Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

[temporal1]

i think it’s an error to presume the parents objected to the language/social media, it’s probably correct to presume the parents initiated the lawsuit. i would not presume the student’s identity in any way. i believe there are those just waiting to pounce on any perceived infractions to take to the highest courts - for the purpose of controlling others. some seem to set up cases for this purpose. i.e., to set up lawsuits. exploitation of the court system for political activism.

i’ve never sued nor do i plan to. yes, i have submitted to some rules/laws i did not appreciate.
my perception is many more cases could be thrown out as frivolous.

cheerleading does not strike me as a human right. it’s not a requirement for graduation.

these are minors and dependents. they enjoy many special protections as such, AND various limitations.
then, God willing, they reach legal adult years and status.

IF minors and dependents enjoy adult rights, THEN questions arise about their special protections and privileges.
i fear this is the underlying goal - to treat minors and dependents as legal “small adults,” ultimately making them vulnerable to all sorts of sin. this is already happening with birth control pills, abortion, etc.

[Josh]

I find it is largely an issue of demographics. The schools I have taught at that are at the lower end of the socio-economic scale (i.e. poor) tend to have very little parent involvement. And no matter how much the schools try to generate parental involvement they tend not to get much. On the other hand, the schools in affluent neighborhoods have obsessive parental involvement that usually goes way overboard. Parents are often way over-involved. Go to a PTA meeting in some wealthy suburban neighborhood for a taste. You would think it is the parents running the school not the administration. The happy medium is sometimes hard to reach.

Ken,

Would you support this decision if the young lady’s remarks had been racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc.?

Or do you think schools should be allowed to police such speech off campus?

I think schools should police student conduct at school as well as outside of school when students are using issued equipment or participating on school-managed forums. Which are just an extension of the school itself in this day and age of virtual learning.

I don't think it is the role of public schools (i.e. the government) to be regulating student conduct outside of school settings. That is the role of parents. My opinion doesn't change no matter what sort of content is involved. Frankly I'm rather surprised that people here don't agree with me on that. It isn't about whether or not student conduct should be regulated outside of school. Clearly it should. The question is whether that is the proper role of school administrators.

How far do you want the public schools inserting themselves into the outside lives of their students? It is a slippery slope.

Do you want public schools monitoring the vaccination status of the households that their children live in?
Do you want public schools to monitor whether parents use corporal punishment (spankings) in the home?
Do you want public schools to be monitoring the diets of their students when they are away from school?
Do you want public schools to be monitoring what type of religious or political activities are happening in student homes?
Do you want public schools to be monitoring whether parents abuse alcohol or drugs or anything else that might make the home "unsafe"?

That all sounds more like Communist China to me than the United States. And the slippery slope begins when you start saying that schools have a responsibility to police the welfare of students (i.e. student conduct) outside of any school context.

Again, if school administrators think a certain student's outside-of-school conduct needs addressing they are always free to pick up the phone and let the parent know. That has always been the case and nothing about this case changes that one bit. Technology makes that very easy. I can click on the name of any student in my electronic gradebook and pull up a parent phone number or generate a parent email. It is super easy to contact parents if you have any concerns about their child.

You and I would be in agreement on this then. Unfortunately, the trend across America is for schools (and universities) to assert their ownership of a student’s conduct even off campus.

A (private) university near me required students to wear masks even when off campus, regardless of whether or not local businesses etc required them. I find this kind of overreach disturbing, particularly as it was enforced with a snitch line where students would report on other students. It’s toxic to reach people to narc on each other like that.

[KrisKramer]

i’m all for empowerment of parents, and parent involvement in schools - regardless of description of school.
however, i’m no longer convinced public schools value this strategy, whereas my experience with private schools is the opposite, they depend on and require parent involvement.

imho, public schools are more+more hamstrung by politics, unions, and fear of litigation. the well has been poisoned.

I find it is largely an issue of demographics. The schools I have taught at that are at the lower end of the socio-economic scale (i.e. poor) tend to have very little parent involvement. And no matter how much the schools try to generate parental involvement they tend not to get much. On the other hand, the schools in affluent neighborhoods have obsessive parental involvement that usually goes way overboard. Parents are often way over-involved. Go to a PTA meeting in some wealthy suburban neighborhood for a taste. You would think it is the parents running the school not the administration. The happy medium is sometimes hard to reach.

Ken,

Would you support this decision if the young lady’s remarks had been racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc.?

Or do you think schools should be allowed to police such speech off campus?

I'm not Ken but I do know that my employer has a rule that we can be reprimanded (up to and including termination) for saying things online that go against the works equality in employment rules (ie racist, age-ist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, etc)

[RZehr]

I’m not Ken either, but if the girl was saying things like that, it wouldn’t at all effect my opinion. And actually, I could see from an employer standpoint, this could come as a relief. Before, it could be expected to some degree, that the language off duty would trickle to the company. And by extension, the company had a social obligation to “reign in” their employee. Now however, with this ruling, it could be that the companies can wash their hands of the matter in the social sphere and say, “We are helpless, it’s not on us”.
I see this ruling as great for businesses, schools, Christians, and individuals.

[Ken]

This ruling is strictly about whether the GOVERNMENT as represented by public school administrators can regulate speech in areas outside of its normal authority (within the school itself, and on school administered or school-related forums and platforms).

This ruling has nothing to do with whether or not PRIVATE ENTITIES like employers, private schools, churches, or parents can regulate speech. The First Amendment is about government regulation of speech, not private entities.

So yes, private entities like employers can continue to regulate the speech of their employees on public forums outside of work, and can fire people if they do things like make inflammatory posts on Facebook or Twitter that reflect badly on the employer. This ruling does not change that. You can still get fired for for what you post on Facebook. Nothing about this ruling changes that if you work for a PRIVATE employer. But there may be implications if you work for a public employer.

Private schools like religious schools can also continue to enforce whatever ethical and moral codes of conduct that they wish both inside and outside of school, including vulgar speech on public forums, and discipline their students as they see fit. This ruling does not change that. Private schools can discipline students for basically any reason they want.

And parents have ALWAYS had complete authority to regulate their children's behavior on social media, as well as their access to it. This ruling does not change that either.

The only thing this ruling does is limit the ability of the GOVERNMENT (public schools) to regulate speech that occurs outside of its sphere of responsibility.

[temporal1]

i’m glad to see clear+unmitigated acknowledgement that public schools are nothing more than arms of government. ^^^
recognition of that one basic reality might help prevent lots of confusion.

it might help many recognize the wrong of popularized political social engineering gov EXPERIMENTS foisted upon everyone’s children under the guise of .. everything-but government or experiments. buyer beware.

i wrote above:
these are minors and dependents. they enjoy many special protections as such, AND various limitations.
then, God willing, they reach legal adult years and status.

IF minors and dependents enjoy adult rights, THEN questions arise about their special protections and privileges.

i fear this is the underlying goal - to treat minors and dependents as legal “small adults,” ultimately making them vulnerable to all sorts of sin. this is already happening with birth control pills, abortion, etc.

so, now, sure, go ahead and swear - AND expect no consequences, expect to be a cheerleader, or whatever else you covet in the moment.

parents are formally excluded from interference with sex ed, bc pills, abortions. no notice or phone calls to parents. that’s illegal.
but parents will be notified about swearing. sure. buyer beware.

[temporal1]

I’m not Ken either, but if the girl was saying things like that, it wouldn’t at all effect my opinion. And actually, I could see from an employer standpoint, this could come as a relief. Before, it could be expected to some degree, that the language off duty would trickle to the company. And by extension, the company had a social obligation to “reign in” their employee. Now however, with this ruling, it could be that the companies can wash their hands of the matter in the social sphere and say, “We are helpless, it’s not on us”.
I see this ruling as great for businesses, schools, Christians, and individuals.

The ruling has no impact on protected classes, which began decades ago. As i understand it.

In my view, there is only 1 justifiable protected class: the handicapped.
All others are covered in pre-existing laws. Creating special rights+protections is not equal rights.

The U.S. legal system reflects the power of wealthy organized political blocs and lobbies. A sad mess.

[Ken]

i’m glad to see clear+unmitigated acknowledgement that public schools are nothing more than arms of government. ^^^
recognition of that one basic reality might help prevent lots of confusion.

Yes of course public schools are arms of the government. Where you and I might differ is in how we see "the Government"

I don't view "the government" as some sort of universal unitary blob with tentacles everywhere, that under the control of some master strategy or cabal operating behind the scenes and pulling strings like the Wizard of Oz.

I think in any society there are rightly public interests and private interests. And we form all manner of public institutions to serve public interests. Universal free public education is in the public interest and so we have free public schools. Streets and highways are in the public interest and so we have highway departments that build and maintain free public roads. Fire protection is in the public interest and so we have fire departments. Maintenance of public records (births, deaths, property deeds, etc.) is in the public interest and so we have city and county clerks' and records offices. Public safety is in the public interest and so we have police and sheriffs and jails. Justice is in the public interest and so we have courts. By contrast, we don't see religion as being in the public interest and therefore we do not have a state church or state religion like in some other countries. Here religion is rightly considered a private interest.

That doesn't mean all of these different public institutions are under the thumb of some larger entity called "the government" that has nefarious or secret purposes. Schools are managed by elected school boards who's responsibility it is to appropriately manage the school taxes they collect, hire professional administrators to run the schools, the maintenance departments, the transportation departments, etc. and to set the basic ground rules for the operation of the schools under their jurisdiction. They are accountable to the public that elected them, just like the school administrators are accountable to the school boards that hired them. And they operate entirely separately from the fire department or the public works department or the police department and especially from other government entities like say the EPA or the Coast Guard or the Social Security Administration or the IRS or whatever.

[RZehr]

This ruling is strictly about whether the GOVERNMENT as represented by public school administrators can regulate speech in areas outside of its normal authority (within the school itself, and on school administered or school-related forums and platforms).

This ruling has nothing to do with whether or not PRIVATE ENTITIES like employers, private schools, churches, or parents can regulate speech. The First Amendment is about government regulation of speech, not private entities.

So yes, private entities like employers can continue to regulate the speech of their employees on public forums outside of work, and can fire people if they do things like make inflammatory posts on Facebook or Twitter that reflect badly on the employer. This ruling does not change that. You can still get fired for for what you post on Facebook. Nothing about this ruling changes that if you work for a PRIVATE employer. But there may be implications if you work for a public employer.

Private schools like religious schools can also continue to enforce whatever ethical and moral codes of conduct that they wish both inside and outside of school, including vulgar speech on public forums, and discipline their students as they see fit. This ruling does not change that. Private schools can discipline students for basically any reason they want.

And parents have ALWAYS had complete authority to regulate their children's behavior on social media, as well as their access to it. This ruling does not change that either.

The only thing this ruling does is limit the ability of the GOVERNMENT (public schools) to regulate speech that occurs outside of its sphere of responsibility.

Okay, that’s great. Maybe as good or even better in some ways.

[Ken]

This ruling is strictly about whether the GOVERNMENT as represented by public school administrators can regulate speech in areas outside of its normal authority (within the school itself, and on school administered or school-related forums and platforms).

This ruling has nothing to do with whether or not PRIVATE ENTITIES like employers, private schools, churches, or parents can regulate speech. The First Amendment is about government regulation of speech, not private entities.

So yes, private entities like employers can continue to regulate the speech of their employees on public forums outside of work, and can fire people if they do things like make inflammatory posts on Facebook or Twitter that reflect badly on the employer. This ruling does not change that. You can still get fired for for what you post on Facebook. Nothing about this ruling changes that if you work for a PRIVATE employer. But there may be implications if you work for a public employer.

Private schools like religious schools can also continue to enforce whatever ethical and moral codes of conduct that they wish both inside and outside of school, including vulgar speech on public forums, and discipline their students as they see fit. This ruling does not change that. Private schools can discipline students for basically any reason they want.

And parents have ALWAYS had complete authority to regulate their children's behavior on social media, as well as their access to it. This ruling does not change that either.

The only thing this ruling does is limit the ability of the GOVERNMENT (public schools) to regulate speech that occurs outside of its sphere of responsibility.

Okay, that’s great. Maybe as good or even better in some ways.

Yes. The distraction or confusion about this case was because the subject was rather distasteful and trivial. Some spoiled cheerleader was shooting her mouth off in public in a vulgar manner and got punished for it. But as with most Supreme Court cases, the issues and fundamental rights involved were much larger. And that is why the Supreme Court took the case in the first place (out of the tens of thousands of appeals that they get every year). And why they ruled 8-1 in favor of restricting the power of the government in this case.

Personally I suspect this is just one small brick in a larger plan by the Supreme Court to roll back the regulatory power of the government. Some of which I will probably agree with as in this case. Some of which I probably won't (for example rolling back environmental regulation).

But I wouldn't look at is as some random stand-alone case that is unrelated to larger issues. The Supreme Court rarely works like that. They make a narrow uncontroversial ruling in one area. And then incrementally rely on it as precedent to extend the same principles to other areas.