|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 8, 2024 20:02:08 GMT -5
AND at-will employees still can't be fired by the state for protected speech. Explain to me what was protected about this speech, and how this wasn't a case of at-will employment.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 8, 2024 20:03:54 GMT -5
"We do not now set forth a broad, highly general First Amendment rule stating just what counts as 'off campus' speech and whether or how ordinary First Amendment standards must give way off campus to a school’s special need to prevent… substantial disruption of learning-related activities or the protection of those who make up a school community." Clarence Thomas, in the minority dissent, wrote that the school should have been able to restrict Levy's speech as students "who are active in extracurricular programs have a greater potential, by virtue of their participation, to harm those programs."
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 8, 2024 20:04:23 GMT -5
AND at-will employees still can't be fired by the state for protected speech. Explain to me what was protected about this speech, and how this wasn't a case of at-will employment. Her tweet of a clown face in response to Texas considering replacing The Eyes of Texas. And she wasn't an employee and was offered to keep her scholarship as long as she stayed away from the team.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 8, 2024 20:05:17 GMT -5
"We do not now set forth a broad, highly general First Amendment rule stating just what counts as 'off campus' speech and whether or how ordinary First Amendment standards must give way off campus to a school’s special need to prevent… substantial disruption of learning-related activities or the protection of those who make up a school community." Ok, do you have a closer precedent that went the other way?
|
|
|
Post by longboards on Apr 8, 2024 20:09:19 GMT -5
So a player could say "coach, you're a f#cking idiot". And that coach couldn't suspend them? ... Or is this about speech outside of a team setting?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 8, 2024 20:09:38 GMT -5
I already explained that I'm not a fan of unlimited at-will employment, although it does seem to be the law of the land in Oklahoma. I'm asking you to justify holding the belief that firing McLaughlin would have been wrong while also supporting at-will employment laws. Those seem to be contradictory beliefs to me.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 8, 2024 20:12:54 GMT -5
I already explained that I'm not a fan of unlimited at-will employment, although it does seem to be the law of the land in Oklahoma. I'm asking you to justify holding the belief that firing McLaughlin would have been wrong while also supporting at-will employment laws. Those seem to be contradictory beliefs to me. Because punishment by the state for protected speech (The Constitution) supersedes any employment law or lack-thereof.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 8, 2024 20:15:48 GMT -5
I already explained that I'm not a fan of unlimited at-will employment, although it does seem to be the law of the land in Oklahoma. I'm asking you to justify holding the belief that firing McLaughlin would have been wrong while also supporting at-will employment laws. Those seem to be contradictory beliefs to me. Because punishment by the state for protected speech (The Constitution) supersedes any employment law or lack-thereof. So if it had been a private school, you would have been fine with yanking her scholarship? You are relying 100% on the public school issue?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 8, 2024 20:16:24 GMT -5
So a player could say "coach, you're a f#cking idiot". And that coach couldn't suspend them? ... Or is this about speech outside of a team setting? Correct, outside of the team setting. McLaughlin's case did have a little bit of both. A tweet of hers was cited, but there was also discussion that did happen in a team meeting. By her account, she didn't want to bring up her opinion on things like BLM in the team setting but it was required by the coaches.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 8, 2024 20:19:34 GMT -5
Because punishment by the state for protected speech (The Constitution) supersedes any employment law or lack-thereof. So if it had been a private school, you would have been fine with yanking her scholarship? You are relying 100% on the public school issue? Legally, I think they'd be allowed to pull a scholarship. Liberty and BYU can probably cancel scholarships for a wide variety of reasons that we would think are bonkers. Philosophically, no I wouldn't be "fine" with it. (this is true for both the McLaughlin situation and a theoretical anthem kneeler)
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 8, 2024 20:25:21 GMT -5
So if it had been a private school, you would have been fine with yanking her scholarship? You are relying 100% on the public school issue? Legally, I think they'd be allowed to pull a scholarship. Liberty and BYU can probably cancel scholarships for a wide variety of reasons that we would think are bonkers. Philosophically, no I wouldn't be "fine" with it. (this is true for both the McLaughlin situation and a theoretical anthem kneeler) So, when Harvard was accused by the GOP members of Congress of suppressing the free speech of their students, you supported Harvard? Because they are a private school. If I check the threads on that here on Volleytalk, what will I find? I already know that if I check the threads here on Volleytalk about whether Twitter, as a private company, has a right to not publish speech they disagree with, your opinion was that they are too big and important to be allowed to have the same freedom that you are currently saying private schools should have the right to have.
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Apr 9, 2024 0:59:46 GMT -5
BTW, I pretty much never would stand for the National Anthem before sporting events, because I have found playing the anthem before sporting events to be a very stupid tradition. The pressure of sitting post 9/11 was too great for me to do this - although even post 9/11 - this is among the more stupid traditions in sports. It is long past time - they need to stop this tradition before every sporting event. These kinds of litmus tests for one's patriotism needs to stop. This is enormously disappointing. This is a simple basic way to honor the people who have died at an early age so we didn’t end up being Nazis. It’s to honor them in a simple way that lasts a mere few minutes. How pompous and sanctimonious of you to act like it means nothing to other people. It should. Maybe you should take some time and walk some cemeteries so you truly understand the sacrifice that took place so YOU could have a life you do now. How incredibly selfish. When was the USA at risk of being Nazis? “Nazi” must be your favorite word, although you clearly don’t what it means. Nazi = Nationalist Socialist. Forcing people to participate in the national anthem is nationalist in nature, half of Naziism. Nazis were Nazis because they wanted to restore a German nation and root out people who were different. Trying to root out people who don’t want to stand for the anthem is more similar to Naziism than allowing people to not stand who don’t want to.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 9, 2024 1:16:07 GMT -5
BTW, I pretty much never would stand for the National Anthem before sporting events, because I have found playing the anthem before sporting events to be a very stupid tradition. The pressure of sitting post 9/11 was too great for me to do this - although even post 9/11 - this is among the more stupid traditions in sports. It is long past time - they need to stop this tradition before every sporting event. These kinds of litmus tests for one's patriotism needs to stop. This is enormously disappointing. This is a simple basic way to honor the people who have died at an early age so we didn’t end up being Nazis. It’s to honor them in a simple way that lasts a mere few minutes. How pompous and sanctimonious of you to act like it means nothing to other people. It should. Maybe you should take some time and walk some cemeteries so you truly understand the sacrifice that took place so YOU could have a life you do now. How incredibly selfish. You mean those same cemeteries where Trump called our dead and wounded veterans, “suckers and losers?” You piss on their graves daily.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 9, 2024 1:39:29 GMT -5
"We do not now set forth a broad, highly general First Amendment rule stating just what counts as 'off campus' speech and whether or how ordinary First Amendment standards must give way off campus to a school’s special need to prevent… substantial disruption of learning-related activities or the protection of those who make up a school community." Clarence Thomas, in the minority dissent, wrote that the school should have been able to restrict Levy's speech as students "who are active in extracurricular programs have a greater potential, by virtue of their participation, to harm those programs." Generally, the standard for student speech in public schools is about "substantial disruption," which would likely be much easier to prove in a team sport setting (though I don't feel like seeing if there's any case law). There are also carve-outs for vulgarity, drug use, etc. This is for K-12 stuff, universities would probably be a different standard. I don't think racism has come up per se but wouldn't be shocked if the court also excepted it when it does - 10th circuit (and several others I think?) has upheld discipline for wearing the confederate flag for potential for substantial disruption. Mahanoy would be distinguished from McLaughlin because it was purely outside school activities/off-campus and was for a high school. I guess you'd also need to consider whether standards for students would even apply to a student-athlete. They're not employees (yet), but they're not not different from a typical student in their role representing the university. Also, Thomas on anything related to public schools is a trip. He goes on talking about applying 18th Century discipline standards and somehow 1/3 of the country doesn't recognize he's a total whackjob.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 9, 2024 1:47:41 GMT -5
“Nazi” must be your favorite word, although you clearly don’t what it means. Nazi = Nationalist Socialist. Forcing people to participate in the national anthem is nationalist in nature, half of Naziism. "Nazi" may have stood for "National Socialist", but the name was an intentional lie. You can't go by names alone. Case(s) in point: all those "Democratic Republics" that used to be behind the Iron Curtain.
|
|