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

I'd love to continue the discussion with you, but for that to work, you've both got to be willing to learn new things that you clearly don't now understand, and be willing to respond in good faith. So far it appears that you are not willing to do either.

 

No, he certainly isn't. All you've done is pretend he didn't give an answer and deflect away from the evidence. This is normal for you, why is that? It's every thread. Your understanding of the law has proven to be zero. We can assume you'll ignore any challenges to your baseless assertions.

 

It's simple. I posted the arguments that SCOTUS used. And half of them are unable to applied to this occasion.
Hence you can't use that example as if it's all and the same, when it's obviously not.
I added that people who used this sign before, have been banned from prom. No problemo.

And you are replying, but it is just lavishly off topic.
With that you are showing all of us you conceded.

 

I don't have any idea in which post you imagine you made a coherent argument, but I'd be willing to read it again and try to suss out something resembling a logical argument if you can point me to a specific post. Give me a link or post # or summarize your arguments again here. Something better than "I posted..."

 

After doing some research to find the story and I finding there’s a story annually for the last five years at least, this kid is despicable punk who deserves any canceling he gets!

 

You never brought up what arguments SCOTUS used to claim that case is similar to the sign.
You never proved your point.

 

And successfully banned those people from the prom in the past too.
Nothing new here, besides people sweettalking racism.

 

Yeah, I did, but I'll happily do it again. Similarities in the cases (assuming the hypothetical that the school wishes to ban the promposal kid from prom as punishment for his sign):
both cases pertain to off campus speech
neither case involved one of these exceptions: "serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers or other students; the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices"
the school was not standing in loco parentis in either case
both cases involve a punishment of restricting student access to an extracurricular activity
the speech in both cases "did not involve features that would place it outside the First Amendment’s ordinary protection."
The circumstances of the speech in both cases "diminish the school’s interest in regulation" because they "appeared outside of school hours from a location outside the school"
In neither case did they "identify the school in [their] posts or target any member of the school community with vulgar or abusive language."
In both cases the speech was transmitted via private cellphone to a small audience of personal friends.

 

The new thing here is this ruling by SCOTUS last June: 20-255 Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L. (06/23/2021) (supremecourt.gov)

 

They said:

• (4) The school’s interest in preventing disruption is not supported by the record, which shows that discussion of the matter took, at most, 5 to 10 minutes of an Algebra class “for just a couple of days” and that some members of the cheerleading team were “upset” about the content of B. L.’s Snapchats. App. 82–83. This alone does not satisfy Tinker’s demanding standards. Pp. 10–11.
• (5) Likewise, there is little to suggest a substantial interference in, or disruption of, the school’s efforts to maintain cohesion on the school cheerleading squad.

And this doesn't apply to the sign. So your argument is gone.

 

First off, as has been explained to you, one difference out of 10 points does not mean "your argument is gone". These are all things that a judge would weigh when evaluating the case. But more importantly for this post, you didn't even find a difference. In both cases, there was not a substantial disruption. This is yet another way the two cases are similar, and yet more evidence that the standards SCOTUS delineated last year would apply directly to this case and the same conclusion would be reached.

You're awful at this man. Educate yourself about modern First Amendment jurisprudence rather than squawking out your @$$ all the time.

 

Clearly his sign would suggest a substantial disruption of the schools efforts to maintain cohesion. He is screwed.

• (5) Likewise, there is little to suggest a substantial interference in, or disruption of, the school’s efforts to maintain cohesion on the school cheerleading squad

 

The funny thing is, is that you are lying that it is 1 thing, when I post 2 points.
You are also dishonestly left it out claiming it's just similar. You know it's not.
You are also lying about them 10 points.
And YOU are not the judge of it, if them 2 points I brought up don't matter.

Your claim is out the window.

 

Based on WHAT?!? His sign doesn't mention the school, or any student, teacher, or staff at the school. It doesn't disparage any of the aforementioned persons / institutions. You don't get to make baseless accusations about "substantial disruption". That's what the school tried to do in the cursing cheerleader case and the Supreme Court called them out for it and shot them down. The same thing will happen if this case ever goes to court. That's literally what (5) is saying.

"would suggest" isn't the standard. You need actual hard evidence of a substantial disruption. There isn't any.

 

Indeed.

 

It's not what the sign doesn't mention, it's about what it does mention. lol

 

Once again you're failing to be specific. What "substantial disruption" did the sign cause? Be specific.

 

Every POC at Central HS. Also they had to employ counselors to speak to students affected by the hate speech. They also had to add security to protect students.

That’s a substantial disruption.

 

What is this sentence fragment supposed to mean? What about them? What horrible thing befell all of them? And how do you know it? Did you talk to them? Every single one?

They didn't "have to" do those things. They chose to (if what you say is true - you didn't provide a citation for this claim, and it wasn't in the OP).

Are you familiar with the "heckler's veto"? If not, you should take a moment and familiarize yourself with the concept, because it's directly related to the argument you're trying to make here.

 

I've been to their website. I see nothing like any of this being announced.

 

Right, so it’s the already employed counselors I guess.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loc...prom-proposal-posted-on-social-media/2810478/

FYI, he didn’t make it to prom. Sad face

 

Saw nothing of what punishment was meted out to those two students. Saw nothing about extra security being hired to protect students. And the only reference to counselors is the standard line of "Students were told to reach out to school social workers, the administration noted.". That's a standard line given out for ANYTHING controversial that happens. And no one mentioned if anyone actually went to the counselors. Indeed the article goes on to talk about how the one child they interviewed dad was "proud" of how she was handling it and that she was excited to go to the prom...even showed what dress she was going to wear. Sure doesn't sound like she at least was all that traumatized.

Sorry, but I see no evidence of any of your claims here. As such there is no evidence to back up whether or not it would violate the case of Tinker or "(5) Likewise, there is little to suggest a substantial interference in, or disruption of, the school’s efforts to maintain cohesion".

 

The sign is utterly racist and here you are asking me how utterly racist behavior could cause a substantial disruption in a school.
See that I care that you can't put two and two together.
I'm not here to give you an education about norms and values.
That's the job of your parents. lol

 

Dumb, stupid and yeah, racist. Kids, especially teens, do stupid things. Did I say dumb? Really, really dumb?

 

It is a threat in that somebody just got asked to prom by a racist and will now themselves probably be assumed to be a racist, and be banned from the prom, etc.