Off Campus Free Speech

[JerryBaumchen 1,436]

Hi folks,

This one should set some standards:  The American Civil Liberties Union took her case to court, claiming that her free speech rights had been violated. 

'Frightened To Death': Cheerleader Speech Case Gives Supreme Court Pause : NPR

My position is that once you step off of the campus, they have no right to control you.

Thoughts???????

Jerry Baumchen

[wmw999 2,534]

Unless there’s a “don’t reflect poorly” rule (which also forbids verifiable verbal stuff like that, or offensive Tshirts or whatever), then I would agree. And there probably isn’t such a rule, and if there is, it might still not be enforceable. It’s up to whether cheerleading is considered a private club or a public school utility. 
Wendy P. 

[NewGuy2005 53]

Here's an imagination exercise: 

A young Donald Trump is a member of his college cheerleading team.  In all of his off campus social media posts and face to face interactions he foments dissent within the team by lying, pitting people against each other, and in general acting in a very insubordinate manner.  All of this is done very publicly. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how destructive Trump's behavior could be to the effectiveness of his cheerleading team.  Should he be suspended from the team for the rest of the semester?

This young woman said something to the effect of "Fuck cheer. Fuck this school, Fuck this, Fuck that, etc, etc."  Make no mistake about it, this young amateur did not accomplish the sort of disruption that we imagine in the above scenario, but she did openly try to foment dissent or at least try to do some sort of harm to the team.

There is the issue of scale, but both actors are trying to harm the school.  It's not the same as her speaking out in support of an unpopular cause such as protesting a war.

[JerryBaumchen 1,436]

2 minutes ago, NewGuy2005 said:

Here's an imagination exercise: 

A young Donald Trump is a member of his college cheerleading team.  In all of his off campus social media posts and face to face interactions he foments dissent within the team by lying, pitting people against each other, and in general acting in a very insubordinate manner.  All of this is done very publicly. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how destructive Trump's behavior could be to the effectiveness of his cheerleading team.  Should he be suspended from the team for the rest of the semester?

This young woman said something to the effect of "Fuck cheer. Fuck this school, Fuck this, Fuck that, etc, etc."  Make no mistake about it, this young amateur did not accomplish the sort of disruption that we imagine in the above scenario, but she did openly try to foment dissent or at least try to do some sort of harm to the team.

There is the issue of scale, but both actors are trying to harm the school.  It's not the same as her speaking out in support of an unpopular cause such as protesting a war.

Hi 2005,

Re:  There is the issue of scale

And that is why I began my post with:  This one should set some standards

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  If it were Donald Trump, I doubt that anyone would pay any attention.

 

[gowlerk 2,249]

11 minutes ago, NewGuy2005 said:

There is the issue of scale, but both actors are trying to harm the school.  It's not the same as her speaking out in support of an unpopular cause such as protesting a war.

But it is a test of the constitution, the right to speak freely. How popular or unpopular the cause is not relevant. Does she or does she not have the right to say unpleasant things that may cause dissention or other unpleasantness? Does the right to free speech include the right to say things about the school, which is a public school and is mandated to provide her with an education? Clearly she could be expelled from a private school. But in this case it is an agent of the state. 

[NewGuy2005 53]

14 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi 2005,

...PS)  If it were Donald Trump, I doubt that anyone would pay any attention.

 

I hadn't thought of that.  Very true, and she does have the Trump audacity factor going for her.

 

[NewGuy2005 53]

2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

But it is a test of the constitution, the right to speak freely. How popular or unpopular the cause is not relevant. Does she or does she not have the right to say unpleasant things that may cause dissention or other unpleasantness? Does the right to free speech include the right to say things about the school, which is a public school and is mandated to provide her with an education? Clearly she could be expelled from a private school. But in this case it is an agent of the state. 

Right, but she's not promoting a cause, popular or unpopular.  She's just expressing her anger in a way that causes harm to the cheerleading team.

Does the school being an agent of the state enter into it?  I have no idea if it does or not.  

[gowlerk 2,249]

40 minutes ago, NewGuy2005 said:

Does the school being an agent of the state enter into it?  I have no idea if it does or not.  

The first forbids the government regulating speech. So yes, it is the heart of the matter.

[JerryBaumchen 1,436]

58 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

But it is a test of the constitution, the right to speak freely. How popular or unpopular the cause is not relevant. Does she or does she not have the right to say unpleasant things that may cause dissention or other unpleasantness? Does the right to free speech include the right to say things about the school, which is a public school and is mandated to provide her with an education? Clearly she could be expelled from a private school. But in this case it is an agent of the state. 

Hi Ken,

I agree.  Just another attempt to sidetrack the issue.

Jerry Baumchen

[BIGUN 1,406]

3 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Thoughts???????

Evening, Jerry. 

" . . . students can’t “materially disrupt” the functioning of their school, though what’s considered disruptive can depend on the situation."

https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression

And, that's why we have a SCOTUS and I will be watching this (mostly, cause I find BoR cases interesting).  

[JoeWeber 2,823]

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi 2005,

Re:  There is the issue of scale

And that is why I began my post with:  This one should set some standards

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  If it were Donald Trump, I doubt that anyone would pay any attention.

 

And who better to set those standards than 6 tight assed conservative Catholics? You're in Good Hands with No State.

[sfzombie13 324]

10 hours ago, gowlerk said:

The first forbids the government regulating speech. So yes, it is the heart of the matter.

i don't think the school is considered an agent of the state in this case.  there goes my day now. 

[NewGuy2005 53]

So everyone agrees that young Donald Trump would have been free to do what he does best and still not be suspended from his cheerleading squad?

Edited April 30, 2021 by NewGuy2005

[brenthutch 444]

10 hours ago, gowlerk said:

The first forbids the government regulating speech. So yes, it is the heart of the matter.

Agreed.  

[Phil1111 1,149]

9 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

And who better to set those standards than 6 tight assed conservative Catholics? You're in Good Hands with No State.

Is it no-duty Caribbean rum that initiates such gems?

[BIGUN 1,406]

11 hours ago, gowlerk said:

The first forbids the government regulating speech. So yes, it is the heart of the matter.

Not true. 

Slander. Libel, Obscenities, Fighting words, Blackmail, Graffiti, Certain forms of speech that elicit expressive conduct (as in this case) etc., etc. 

[kallend 2,106]

41 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Not true. 

Slander. Libel, Obscenities, Fighting words, Blackmail, Graffiti, Certain forms of speech that elicit expressive conduct (as in this case) etc., etc. 

Another "right" that is not absolute.  Like the 2nd.

[BIGUN 1,406]

4 minutes ago, kallend said:

Another "right" that is not absolute.  Like the 2nd.

Absolutely. Other than they have to exist - Otherwise, you wind up with a "China or Russia" type BoR 

[gowlerk 2,249]

11 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Absolutely. Other than they have to exist - Otherwise, you wind up with a "China or Russia" type BoR 

Somehow Canada manages to have both responsible gun ownership, and free speech with fair elections all without a constitutional item about the right to bear arms. Your belief in the necessity of the 2nd amendment is patently and demonstrably unsupportable by the facts. Only in the emotional part of your brain is that true.

[BIGUN 1,406]

5 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Somehow Canada manages to have both responsible gun ownership, and free speech with fair elections all without a constitutional item about the right to bear arms

Canada has, "No Right to Bear Arms." We do. You have a privilege - which can be taken away. We've had this discussion and you keep arguing with me about something I've already addressed. I don't think you're ever going to be happy until you think you can get me to say - "Alright, let's abolish the 2nd Amendment," which is never going to happen.

[Phil1111 1,149]

6 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Canada has, "No Right to Bear Arms." We do. You have a privilege - which can be taken away. We've had this discussion and you keep arguing with me about something I've already addressed. I don't think you're ever going to be happy until you think you can get me to say - "Alright, let's abolish the 2nd Amendment," which is never going to happen.

Agree

[gowlerk 2,249]

8 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Canada has, "No Right to Bear Arms." We do. You have a privilege - which can be taken away. We've had this discussion and you keep arguing with me about something I've already addressed. I don't think you're ever going to be happy until you think you can get me to say - "Alright, let's abolish the 2nd Amendment," which is never going to happen.

Like many Americans you have an emotional attachment to the 2nd. And you won't give it up, I do accept that. But you keep saying that your nation would be lessened and that somehow America would no longer be America without the 2nd. You keep saying you would like to see regulations on firearms that are impossible to imagine under the 2nd. What I am saying is that America would be better, not worse without the pervasive gun culture that the 2nd has produced. 

Eventually there is going to be a backlash against what the gun culture has done to America. Because too many people have taken what was a good idea 240 years ago and turned it into a farce.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Canada has, "No Right to Bear Arms." We do. You have a privilege - which can be taken away. We've had this discussion and you keep arguing with me about something I've already addressed. I don't think you're ever going to be happy until you think you can get me to say - "Alright, let's abolish the 2nd Amendment," which is never going to happen.

Because that doesn't address the argument you were making before, which was that without the 2nd Amendment America would devolve into China or Russia. Fully agree with what you are posting above, but that also shows your previous argument to be false.

[BIGUN 1,406]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

But you keep saying that your nation would be lessened and that somehow America would no longer be America without the 2nd.

True. And, we can disagree. But, if you keep making me address the same thing, I'll buy your beer as promised, but you're on thin ice with my world-renowned fajitas. 

[BIGUN 1,406]

3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Because that doesn't address the argument you were making before, which was that without the 2nd Amendment America would devolve into China or Russia. Fully agree with what you are posting above, but that also shows your previous argument to be false.

OK. I'm a little lost. Sometimes I think I'm being concise, but do miss the mark on occasion. Help me understand which part or why you think I'm contradicting myself.