Central High School promposal goes viral, some classmates call it racist

I had those thoughts after my OP as well, but I'm now convinced these actions are different than cheerleader girl's actions...

Since there is no firm belief in precedent in the SCOTUS anymore, each case will need to be decided separately...

That's one of my primary lessons learned from the previous 5 years...

 

Ditka, I've addressed this point of yours and the SC case used arguments that can't be used on this example.
Heck, this sign has been used before a couple of times resulting that the kids were not allowed to go to the prom.
This actually could be the 4th time a kid does this.

 

If the consequence come down from any government unit, that would violate the Constitution.

 

A similar case was already decided by SCOTUS just last year.

20-255 Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L. (06/23/2021) (supremecourt.gov)

 

What a load of crock. Looks to me like you're looking for an excuse to keep your original claim.

As for it being different. Its not. Both was said off of school campus. Both was said on their own time. Both was not about anyone in particular. Both were not threats. Both did not cause a disruption in school.

 

Of course they're "different". They didn't say the exact same thing in the exact same way. No one ever claimed they were identical, but they don't have to be identical for the precedent set last year to apply here. That's the point that you and @notme both appear to be ignorant of. You both seem to think that if you can find some little detail that's different between the two incidents then it's some sort of a get-out-jail-free card and the precedents don't apply. You're both wrong about that.

Yeah, that's how our legal system does it, they decide each case separately, but they decide them by looking at relevant precedents and applying them to the facts of the case. And the cursing cheerleader is the relevant precedent to this issue. Which facts of this case do you think would lead them to reach a different conclusion than in the case of the cursing cheerleader?

 

What if they were asking a black student for a prom date?

 

With the same sign?? Best of luck there, Billy Bob....

Doesn't matter....

 

No you haven't. All you've done is repeat your same false claim. It displays an utter ignorance of First Amendment jurisprudence.

 

Interesting, I did not know this.
Admittedly my evidence was anecdotal memory of past events before 2021.

 

Why not? For all you know the person might have a twisted and/or dark sense of humor.

 

Of course it matters.

 

I told you countless of times.
No case is similar. But half the arguments used by the Supreme Court can't be used on this example.
You are ignorant to believe that the case is similar enough when half of the arguments flat out do not apply.

 

That's absurd. No two cases may be exactly identical, but lots of cases are similar.

There is no SCOTUS case that is more applicable to the issues that would be presented in a hypothetical promposal case than the one decided last year. Nothing even comes close. It's the most-closely-related case SCOTUS has ever decided. And the factors they outline weigh almost entirely in favor of the promposal-er.

BTW, this would be easy for you to disprove (if I were wrong, which I'm not) by simply presenting the SCOTUS case would be more particularly applicable to this case. But you can't, because you're wrong.

The core issue is off-campus free speech. That's the same core issue that was decided in last year's case. The central holding in that case applies directly to this case.

 

Not this one with the one you brought up.

SCOTUS looked the case you brought up and gave a bunch of arguments why you can't kick of a girl from the cheerleading squats, and it remains so that half of those arguments are unable to be applied on that sign. Hence you can not claim SCOTUS will announce the same outcome. And we all know it is like this, because you are not even commenting if these arguments used in the case of the cheerleader are able to be used on the prom sign.

No doubt you will reply again, without commenting about the specific arguments used by the SCOTUS on the cheerleader case.

And that is irrelevant. This sign has been used like 3 times before. Kids got banned before.

 

1) those incidents were before last year's ruling

2) is there any evidence that those kids actually got banned from Prom? I think you're making this up.

 

As I wrote...
No doubt you will reply again, without commenting about the specific arguments used by the SCOTUS on the cheerleader case.

 

I'll take that as a concession that you were making up "Kids got banned before." We haven't seen any evidence to support that assertion.

 

I take that as a concession that you acknowledge the arguments of SCOTUS on the cheerleader can not apply on the sign.

as for kids got banned before:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/02/us/promposal-racist-sign-trnd/index.html

 

Hey, good for you, you actually did it. Now I'm motivated to respond to this:

Not a concession at all. You're completely wrong about this. Before we get into the particulars about last year's case, I need to ascertain if you understand the basics about how supreme court precedents work.

For example, in 2008 SCOTUS overturned DC's gun ban, and in 2010 they did the same thing to the city of Chicago. How do you think those cases might figure in if, in 2023, to offer some hypotheticals:

A) the city of San Francisco decided to ban handgun ownership
B) Arlington County, Virginia decided to ban all gun ownership
C) the state of California decided to prohibit the purchase of all new firearms (but existing owners were grandfathered in)

Do you think the hypotheticals I offered in A, B, and C would be subject to the court's 2008 & 2010 rulings? Or do you more-or-less believe, "hey, there are some differences, so the court cannot apply DC v Heller or McDonald v Chicago"?

 

At no point at all are you responding how the arguments of SCOTS apply on the sign,... AGAIN.
So you are conceding that it doesn't apply.

I'm not interested in you deflecting with the gun ban.

 

Not at all. I'm trying to establish a baseline of shared understanding. Do you understand how, in general, legal precedents are applied to subsequent cases? Answering my examples will tell me whether we have that same shared understanding or not, and then we'll move on to the specifics of off-campus free speech.

 

Again. At no point at all are you responding how the arguments of SCOTUS apply on the sign.
I'm not interested in your deflecting "questions". You fail to make an argument yourself.

 

I'm trying to establish a baseline of shared understanding because you've demonstrated, through your posts, that you don't have even the faintest inkling of an idea how modern First Amendment jurisprudence works. I'm willing to spend some time helping build that inkling of an idea in you, if you'll work with me, but your last few posts suggest that you aren't interested.

 

You are deflecting with a whataboutism.

ANd since you are doing that I can only judge you are conceding.