Usually cheer teams have some type of contract that addresses appropriate behavior. Ours includes social media. Ours includes some kind of language that indicates that the members are always representing their team/school.

 

On another note, I got suspended from BGP for a dumb statement like this girl made. It was a long time ago, but I had to write a big apology letter and promise never to do it again. And I haven't.

 

It would be interesting to know the rest of the story but if the principal is willing to say that what we are hearing isn't the full story, I'd guess this girl is a pill.

Did the teacher not say the only reason the mayor won was because of low voter turnout or did I read that wrong.

 

Was the girl wrong , yes. I just don't see how statement should cost her after school activity. It would a much better spot for the school to have a teaching moment rather than what seems to be punishment to silence dissenting viewpoints.

 

Would the school suspend someone for burning a US flag and posting the video online ? I doubt it and they shouldn't.

 

Where you and I are diverging on this is your view that it was because of "dissenting viewpoints." Do you think she would have been suspended had she said "I can't believe Candidate X won! I wanted Candidate Y?"

Another thing is they wouldn't suspend any regular student but if you play sports or etc you get suspended. Why, because your suspense to be a role model or something. Why is she held to any higher standard than anyone else. In this day and time kids at a school don't look up to these cheerleaders or athletes, they are stereotyped as snobs, dumb jocks, or preppy snobs.

 

I hate that someone who actually works after school for the school is punished.

 

I ain't afraid to say that in the summer when at Wal Mart that most Mexicans I see I bet are illegal or on a work visa.

Where you and I are diverging on this is your view that it was because of "dissenting viewpoints." Do you think she would have been suspended had she said "I can't believe Candidate X won! I wanted Candidate Y?"

 

I think the better analogy would be would she be suspended for blaming the PP shooting on the pro life movement and I don't think she would of been.

I think the better analogy would be would she be suspended for blaming the PP shooting on the pro life movement and I don't think she would of been.

 

I wanted to ferret out that it wasn't just a dissenting viewpoint. It was the words being used.

 

I agree with your contention but I do not think that is the same as what she said as far as "degree."

A private twitter account is protected free speech. Just because the school is punishing the girl doesn't mean the school has the legal right to punish the girl. For the girl and her family they are better off moving somewhere else vs. taking the school on in court and I am sure that is what the school is counting on. Schools always do count on bullying being a successful control strategy until you hire a competent lawyer and tell them in no uncertain terms you are going to sue their you know what off. Then it gets real.

 

The above in bold is what I have been saying on a number of issues.

She wasn't commenting on the mayor. She labeled an entire group as being illegal.

 

Were they?

Crimes and laws are at the heart of any free speech debate ("Congress shall make no law..."). If this state passed a law that said students can't post racially insensitive stuff on social media would her punishment no longer be a free speech debate?

 

If Congress shall make no law then school systems shall make no rule.

 

Public schools are an extension of the government, so schools makings rules has the same net result as Congress making laws, you can't say it...

 

This issue needs Supreme Court attention like gay marriage got, there is no sense wasting millions, if not billions, of dollars on multiple low level court decisions.

If Congress shall make no law then school systems shall make no rule.

 

Public schools are an extension of the government, so schools makings rules has the same net result as Congress making laws, you can't say it...

 

This issue needs Supreme Court attention like gay marriage got, there is no sense wasting millions, if not billions, of dollars on multiple low level court decisions.

 

I agree, but just pointing out there's a lot of gray area. Lumping actions into either "crimes" or "free speech" isn't easy.

 

There was a similar case that made it to the SCOTUS few years ago now known as "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." There were a few similarities to this case in that a student was punished for speech outside of the school, but there were also a lot of differences - the student was at least associated with a school function when told to put his sign down and his sign was construed to directly violate school policy on promoting drug use. At any rate, I don't see why a case like this one couldn't work its way up the ladder (assuming there isn't more the story, which it seems there is).

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.

 

Because it would violate school rules on school property. Pretty easy to understand why it's clearly different than posting something on twitter.

Because it would violate school rules on school property. Pretty easy to understand why it's clearly different than posting something on twitter.

 

 

I was pointing out the fallacy that all speech is protected. I get why it's not allowed at school.

Free speech and public schools

 

Thought this might clear some confusion up

 

"Web-savvy

 

Students generally have broad freedom under the First Amendment to express themselves on the Internet on their own time, using off-campus computers. The results of that freedom include Out-of-Bounds web sites or blogs (both containing personal diaries or posted conversations) that can be course and offensive at best and harbor threats to people and property at worst.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has said the Internet is a protected free speech zone, calling it “the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed.” But there is a wide berth between speech that is offensive, obnoxious, and insulting—all of which is protected—and speech that places the safety of others in jeopardy.

 

One Pennsylvania student’s web site requested $20 for a hit man. The reaction of that state’s Supreme Court was this: “We believe that the web site, taken as a whole, was a sophomoric, crude, highly offensive, and perhaps misguided attempt to humor or parody. However, it did not reflect a serious expression of intent to inflict harm.”

 

Another case arose when a Missouri student was suspended for 10 days for a home-based web site that used vulgar language to criticize the principal, teachers, and other things about school. A federal district court in that state ruled that “the public interest is not only served by allowing [the student’s] message to be free from censure, but also by giving the students at [the high school] this opportunity to see the protections of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights at work.”

 

- See more at: http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Public-education/The-law-and-its-influence-on-public-school-districts-An-overview/Free-speech-and-public-schools.html#sthash.fkS8dOD1.dpuf"

I'm certain we are dealing in hypotheticals because I would bet this young lady is guilty of more than just an insensitive tweet that named no one.

 

Was she just punished by the cheer team and not the school? Like it or not teams often have strict rules about the players online presence. I support that.

 

Schools are forced to engage in these stupid posts, tweets, etc way too often in order to curb bullying. It's too bad admins and educators can't just focus on what is happening on their grounds

PC is going to be the downfall of free speech. IMO, it is overreach for the school to try to regulate a student's speech off of school grounds. It is not their business, it is the parents' business.

PC is going to be the downfall of free speech. IMO, it is overreach for the school to try to regulate a student's speech off of school grounds. It is not their business, it is the parents' business.

 

^^^THIS !!!!^^^