Free speech for kids. How far does it go.

[frigidweirdo]

US cheerleader wins free speech case against her former school

Brandi Levy was kicked off her cheerleading squad after sharing a profanity-laden social media post.

www.bbc.com

"US cheerleader wins free speech case against her former school"

Rule number one about rights is that they should come with responsibilities.
Rule number two is that kids don't always have rights, that their parents have their responsibilities and their rights.

So, 8-1, I was SHOCKED.

"The post featured a picture of her and a friend raising their middle fingers, with a profanity-laden caption voicing her displeasure at cheerleading, school, softball and "everything.""

Imagine now. Kids are literally allowed to do and say anything they like about the school, outside of school. This will make teaching kids more difficult than it already is. It's going to be another nail in the coffin of the US.

Freedom comes with responsibilities. Clearly this girl doesn't know this, nor does the Supreme Court.

Rights without responsibilities are just tipping the balance of society over into some kind of hell.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The issue I see is that no one is keeping her from speaking her mind, and nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it say that little Brandi is guaranteed a place on the cheerleading squad...

 

[progressive hunter]

US cheerleader wins free speech case against her former school

Brandi Levy was kicked off her cheerleading squad after sharing a profanity-laden social media post.

www.bbc.com

"US cheerleader wins free speech case against her former school"

Rule number one about rights is that they should come with responsibilities.
Rule number two is that kids don't always have rights, that their parents have their responsibilities and their rights.

So, 8-1, I was SHOCKED.

"The post featured a picture of her and a friend raising their middle fingers, with a profanity-laden caption voicing her displeasure at cheerleading, school, softball and "everything.""

Imagine now. Kids are literally allowed to do and say anything they like about the school, outside of school. This will make teaching kids more difficult than it already is. It's going to be another nail in the coffin of the US.

Freedom comes with responsibilities. Clearly this girl doesn't know this, nor does the Supreme Court.

Rights without responsibilities are just tipping the balance of society over into some kind of hell.

oh fuck you,,
kids have been cussing their schools and everything else since the beginning of time,,,

maybe its youre just to much of a pussy to deal with reality,,

 

[frigidweirdo]

US cheerleader wins free speech case against her former school

Brandi Levy was kicked off her cheerleading squad after sharing a profanity-laden social media post.

www.bbc.com

"US cheerleader wins free speech case against her former school"

Rule number one about rights is that they should come with responsibilities.
Rule number two is that kids don't always have rights, that their parents have their responsibilities and their rights.

So, 8-1, I was SHOCKED.

"The post featured a picture of her and a friend raising their middle fingers, with a profanity-laden caption voicing her displeasure at cheerleading, school, softball and "everything.""

Imagine now. Kids are literally allowed to do and say anything they like about the school, outside of school. This will make teaching kids more difficult than it already is. It's going to be another nail in the coffin of the US.

Freedom comes with responsibilities. Clearly this girl doesn't know this, nor does the Supreme Court.

Rights without responsibilities are just tipping the balance of society over into some kind of hell.

oh fuck you,,
kids have been cussing their schools and everything else since the beginning of time,,,

maybe its youre just to much of a pussy to deal with reality,,

We're not talking about kids cussing their schools.....

We're talking about them cussing their schools and then PUBLISHING IT.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The issue I see is that no one is keeping her from speaking her mind, and nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it say that little Brandi is guaranteed a place on the cheerleading squad...

Yes, the school has to keep the power to decide who goes on and who doesn't. And speaking your mind can get you kicked off the team.

 

[progressive hunter]

US cheerleader wins free speech case against her former school

Brandi Levy was kicked off her cheerleading squad after sharing a profanity-laden social media post.

www.bbc.com

"US cheerleader wins free speech case against her former school"

Rule number one about rights is that they should come with responsibilities.
Rule number two is that kids don't always have rights, that their parents have their responsibilities and their rights.

So, 8-1, I was SHOCKED.

"The post featured a picture of her and a friend raising their middle fingers, with a profanity-laden caption voicing her displeasure at cheerleading, school, softball and "everything.""

Imagine now. Kids are literally allowed to do and say anything they like about the school, outside of school. This will make teaching kids more difficult than it already is. It's going to be another nail in the coffin of the US.

Freedom comes with responsibilities. Clearly this girl doesn't know this, nor does the Supreme Court.

Rights without responsibilities are just tipping the balance of society over into some kind of hell.

oh fuck you,,
kids have been cussing their schools and everything else since the beginning of time,,,

maybe its youre just to much of a pussy to deal with reality,,

We're not talking about kids cussing their schools.....

We're talking about them cussing their schools and then PUBLISHING IT.

OH BOO FUCKING HOO,,,


grow a spine and quit being such a pussy,,

 

[cnm]

Free speech for kids. How far does it go.​

Umm...Congress will make no law abridging it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

US cheerleader wins free speech case against her former school

Brandi Levy was kicked off her cheerleading squad after sharing a profanity-laden social media post.

www.bbc.com

"US cheerleader wins free speech case against her former school"

Rule number one about rights is that they should come with responsibilities.
Rule number two is that kids don't always have rights, that their parents have their responsibilities and their rights.

So, 8-1, I was SHOCKED.

"The post featured a picture of her and a friend raising their middle fingers, with a profanity-laden caption voicing her displeasure at cheerleading, school, softball and "everything.""

Imagine now. Kids are literally allowed to do and say anything they like about the school, outside of school. This will make teaching kids more difficult than it already is. It's going to be another nail in the coffin of the US.

Freedom comes with responsibilities. Clearly this girl doesn't know this, nor does the Supreme Court.

Rights without responsibilities are just tipping the balance of society over into some kind of hell.

oh fuck you,,
kids have been cussing their schools and everything else since the beginning of time,,,

maybe its youre just to much of a pussy to deal with reality,,

We're not talking about kids cussing their schools.....

We're talking about them cussing their schools and then PUBLISHING IT.

OH BOO FUCKING HOO,,,


grow a spine and quit being such a pussy,,

I think this is the wrong thread for you. This thread is for people who want to discuss the issue. Not do what you're doing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Free speech for kids. How far does it go.​

Umm...Congress will make no law abridging it?

Well, that's the point isn't it? Your Constitutional right to free speech is only when the government tries to stop you saying something.

Is the school government? Maybe. However was the school stopping her saying what she wanted to say? No. But they can punish pupils for saying whatever they want to say.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

US cheerleader wins free speech case against her former school

Brandi Levy was kicked off her cheerleading squad after sharing a profanity-laden social media post.

www.bbc.com

"US cheerleader wins free speech case against her former school"

Rule number one about rights is that they should come with responsibilities.
Rule number two is that kids don't always have rights, that their parents have their responsibilities and their rights.

So, 8-1, I was SHOCKED.

"The post featured a picture of her and a friend raising their middle fingers, with a profanity-laden caption voicing her displeasure at cheerleading, school, softball and "everything.""

Imagine now. Kids are literally allowed to do and say anything they like about the school, outside of school. This will make teaching kids more difficult than it already is. It's going to be another nail in the coffin of the US.

Freedom comes with responsibilities. Clearly this girl doesn't know this, nor does the Supreme Court.

Rights without responsibilities are just tipping the balance of society over into some kind of hell.

oh fuck you,,
kids have been cussing their schools and everything else since the beginning of time,,,

maybe its youre just to much of a pussy to deal with reality,,

We're not talking about kids cussing their schools.....

We're talking about them cussing their schools and then PUBLISHING IT.

OH BOO FUCKING HOO,,,


grow a spine and quit being such a pussy,,

I think this is the wrong thread for you. This thread is for people who want to discuss the issue. Not do what you're doing.

I'm offended and don't feel safe
You've been reported
Report to the diversity and inclusion officers office



Euro centric white supremacist!
I'm offended and I don't feel safe
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
He needs to shut up .....


I can't wait till they starve useful idiots to death

 

[frigidweirdo]

US cheerleader wins free speech case against her former school

Brandi Levy was kicked off her cheerleading squad after sharing a profanity-laden social media post.

www.bbc.com

"US cheerleader wins free speech case against her former school"

Rule number one about rights is that they should come with responsibilities.
Rule number two is that kids don't always have rights, that their parents have their responsibilities and their rights.

So, 8-1, I was SHOCKED.

"The post featured a picture of her and a friend raising their middle fingers, with a profanity-laden caption voicing her displeasure at cheerleading, school, softball and "everything.""

Imagine now. Kids are literally allowed to do and say anything they like about the school, outside of school. This will make teaching kids more difficult than it already is. It's going to be another nail in the coffin of the US.

Freedom comes with responsibilities. Clearly this girl doesn't know this, nor does the Supreme Court.

Rights without responsibilities are just tipping the balance of society over into some kind of hell.

oh fuck you,,
kids have been cussing their schools and everything else since the beginning of time,,,

maybe its youre just to much of a pussy to deal with reality,,

We're not talking about kids cussing their schools.....

We're talking about them cussing their schools and then PUBLISHING IT.

OH BOO FUCKING HOO,,,


grow a spine and quit being such a pussy,,

I think this is the wrong thread for you. This thread is for people who want to discuss the issue. Not do what you're doing.

I'm offended and don't feel safe
You've been reported
Report to the diversity and inclusion officers office



Euro centric white supremacist!
I'm offended and I don't feel safe
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
He needs to shut up .....


I can't wait till they starve useful idiots to death

What?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is the school government? Maybe.

School is in fact government – there’s no ‘maybe’ about it.

‘In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded that Ms Levy's right to freedom of expression, protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, had been violated since the social media posts did not cause substantial disruption at the school.

"The vulgarity in BL's posts encompassed a message, an expression of BL's irritation with, and criticism of, the school and cheerleading communities," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion, using Ms Levy's initials.

"The school's interest in teaching good manners is not sufficient, in this case, to overcome BL's interest in free expression."

But the court added that schools still had a "significant" license to regulate student speech "in some off-campus circumstances". It said it would not categorically define which "school-related off-campus activities" this meant.’ ibid

Call it the ‘substantial disruption of schools’ test – and under this test, schools will need to demonstrate substantial disruption, where off-campus profanity via social media fails to pass the test.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Freedom comes with responsibilities. Clearly this girl doesn't know this, nor does the Supreme Court.

It’s not ‘clear’ at all – in fact, the Supreme Court is correct.

Limiting the authority of government to place restrictions on our rights and protected liberties benefits the Nation as a whole.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is the school government? Maybe.

School is in fact government – there’s no ‘maybe’ about it.

‘In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded that Ms Levy's right to freedom of expression, protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, had been violated since the social media posts did not cause substantial disruption at the school.

"The vulgarity in BL's posts encompassed a message, an expression of BL's irritation with, and criticism of, the school and cheerleading communities," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion, using Ms Levy's initials.

"The school's interest in teaching good manners is not sufficient, in this case, to overcome BL's interest in free expression."

But the court added that schools still had a "significant" license to regulate student speech "in some off-campus circumstances". It said it would not categorically define which "school-related off-campus activities" this meant.’ ibid

Call it the ‘substantial disruption of schools’ test – and under this test, schools will need to demonstrate substantial disruption, where off-campus profanity via social media fails to pass the test.

I'd say they'd cause substantial disruption for the future of education in the US.

 

[cnm]

Is the school government? Maybe. However was the school stopping her saying what she wanted to say? No. But they can punish pupils for saying whatever they want to say.

If it's not a private school I'd suggest it is 'government'. Apart from that, the USSC has determined what speech may be 'punished' and what speech is protected. It pretty much ends there.

 

[MeBelle]

Is the school government? Maybe.

School is in fact government – there’s no ‘maybe’ about it.

‘In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded that Ms Levy's right to freedom of expression, protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, had been violated since the social media posts did not cause substantial disruption at the school.

"The vulgarity in BL's posts encompassed a message, an expression of BL's irritation with, and criticism of, the school and cheerleading communities," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion, using Ms Levy's initials.

"The school's interest in teaching good manners is not sufficient, in this case, to overcome BL's interest in free expression."

But the court added that schools still had a "significant" license to regulate student speech "in some off-campus circumstances". It said it would not categorically define which "school-related off-campus activities" this meant.’ ibid

Call it the ‘substantial disruption of schools’ test – and under this test, schools will need to demonstrate substantial disruption, where off-campus profanity via social media fails to pass the test.

I'd say they'd cause substantial disruption for the future of education in the US.

serious question:

Should something that somebody said/posted 5, 10, 15 years ago be held against them?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Freedom comes with responsibilities. Clearly this girl doesn't know this, nor does the Supreme Court.

It’s not ‘clear’ at all – in fact, the Supreme Court is correct.

Limiting the authority of government to place restrictions on our rights and protected liberties benefits the Nation as a whole.

Well, I disagree.

Children have limited rights, it's a well known fact.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is the school government? Maybe. However was the school stopping her saying what she wanted to say? No. But they can punish pupils for saying whatever they want to say.

If it's not a private school I'd suggest it is 'government'. Apart from that, the USSC has determined what speech may be 'punished' and what speech is protected. It pretty much ends there.

So, if a kid's in school and says the same thing, can they be punished? Where does it end?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is the school government? Maybe.

School is in fact government – there’s no ‘maybe’ about it.

‘In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded that Ms Levy's right to freedom of expression, protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, had been violated since the social media posts did not cause substantial disruption at the school.

"The vulgarity in BL's posts encompassed a message, an expression of BL's irritation with, and criticism of, the school and cheerleading communities," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion, using Ms Levy's initials.

"The school's interest in teaching good manners is not sufficient, in this case, to overcome BL's interest in free expression."

But the court added that schools still had a "significant" license to regulate student speech "in some off-campus circumstances". It said it would not categorically define which "school-related off-campus activities" this meant.’ ibid

Call it the ‘substantial disruption of schools’ test – and under this test, schools will need to demonstrate substantial disruption, where off-campus profanity via social media fails to pass the test.

I'd say they'd cause substantial disruption for the future of education in the US.

serious question:

Should something that somebody said/posted 5, 10, 15 years ago be held against them?

This has come up in cricket related news. An England player was suspended for a post when he was 18 years old, like 9 or 10 years ago.

I'd guess it'd depend on the context.

For example if you have a white supremacist that said "all blacks should die" and then committed an offense against black people 10 years later, then yes, it should be held against them.

But there are plenty of examples where it'd be no.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is the school government? Maybe.

School is in fact government – there’s no ‘maybe’ about it.

‘In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded that Ms Levy's right to freedom of expression, protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, had been violated since the social media posts did not cause substantial disruption at the school.

"The vulgarity in BL's posts encompassed a message, an expression of BL's irritation with, and criticism of, the school and cheerleading communities," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion, using Ms Levy's initials.

"The school's interest in teaching good manners is not sufficient, in this case, to overcome BL's interest in free expression."

But the court added that schools still had a "significant" license to regulate student speech "in some off-campus circumstances". It said it would not categorically define which "school-related off-campus activities" this meant.’ ibid

Call it the ‘substantial disruption of schools’ test – and under this test, schools will need to demonstrate substantial disruption, where off-campus profanity via social media fails to pass the test.

I'd say they'd cause substantial disruption for the future of education in the US.

Not in this case.