This is over a month old, but I couldn't find any posts on it from late June. It was an 8-1 decision and the article doesn't name the cocksucker who dissented.
If this was allowed it seems easy to create an account for the opposing team's star QB and post a bunch of racist content, likely getting him suspended. How can you prove or disprove that a social media account is even your real account?
If a student walked up to a teacher and told them to go fuck themselves they would be punished, doing so indirectly should still be punishable. A child lashing out deserves to be spanked not coddled.
Brilliant thinking, ensuring that the 'schools' controlled by radical leftists will soon be punishing students for any sort of speech that does not favor their ideology.
They already do that, or did you already forgot the numerous kids suspended over maga hats. This child ranted against a school and their team, she is entitled to neither, she can always go to a different school with the same Public funding.
No one cares about simple, actions have consequences. You are not entitled to be on a sports team or entitled to go to a school simply because it is convenient.
She was suspended from a team for throwing a public tantrum, grow the fuck up. She wasn’t kicked out of school, and no one is entitled to be on a sports team.
The state is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around.
No, the state exists exactly for one reason and it is not to “serve the people”. That’s the stupidity you socialists fall for every time.
Defending Levy's punishment, the Mahanoy Area School District said the spread of smartphones and social media, and the need for remote learning during the pandemic blurred the line between on campus and off. No matter where a student's expression originates, schools should be able to discipline students when a message is directed at the school and causes disruption, the district said.
They want to own your children and will use any excuse to do so.
The Biden administration sided with the school. The Justice Department said the Supreme Court's earlier cases on school speech dealt with the effects of a message on other students and school activities, not with the time when they were sent or where they came from.
I can easily see this interpretation being used to punish anything deemed "wrongthink" regardless of whether it even has anything to do with the school or other students.
She used a vulgar four-letter word to write, "f--- school f--- softball f--- cheer f--- everything." When the message was discovered by one of the school's cheerleading coaches, Brandi was suspended from the junior varsity team for her entire sophomore year.
Rofl, how much of a little dictator do you have to be do punish your students for venting their frustrations like this?
Imagine simping this hard, she won’t fuck you bro. If a little faggot talked shit about my sports team then you’d be damn sure they would never interact with that team again.
Imagine simping this hard, she won’t fuck you bro.
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? She's a CHILD.
You don't think it's retarded to ban a kid from something for a year because they screamed into the void on internet? You don't get many years as a kid, and they made her lose one over... over what? Fucking nothing.
'Simping', rofl. I'm old enough to be her dad you fucking weirdo.
She threw a tantrum over being on the junior varsity team. The junior varsity team decides they don’t want her. It’s that simple. You are clearly simping for her. “She’s just a kidddd!!!!!!”
And people wonder why kids are so coddled when even the “anti-sjws” want to hide them from reality.
My cousin got fined by local PD for saying that word in school, my grandmother told them to fuck off too, refused to pay it, and my cousin eventually got an arrest warrant over it. Was dismissed when the judge found out exactly why my cousin got fined in the first place.
Can you help me make the connection in my head to how this is female privilege? The best I can come up with is them using it as a shield for their awful gossipy BS, but I can't imagine them ever getting called for that at school anyway. Never heard of any such examples at least.
I know someone personally who was expelled one year for making fun of a guy on Twitter a handful of years ago. It was kinda a turd move but 13 year olds are stupid. I was a bit surprised because back in my day school was separate from outside school
Fair enough. Not sure I agree since I tend to favor reducing restrictions over more in generally all cases. Schools make it even more so. I've worked at schools and of course went to them and the administration of a school is about the most power hungry group second to politicians.
I will have to figure out how to find the Supreme Court cases, as if Thomas rejected it I'd like to read his dissent.
To me, it seems like the ruling only takes away powers from teachers/administration and has no effect on legal system. Meaning that if it had been sadistic tactics towards young boys, the law can't do anything beyond what already exists (e.g. harassment, stalking, libel) no matter how the case would have gone.
I'm all for taking powers away from school administrations. Teachers and admins are group ripe with hate, favoritism, self-importance, and a sense they have to do a fake justice to everything. If a young boy had been the victim of sadistic girls, I'd expect the school to turn it around on the boy myself. I'd prefer the law be there that the school can't do shit to any parties for outside of school things. It may not stop the boys from harassment, but it will stop the school from being a party to it, at least legally.
I read Thomas' dissent as well, it's mostly having to do with precedent. It's not a horrible argument he puts together, if you believe in the precedent that schools are the kids parents when they are there. "In loco parentis" is the term he uses.
This is over a month old, but I couldn't find any posts on it from late June. It was an 8-1 decision and the article doesn't name the cocksucker who dissented.
Edit: It was Clarence Thomas. What the fuck?
If this was allowed it seems easy to create an account for the opposing team's star QB and post a bunch of racist content, likely getting him suspended. How can you prove or disprove that a social media account is even your real account?
If a student walked up to a teacher and told them to go fuck themselves they would be punished, doing so indirectly should still be punishable. A child lashing out deserves to be spanked not coddled.
Brilliant thinking, ensuring that the 'schools' controlled by radical leftists will soon be punishing students for any sort of speech that does not favor their ideology.
They already do that, or did you already forgot the numerous kids suspended over maga hats. This child ranted against a school and their team, she is entitled to neither, she can always go to a different school with the same Public funding.
No one cares about simple, actions have consequences. You are not entitled to be on a sports team or entitled to go to a school simply because it is convenient.
She was suspended from a team for throwing a public tantrum, grow the fuck up. She wasn’t kicked out of school, and no one is entitled to be on a sports team.
No, the state exists exactly for one reason and it is not to “serve the people”. That’s the stupidity you socialists fall for every time.
Yeah... Clarence Thomas is often not as pro-free speech as we would want.
You think they should be accepting and rejecting free speech claims based on the gender of the appellant?
It would drastically reduce false rape accusations
#metoo every attractive woman you see before they #metoo you
They want to own your children and will use any excuse to do so.
I can easily see this interpretation being used to punish anything deemed "wrongthink" regardless of whether it even has anything to do with the school or other students.
Rofl, how much of a little dictator do you have to be do punish your students for venting their frustrations like this?
What a weakass faggot coach.
Imagine simping this hard, she won’t fuck you bro. If a little faggot talked shit about my sports team then you’d be damn sure they would never interact with that team again.
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? She's a CHILD.
You don't think it's retarded to ban a kid from something for a year because they screamed into the void on internet? You don't get many years as a kid, and they made her lose one over... over what? Fucking nothing.
'Simping', rofl. I'm old enough to be her dad you fucking weirdo.
She threw a tantrum over being on the junior varsity team. The junior varsity team decides they don’t want her. It’s that simple. You are clearly simping for her. “She’s just a kidddd!!!!!!” And people wonder why kids are so coddled when even the “anti-sjws” want to hide them from reality.
She said the F-word on the internets and her school think they fucking own her 24 hours a day.
Ok bootlicker.
My cousin got fined by local PD for saying that word in school, my grandmother told them to fuck off too, refused to pay it, and my cousin eventually got an arrest warrant over it. Was dismissed when the judge found out exactly why my cousin got fined in the first place.
FUCK ALL OF THESE LIMP DICK LAWYERS AND CHICKENSHIT BUREAUCRATS!
Can you help me make the connection in my head to how this is female privilege? The best I can come up with is them using it as a shield for their awful gossipy BS, but I can't imagine them ever getting called for that at school anyway. Never heard of any such examples at least.
I know someone personally who was expelled one year for making fun of a guy on Twitter a handful of years ago. It was kinda a turd move but 13 year olds are stupid. I was a bit surprised because back in my day school was separate from outside school
Good thing happen to girl
Girl privilege
Uh...no? It's harder to make a libel claim as a public figure, private persons have a much easier time suing someone for libel.
This is a more intelligent take than your earlier "plaintiff should have lost because she is female".
Fair enough. Not sure I agree since I tend to favor reducing restrictions over more in generally all cases. Schools make it even more so. I've worked at schools and of course went to them and the administration of a school is about the most power hungry group second to politicians.
I will have to figure out how to find the Supreme Court cases, as if Thomas rejected it I'd like to read his dissent.
To me, it seems like the ruling only takes away powers from teachers/administration and has no effect on legal system. Meaning that if it had been sadistic tactics towards young boys, the law can't do anything beyond what already exists (e.g. harassment, stalking, libel) no matter how the case would have gone.
I'm all for taking powers away from school administrations. Teachers and admins are group ripe with hate, favoritism, self-importance, and a sense they have to do a fake justice to everything. If a young boy had been the victim of sadistic girls, I'd expect the school to turn it around on the boy myself. I'd prefer the law be there that the school can't do shit to any parties for outside of school things. It may not stop the boys from harassment, but it will stop the school from being a party to it, at least legally.
I read Thomas' dissent as well, it's mostly having to do with precedent. It's not a horrible argument he puts together, if you believe in the precedent that schools are the kids parents when they are there. "In loco parentis" is the term he uses.