Poll of the Day > School who sus'd a student for swearing in privacy of home loses supreme court

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/supreme-court-first-amendment-cheerleader/index.html

Now, here's the real question...

Was the school a low IQ individual?

---

Of course Thomas would be the only dissenter. Is is very open and vocal about his dislike of freedom of speech.

Lokarin posted...

a student for swearing in privacy of home

To be fair, when you're putting things online, it's not really "the privacy of your own home" any more. At that point it's not really all that different from doing it in public.

That being said, I'm not really on the school's side here - a public school shouldn't really have the authority to suspend anyone for things they say or do off school grounds.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

To be fair, when you're putting things online, it's not really "the privacy of your own home" any more. At that point it's not really all that different from doing it in public.

That being said, I'm not really on the school's side here - a public school shouldn't really have the authority to suspend anyone for things they say or do off school grounds.

I support the right to swear directly at a teacher without penalty

---

Lokarin posted...

I support the right to swear directly at a teacher without penalty

It should only be acceptable if the teacher has tenure.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

That being said, I'm not really on the school's side here - a public school shouldn't really have the authority to suspend anyone for things they say or do off school grounds.

Important distinction: She wasn't suspended from school, she was suspended from the team she was verbally abusing. The fact that it was an optional extracurricular activity and not a service the school was required to give her makes me lean more in the school's favour. The coach shouldn't have to coach a student that's openly hostile toward them, after all. There's no obligation there to put up with that kind of behaviour.

---

adjl posted...

Important distinction: She wasn't suspended from school, she was suspended from the team she was verbally abusing. The fact that it was an optional extracurricular activity and not a service the school was required to give her makes me lean more in the school's favour. The coach shouldn't have to coach a student that's openly hostile toward them, after all. There's no obligation there to put up with that kind of behaviour.

That was not immediately clear to me.

BlackScythe0 posted...

That was not immediately clear to me.

wasn't immediately clear to me either and I read the thing like 3 times.

Still, if the extracurricular is a school official then it's still part of the school and thusly part of the government

---

Lokarin posted...

I support the right to swear directly at a teacher without penalty

I can't honestly think of one example where this would be ok.

11110111011 posted...

I can't honestly think of one example where this would be ok.

probably cuz you don't know the freedom... free yourself from your oppressive lingual shackles bitches

---

What does sus mean? I thought it meant suspect or something

i know its from among us

---

Mead posted...

What does sus mean? I thought it meant suspect or something

i know its from among us

suspended in this case, there's not a lot of room in titles

---

Good. This was a pretty open & shut case. Hopefully they fire the administrators involved.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Of course Thomas would be the only dissenter. Is is very open and vocal about his dislike of freedom of speech.

Sometimes he's for it, sometimes he's against it, just like the other justices.

adjl posted...

Important distinction: She wasn't suspended from school, she was suspended from the team she was verbally abusing. The fact that it was an optional extracurricular activity and not a service the school was required to give her makes me lean more in the school's favour. The coach shouldn't have to coach a student that's openly hostile toward them, after all. There's no obligation there to put up with that kind of behaviour.

He's a school employee. The fact that it's an option activity doesn't mean shit because he's acting as a government employee. If he was an unpaid volunteer, then *maybe* he'd have recourse, although even then he's acting on behalf of the government.

More importantly, she already didn't have a spot on the varsity team, which is what she was complaining about. And the complaint against her was complete bullshit, considering nothing she did was particularly excessive.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

That was not immediately clear to me.

It's something that's been left out of a lot of the discourse around this. People see "suspended" and immediately jump to being angry about it. Had it been a suspension from school, I'd be absolutely against the decision, since that's infringing on her right to an education (honestly, suspension in general is kind of questionable, whatever the reason, but that's another discussion), but the fact that it was an extracurricular privilege makes it a lot less clear-cut.

Zeus posted...

Hopefully they fire the administrators involved.

If it took the Supreme Court to arrive at an actual decision on the matter, it would be extremely unreasonable to fire administrators that made their decision without that SC decision to guide them. You can't retroactively punish people for breaking rules you made up after the fact. Moving forward, the precedent has been set such that they shouldn't do it again, and any appropriate damages can be claimed, but firing them over it would be an easy wrongful dismissal suit.

Zeus posted...

He's a school employee. The fact that it's an option activity doesn't mean s*** because he's acting as a government employee. If he was an unpaid volunteer, then *maybe* he'd have recourse, although even then he's acting on behalf of the government.

And? Doesn't mean he can't make his own decisions about the people he wants to work with. She has a right to education. She doesn't have a right to be a cheerleader. He can infringe that privilege all he wants, because it's just a privilege.

Zeus posted...

And the complaint against her was complete bulls***, considering nothing she did was particularly excessive.

I'm inclined to agree with that. I can understand why it might have made the coach not want to deal with her anymore, especially if she had a history of attitude problems and that was the last straw (which is purely speculation, I recognize), but booting her off the team for it does seem like a disproportionate response. I just think that's a matter of a coach being unreasonable, though, not one of constitutional rights being violated.

---

adjl posted...

It's something that's been left out of a lot of the discourse around this. People see "suspended" and immediately jump to being angry about it. Had it been a suspension from school, I'd be absolutely against the decision, since that's infringing on her right to an education (honestly, suspension in general is kind of questionable, whatever the reason, but that's another discussion), but the fact that it was an extracurricular privilege makes it a lot less clear-cut.

Well the story sounds totally egregious when it sounds like she was suspended from school over this, knowing that bit I still think she shouldn't have been suspended. It is public school and an official extracurricular, if that little post is all she did do deal with the disappointment of her rejection thats fine.

I agree w/ the SC's decision.

That being said...

Levy lauded the justices' decision on Wednesday, saying in a statement: "The school went too far, and I'm glad that the Supreme Court agrees."
"Young people need to have the ability to express themselves without worrying about being punished when they get to school," she said. "I never could have imagined that one simple snap would turn into a Supreme Court case, but I'm proud that my family and I advocated for the rights of millions of public school students."

I really hope that she, and other young people like her supporting the ruling in this case, don't turn around next week and join the mob brigade on the latest cancel culture push over something somebody said online a decade ago that some cretin w/ nothing better to do dug up.
Way too many fucking hypocrites that only care when the sword of Damocles is over their own necks and not any other time, before or after.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Well the story sounds totally egregious when it sounds like she was suspended from school over this, knowing that bit I still think she shouldn't have been suspended. It is public school and an official extracurricular, if that little post is all she did do deal with the disappointment of her rejection thats fine.

That's fair. I also think it was unreasonable, just not that it was an indefensible infringement of her constitutional rights, which is what an 8-1 SC judgement would suggest.

---