Boston teen banned from cheerleading after tweet about immigrants [W:39]

[sangha]

there might not be a constitutional right to having a twitter account

Actually, you do have a constitutional right to use Twitter

 

[bg85]

Actually, you do have a constitutional right to use Twitter

shots fired!

doesn't twitter has a constitutional right to ban me though? what a fun discussion this is.

 

[sangha]

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS GIRL. I'm talking about your statement. the one about the constitutional right to be on a sports team.

You're never going to get a straight answer

 

[sangha]

shots fired!

doesn't twitter has a constitutional right to ban me though? what a fun discussion this is.

Yes, they do but there are limits to that right (as there are limits to every right, including the right to use Twitter, and the right to express your opinion)

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS GIRL. I'm talking about your statement. the one about the constitutional right to be on a sports team.

There is no "constitutional right" to be on a sports team, there is a constitutional right that the protects you from them giving the reason "you r black" or "we don't like your political tweets".

 

[bg85]

There is no "constitutional right" to be on a sports team, there is a constitutional right that the protects you from them giving the reason "you r black" or "we don't like your political tweets".

right, which to me makes the statement that there's no constitutional right to be on a sports team to be an incorrect statement in some instances. the school can't just punish someone for any reason the deem fit. there are limits and those limits come from the constitution.

s'all I'm saying.

 

[tres borrachos]

I was trying to have a discussion about your statement that there is "no constitutional right to be on a sports team" and you're getting all nasty and sarcastic for no reason.

for goodness' sake, you don't even want to agree with me that schools shouldn't have absolute power to discipline a student over any arbitrary reason they choose. I think you just like to argue for argument's sake. this happens every time I try to have a reasonable discussion with you, so I'm not sure why I thought it would be different this time.

If you can show me where in the Constitution it says you have a right to demand and be granted a place on a high school sports team, please let me know where it is. Until then, all the "well what if he was wearing a yarmulke" is not relevant to my posts. Nobody is getting nasty, least of all me. I just don't want to post about yarmulkes and Jewish kids when my only point, which you ignored, is that the schools have a right to place kids on sports teams, and they have a right to cut kids from sports teams. If you don't understand something as simple as that, I can't help you, and I don't intend to try.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

right, which to me makes the statement that there's no constitutional right to be on a sports team to be an incorrect statement in some instances. the school can't just punish someone for any reason the deem fit. there are limits and those limits come from the constitution.

s'all I'm saying.

no idea what you all were arguing about, I simply answered your question. impdaddy:

 

[tres borrachos]

right, which to me makes the statement that there's no constitutional right to be on a sports team to be an incorrect statement in some instances. the school can't just punish someone for any reason the deem fit. there are limits and those limits come from the constitution.

s'all I'm saying.

You have a right to have a cell phone. You don't have a right to have a cell phone in the classroom. You have a right to be a cheerleader. You don't have a right to be a cheerleader when you exhibit what the school says is bad behavior. You may not have a right to be a cheerleader if you have a D average or if you can't fit in one of their uniforms or if you can't do a roundoff back handspring. You don't seem to have children if you don't understand that school is not a free for all.

 

[bg85]

If you can show me where in the Constitution it says you have a right to demand and be granted a place on a high school sports team, please let me know where it is.

if you can show me where I've made that argument that'd be great.

you seem to be arguing that schools can punish someone or remove someone from a sports team for any reason at all, regardless of what that reason is. I'm making the argument that there are and should be limits to when a school can make that determination.

 

[bg85]

You have a right to have a cell phone. You don't have a right to have a cell phone in the classroom. You have a right to be a cheerleader. You don't have a right to be a cheerleader when you exhibit what the school says is bad behavior. You may not have a right to be a cheerleader if you have a D average or if you can't fit in one of their uniforms or if you can't do a roundoff back handspring. You don't seem to have children if you don't understand that school is not a free for all.

I'm pretty sure that every single one of your posts addressed to me has been addressing an argument I'm not making. you're not even responding to the text that you've quoted.

 

[haymarket]

Any "disruption" is the fault of the disruptive responders, not the person who made the political statement.

Interesting - so the individual who pisses people off by saying offensive things and gets a reaction from others is not in any way at fault. Got it loud and clear.

So if some jerk comes up to a mans wife and insults here in a vulgar fashion and then the husband punches him when his wife breaks down crying - the jerk is in the clear according to you.

That is some standard of responsibility you have there.

 

[tres borrachos]

if you can show me where I've made that argument that'd be great.

you seem to be arguing that schools can punish someone or remove someone from a sports team for any reason at all, regardless of what that reason is. I'm making the argument that there are and should be limits to when a school can make that determination.

So if you aren't saying she has a right to demand her place back on the squad, then what exactly is your argument? And why should there be limits to who a school decides earns the privilege of representing them through an athletic team or a club? It's an arbitrary decision who makes the team in the first place. It was some judges who said she was a better cheerleader than other girls who tried out. That was an arbitrary and subjective decision.

I never argued that schools should be able to cut kids for no reason. In fact, just the opposite, when you kept bringing up the Jewish kid. I said that they have the right to cut kids as long as their reason isn't illegal. So once again, if you can show me it's illegal to cut her for her social media activity, then she has a case. If you can't, then she's done. Lesson learned for her too. Maybe when she's an adult and working she won't make dumb tweets that may get her in trouble.

 

[tres borrachos]

I'm pretty sure that every single one of your posts addressed to me has been addressing an argument I'm not making. you're not even responding to the text that you've quoted.

You keep going off topic and mentioning yarmulkes, and you're saying I am not addressing your posts. That's pretty funny.

 

[haymarket]

I find eminent domain abhorrent.

How do you fly anywhere since almost every big airport was constructed using the power of eminent domain?

And does it take you a long time to plan your driving routes since you would obviously avoid highways and main roads built with the power of eminent domain?

 

[bg85]

So if you aren't saying she has a right to demand her place back on the squad, then what exactly is your argument? And why should there be limits to who a school decides earns the privilege of representing them through an athletic team or a club? It's an arbitrary decision who makes the team in the first place. It was some judges who said she was a better cheerleader than other girls who tried out. That was an arbitrary and subjective decision.

my argument is that there are limits to what a school can do. it can't just arbitrarily punish one student for any reason it makes up.

the reason there should be limits to that is that schools are agents of the government and there are limits to government power. this isn't anything astronomically controversial I'm saying here, you just decided to go off on me because you assumed (as you tend to do) something about what I believe.

 

[bg85]

I never argued that schools should be able to cut kids for no reason.

i specifically mentioned that that is what you appeared to be arguing in order to clarify your stance. you either didn't read it or you're trying to backtrack now:

right. and again I'm not talking about what happened here. I'm talking about someone's "constitutional right to be on a sports team." that right can very much exist and I disagree that the school can just pick and choose whoever they want to be on the team for any reason they desire - which is what you appear to be arguing.

if you did read it then i have to ask: why didn't you clarify your argument then? perhaps if you would post rationally, and not insist on bringing nastiness and sarcasm to every discussion, the mischaracterization of your argument could have been avoided.

 

[sangha]

if you did read it then i have to ask: why didn't you clarify your argument then? perhaps if you would post rationally, and not insist on bringing nastiness and sarcasm to every discussion, the mischaracterization of your argument could have been avoided.

You're still hoping to get a straight answer? :lamo

 

[tres borrachos]

my argument is that there are limits to what a school can do. it can't just arbitrarily punish one student for any reason it makes up.

the reason there should be limits to that is that schools are agents of the government and there are limits to government power. this isn't anything astronomically controversial I'm saying here, you just decided to go off on me because you assumed (as you tend to do) something about what I believe.

Schools can punish a student for any reason that is inside the law. They can punish them for bad grades, or using cell phones, or skipping school. If you can show me it's illegal to prohibit a child from participating in school activities for tweeting, I'll change my opinion. Until then, I don't believe participation in a school activity is a right that has to be extended to everyone.

By the way, I don't believe the government can tell my kids they can't have cell phones. But they can tell them they can't have cell phones in school. So how is the government's authority limited?

 

[tres borrachos]

i specifically mentioned that that is what you appeared to be arguing in order to clarify your stance. you either didn't read it or you're trying to backtrack now:



if you did read it then i have to ask: why didn't you clarify your argument then? perhaps if you would post rationally, and not insist on bringing nastiness and sarcasm to every discussion, the mischaracterization of your argument could have been avoided.

So once again, where in the Constitution does it say any child is entitled to participation in a sports team? I've asked you that, and you haven't shown me. And you keep pulling out the "you're mean!" card. I'm being anything but mean. I'm asking you to back up your claim of a Constitutional right to be a high school cheerleader.

 

[bg85]

So once again, where in the Constitution does it say any child is entitled to participation in a sports team? I've asked you that, and you haven't shown me.

why are you asking me this? did I make this argument?

never said you were mean, just that some of your posts in this thread contain a lot of nastiness and sarcasm for no reason.

 

[Absentglare]

if you can show me where I've made that argument that'd be great.

you seem to be arguing that schools can punish someone or remove someone from a sports team for any reason at all, regardless of what that reason is. I'm making the argument that there are and should be limits to when a school can make that determination.

They can remove anyone from a sports team at any time for any number of reasons.

There are several reasons that are not appropriate to be used for distinct treatment virtually no matter the circumstance.

The point is that the school has authority over it's own organizations, the student doesn't get to complain about "free speech" preventing a teacher from suspending them when that "free speech" is cussing out the teacher.

 

[tres borrachos]

why are you asking me this? did I make this argument?

never said you were mean, just that some of your posts in this thread contain a lot of nastiness and sarcasm for no reason.

Okay, so your argument isn't a Constitutional right, and your argument isn't religious discrimination. I don't know what your argument is. And to be very frank, I don't care. Have a good one.

By the way, you attacked me more than once in your posts. You need to look in the mirror to see who was nasty. I never made comments about your previous posts or your posting habits, you made them about mine. I don't waste my time engaging people who do that. It isn't a debate - it's a mudslinging fest. I'm here to discuss news events, not my posting habits.

 

[bg85]

Okay, so your argument isn't a Constitutional right, and your argument isn't religious discrimination. I don't know what your argument is. And to be very frank, I don't care. Have a good one.

By the way, you attacked me more than once in your posts. You need to look in the mirror to see who was nasty. I never made comments about your previous posts or your posting habits, you made them about mine. I don't waste my time engaging people who do that. It isn't a debate - it's a mudslinging fest. I'm here to discuss news events, not my posting habits.

my argument is that sometimes it can be a constitutional right.

for instance, a school could not kick someone off a sports team because of their religion. in that instance, it is the student's constitutional right to remain on the team, assuming that that is the only reason to kick them off the team.

I've only attacked the fact that you can't seem to post without using sarcasm in at least part of the discussion.

 

[tres borrachos]

my argument is that sometimes it can be a constitutional right.

for instance, a school could not kick someone off a sports team because of their religion. in that instance, it is the student's constitutional right to remain on the team, assuming that that is the only reason to kick them off the team.

I've only attacked the fact that you can't seem to post without using sarcasm in at least part of the discussion.

You can't kick someone off a team because freedom of religion is protected by the Constitution. It's illegal to discriminate based on religion. That has nothing to do with a Constitutional right to be a cheerleader and post offensive tweets while retaining your place on the squad. That isn't protected by the Constitution.

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm posting back and forth with someone who keeps saying that you can't kick someone off the cheerleading squad for her religious beliefs. We all know that. That isn't what happened here. You need to be in the same conversation as the rest of us.