29 14:32:04 Talk about worming out of idiocy. Of course this will impact social media in general with precedent. Never said otherwise. Typical woo style to not read something, accuse others of being retarded and then weasel out some excuse that has little to do with the initial argument.
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Apr 29 14:35:16 I'm not worming out of anything, Retard Rod 2.0. This has always been about social media as a whole - Snapchat is just the platform of the moment for the case. I have been clear about that from the very start. YOU are the one that keeps bringing up Snapchat and focusing on it like it means something beyond just being a stand-in for social media. Retard fail. Now, let's also get back to your retard fail regarding how lower courts actually HAVE ruled (on occasion, which has always been my position) the off-campus speech can be punished by schools under certain circumstances. Another blinding retard fails by our king idiot on the board, Retard Rod 2.0. Congrats!
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Apr 29 14:38:14 Btw, those "certain circumstances" go back to the 60's case and must rise to meet the bar of potential material disruption to the school's educational process. So once again, my bringing up on the 60's case was entirely on point. Retard Rod 2.0 fails again.
habebe Member	Thu Apr 29 14:52:21 Whatever makes you feel better.
kargen Member	Thu Apr 29 15:11:49 Some people were claiming the post and her attitude was affecting morale of the cheer squad. That seems to be a stretch. My opinion is it really doesn't matter where she was when she posted it. If she didn't post on an official school site then the school should just fuck off.
Habebe Member	Thu Apr 29 16:56:05 kargen, Yup. Plus like someone said earlier its a teen girl venting after not making the squad or whatever its called. Im glad to as WOO said, get some SC clarification on the issue. But it seems pretty cut and dry. I mean even if hypothetically they are arguing she was on school Wi-Fi ( which AFAIK is NOT the case) that would open up such a can of worms. If I were to venture a guess this is a case of a Karen's run school gone wild.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: