November 30, 201510 yr Was she a representative of her school/team when she tweeted? Do you mean "was she wearing her cheerleader uni" or "did she tweet during a game?" Or is that a rhetorical question?
November 30, 201510 yr Ultimately the courts are going to have to sort those questions out. They haven't so I'm asking you.
November 30, 201510 yr For those who are against it... Do you think schools should be able to have rules regarding out-of-school actions for extracurricular activities/clubs/teams? I'll assume that's a general "yes." Would any of these warrant suspension/removal from the team/club/activity? 1. Alcohol consumption at a party 2. Posting on FB that a teacher is ugly/fat/seems gay/having an affair. 3. Posting that Mexicans are stupid. 4. Posting that blacks are lazy. 5. Juan's parents are probably here illegally. Any of those warrant a punishment? 1. Yes 2-5. Nope, not IMO.
November 30, 201510 yr Author They haven't so I'm asking you. I would have to give it a lot of thought but at first blush I don't see anyway anyhow under any circumstances should a school be able to regulate anyone's private twitter account.
November 30, 201510 yr I would have to give it a lot of thought but at first blush I don't see anyway anyhow under any circumstances should a school be able to regulate anyone's private twitter account. They're not kicking them out of school and impacting their ability to get an education. They are saying "you can't represent our school" as a cheerleader. That's a big distinction to me and I would think to the courts also.
November 30, 201510 yr Author They're not kicking them out of school and impacting their ability to get an education. They are saying "you can't represent our school" as a cheerleader. That's a big distinction to me and I would think to the courts also. Anyone you cut the pie the school is handing out a punishment for protected free speech they don't agree with.
November 30, 201510 yr Anyone you cut the pie the school is handing out a punishment for protected free speech they don't agree with. Then you are saying they can bring a sign to school that says "N-word are lazy!" Protected free speech.
November 30, 201510 yr Author Then you are saying they can bring a sign to school that says "N-word are lazy!" Protected free speech. No, I am not saying that. Using a private twitter account to express yourself/your 1st Amendment Rights, is much different than physically bringing something onto the property of the school.
November 30, 201510 yr No, I am not saying that. Using a private twitter account to express yourself/your 1st Amendment Rights, is much different than physically bringing something onto the property of the school. So we agree it's not as simple as "protected free speech." Why would a school disallow the student in my example to have the sign? It's not illegal.
November 30, 201510 yr I'll muddy the water a bit. Courts in many states have already bassed so called "Tim Tebow" bills allowing homeschooled kids the right to play sports for public schools. Suppose Tebow while in highschool had tweeted something about gays being sinners, etc. Would the school then be able to kick the kid off the team. I agree with Guru, ultimately everything like this will make its way to the courts. At that point who knows what will be allowed.
November 30, 201510 yr This case does not interest me in regards to the suspension. IMO they have the right to do so. It interests me in regards to the precedent. They have set themselves up for a lot of headaches.
November 30, 201510 yr Author So we agree it's not as simple as "protected free speech." Why would a school disallow the student in my example to have the sign? It's not illegal. No, we don't agree on that either. I am sure this same girl can tweet "Fire!" "Fire!" but she better not yell it out in a crowded movie theater. Location Location Location Clyde.
November 30, 201510 yr No, we don't agree on that either. I am sure this same girl can tweet "Fire!" "Fire!" but she better not yell it out in a crowded movie theater. Location Location Location Clyde. "Fire" is not protected speech. "N-word ...." is. If it's now allowed at school then it's no longer a "protected speech" issue. Location matters which is why the "protected speech" argument fails.
November 30, 201510 yr To me it all depends on what the "private" issue may be, the school said there is another issue as well. If there isn't another issue I'm leaning on that this over steps the schools bounds. To me this is a thought, should schools be able to control thought? Am 100% pro immigration, but I don't think that what she said crosses the line. Besides the fact that she is wrong, it's just many people don't care enough to vote.
November 30, 201510 yr Author "Fire" is not protected speech. "N-word ...." is. If it's now allowed at school then it's no longer a "protected speech" issue. Location matters which is why the "protected speech" argument fails. I don't want to get too far off the reservation but we do agree location matters. Schools can dictate what is and what is not allowed on their property. Schools can not dictate the administration of private twitter accounts.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.