|
What I don't get is HOW she got kicked of the team.
So she didn't cheer for a guy who raped her. Her leader asks her why she didn't cheer for that guy and explains it. You would think the common response of the person who is in charge of the team would be something like "Ah oke that's understandable" and not "fuck that you're of the team". Note these aren't the real quotes obviously.
Lawsuit or not it's just mind boggling a person could be that cruel just because she didn't cheer for the person who assaulted her. Even if the court didn't sentence him yet the fact that he went to court suspended or not should say enough about the seriousness of the problem wouldn't it ?
|
On October 27 2010 16:47 Disarray wrote:
technically its correct, however I fail to see how the fuck a felon would be allowed back at the same school
how could you be so rude? you whites have white priveledge. non-whites face discrimination and deserve second and third and fourth and fifth chances.
User was banned for this post.
|
United States4053 Posts
I can see why many are saying they don't understand the removal of the girl from cheerleading.
I think the removal in and of itself is correct, because in signing up for cheerleading she was obliged to carry out the responsibility of a cheerleader.
What I don't get is how a juvenile sex offender managed to get into the same school as his victim AND get put into a position of some respect (basketball team player). If anything, after this situation emerged, the school (ethically) should have removed the rapist rather than the cheerleader, so in that sense the girl getting kicked off the cheerleading squad is wrong IMO
|
On October 28 2010 08:14 Krigwin wrote:
Seriously out of place? What are you now, Lady Justice? Chief Justice of the United States? Who are you to decide that so conclusively?
Whether or not it is out of place is up to the judiciary to decide. Laws are not carved from stone by lightning bolts from gods, they are created and interpreted by mortal men. If some citizens like this girl's parents think it was a 1st Amendment violation, it is entirely their right to bring the matter up to the attention of the court. No one, not you, not I, may restrict their freedom to do so.
If I say that it was out of line for Backho to lose a match because he paused the game before typing pp, does that mean I claim to be Kespa?
Anyways, I'm not going to dissect your post to death, but I think the gist of the misunderstanding between us is that I'm arguing purely from a legal standpoint, whereas you're just....kind of...saying what you feel is right. Honestly I have no problem with that; from the perspective of what is right and how the situation should have been handled, I actually think we're on the same page. Nobody is arguing about what "responsible adults" should have done, and I definitely think there was at least enough of an indication of guilt to put the school on notice. That being said, was there enough of an indication to strip him of his position on the team and essentially make him a social paraiah and a potential lawsuit if acquitted? That's another question.
Anyways, if your issue is with the handling of this situation, then point that at the school's policy and not at the courts. The courts have done nothing wrong in my opinion and that's what I was originally in here to say.
And she fucking DEFINITELY can't bring a 1st Amendment claim, for several reasons:
1) She was not in a forum where she would be expected to exercise her right to free speech. She was a cheerleader with a script and a routine. That being said, the school was not taking away her ability to convey ideas or expression (i.e. hatred); they were merely taking away her privilege to be a cheerleader while conveying them. This is about taking away a role in a club, not about restricting speech.
2) She was not expressing anything resembling her own opinion. On the contrary, being a cheerleader does not allow you to express your own opinions. Is cheerleading the type of platform likely to exhibit a free expression of ideas? No, it's not; the very definition of the role implies an actor with a script that he or she cannot diverge from.
3) Being a cheerleader is not a right, nor is it necessary for one's livelihood. It is a privilege granted by the school, to be taken away on their terms. I think ALL schools emphasize this. Without a true constitutional claim (or unlawfulness or something), there is no avenue by which the court can interfere in the school's policy on that point. Having a stupid policy does not mean courts get the green light to jump in and correct them without some basis in law.
4) From a policy perspective, it would just be a bad policy in general to force schools to tolerate this type of behavior. It could set a bad precedent for frivolous claims. Now, is that cold? Perhaps, but it's often difficult to keep in mind that laws are designed for collective welfare--they sometimes (i.e. often) end up screwing people over on an individual basis. The courts aren't arbiters of moral virtue--they are there to interpret the law as it stands.
Anyways, the bottom line is that I think this girl is just pissed off that she is getting fucked over when she is actually the victim. I agree with her. But direct that anger at the school where it's wholly deserved.
|
this is the same problem that ethics has, it might sound good on paper but there is gonna be that case were the law might say one thing but everyone fucking knows the right thing.
|
On October 28 2010 01:13 Ferrose wrote:Good example of why Texas is the best state in the Union: + Show Spoiler +
Damnit, i dont want to derail the thread but you cant post that without the best scene from that episode
|
On October 28 2010 10:31 j2choe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 08:14 Krigwin wrote:
Seriously out of place? What are you now, Lady Justice? Chief Justice of the United States? Who are you to decide that so conclusively?
Whether or not it is out of place is up to the judiciary to decide. Laws are not carved from stone by lightning bolts from gods, they are created and interpreted by mortal men. If some citizens like this girl's parents think it was a 1st Amendment violation, it is entirely their right to bring the matter up to the attention of the court. No one, not you, not I, may restrict their freedom to do so. If I say that it was out of line for Backho to lose a match because he paused the game before typing pp, does that mean I claim to be Kespa? Anyways, I'm not going to dissect your post to death, but I think the gist of the misunderstanding between us is that I'm arguing purely from a legal standpoint, whereas you're just....kind of...saying what you feel is right. Honestly I have no problem with that; from the perspective of what is right and how the situation should have been handled, I actually think we're on the same page. Nobody is arguing about what "responsible adults" should have done, and I definitely think there was at least enough of an indication of guilt to put the school on notice. That being said, was there enough of an indication to strip him of his position on the team and essentially make him a social paraiah and a potential lawsuit if acquitted? That's another question. Anyways, if your issue is with the handling of this situation, then point that at the school's policy and not at the courts. The courts have done nothing wrong in my opinion and that's what I was originally in here to say. And she fucking DEFINITELY can't bring a 1st Amendment claim, for several reasons: 1) She was not in a forum where she would be expected to exercise her right to free speech. She was a cheerleader with a script and a routine. That being said, the school was not taking away her ability to convey ideas or expression (i.e. hatred); they were merely taking away her privilege to be a cheerleader while conveying them. This is about taking away a role in a club, not about restricting speech. 2) She was not expressing anything resembling her own opinion. On the contrary, being a cheerleader does not allow you to express your own opinions. Is cheerleading the type of platform likely to exhibit a free expression of ideas? No, it's not; the very definition of the role implies an actor with a script that he or she cannot diverge from. 3) Being a cheerleader is not a right, nor is it necessary for one's livelihood. It is a privilege granted by the school, to be taken away on their terms. I think ALL schools emphasize this. Without a true constitutional claim (or unlawfulness or something), there is no avenue by which the court can interfere in the school's policy on that point. Having a stupid policy does not mean courts get the green light to jump in and correct them without some basis in law. 4) From a policy perspective, it would just be a bad policy in general to force schools to tolerate this type of behavior. It could set a bad precedent for frivolous claims. Now, is that cold? Perhaps, but it's often difficult to keep in mind that laws are designed for collective welfare--they sometimes (i.e. often) end up screwing people over on an individual basis. The courts aren't arbiters of moral virtue--they are there to interpret the law as it stands. Anyways, the bottom line is that I think this girl is just pissed off that she is getting fucked over when she is actually the victim. I agree with her. But direct that anger at the school where it's wholly deserved.
That is the exact problem. Law systems don't come from gods , they come from men itself , and naturally it will be flawed. And the courts will carry out a specific system even if everyone on earth , including themselves know it's absolutely wrong.
Taking words from Ian Holloway, it's wrong , in fact it's so wrong it's scary.
Seriously everyone looking at this issue would know it's just plain wrong.
And yet , in the eyes U.S law system it is right , and it's carried out by administrators to the dot , even if everyone including themselves knows it's plain wrong.
Now just exactly how could all that be right?
If in future such incidents happen again that this case be used as a reference to how it should be handled?
Such we start teaching girls that if they get raped by star athletes not to fight back but to let it happen? Because they need the actual semen (DNA) evidence for anyone to actually do something to help them? Even then the authorities might find a new way to spin it as if you are wrong and that you should "disappear" from the school.
|
On October 28 2010 10:31 j2choe wrote:
Anyways, I'm not going to dissect your post to death, but I think the gist of the misunderstanding between us is that I'm arguing purely from a legal standpoint, whereas you're just....kind of...saying what you feel is right. Honestly I have no problem with that; from the perspective of what is right and how the situation should have been handled, I actually think we're on the same page. Nobody is arguing about what "responsible adults" should have done, and I definitely think there was at least enough of an indication of guilt to put the school on notice. That being said, was there enough of an indication to strip him of his position on the team and essentially make him a social paraiah and a potential lawsuit if acquitted? That's another question.
There is no misunderstanding, you just appear to think courts should just be one guy holding up sheets of paper and reading the law by the letter. The whole reason why we have an entire judicial system is so that we can interpret the law and dole out judgments appropriate for the situation. The school in this case made a series of seriously questionable decisions which ultimately led to the removal of this girl from her cheer squad and the entire situation must be considered before rendering judgment on whether it was the school's right to do so.
And to answer your another question, absolutely. Absolutely. Like I've stated greater men lose their careers over this kind of thing, it is absolutely despicable that this guy was allowed to remain on the team, much less the fact that this girl was forced into a situation where she would have to cheer for him. His teachers should've been outraged. His coach should've been outraged. The principal should've been outraged. Even his parents should've been outraged. Instead we have a group of people who apparently follow a different line of morals than the rest of us who prioritized this would-be rapist over the girl.
And you didn't provide any actual laws from Texas to back up your points here, and I'm guessing you're not, after all, Chief Justice, or even just a judge, so I'm guessing the rest of this all here is just your opinion:
+ Show Spoiler +Anyways, if your issue is with the handling of this situation, then point that at the school's policy and not at the courts. The courts have done nothing wrong in my opinion and that's what I was originally in here to say.
And she fucking DEFINITELY can't bring a 1st Amendment claim, for several reasons:
1) She was not in a forum where she would be expected to exercise her right to free speech. She was a cheerleader with a script and a routine. That being said, the school was not taking away her ability to convey ideas or expression (i.e. hatred); they were merely taking away her privilege to be a cheerleader while conveying them. This is about taking away a role in a club, not about restricting speech.
2) She was not expressing anything resembling her own opinion. On the contrary, being a cheerleader does not allow you to express your own opinions. Is cheerleading the type of platform likely to exhibit a free expression of ideas? No, it's not; the very definition of the role implies an actor with a script that he or she cannot diverge from.
3) Being a cheerleader is not a right, nor is it necessary for one's livelihood. It is a privilege granted by the school, to be taken away on their terms. I think ALL schools emphasize this. Without a true constitutional claim (or unlawfulness or something), there is no avenue by which the court can interfere in the school's policy on that point. Having a stupid policy does not mean courts get the green light to jump in and correct them without some basis in law.
And while you're certainly welcome to your opinion, it's a good thing you're not actually a judge, because many people, myself included, would disagree very strongly with your opinions, and perhaps even accuse them of being too rigid and, frankly, kind of bizarre (you seem to have conjured an entire list of rules and guidelines on how high school cheerleading squads should be run, from thin air, it looks like you've spent a lot of time thinking about this, I'm not sure that's very healthy behavior). Until someone actually does draw up a list of laws concerning high school cheerleading squads, your entire argument is basically just based on personal opinions.
4) From a policy perspective, it would just be a bad policy in general to force schools to tolerate this type of behavior. It could set a bad precedent for frivolous claims. Now, is that cold? Perhaps, but it's often difficult to keep in mind that laws are designed for collective welfare--they sometimes (i.e. often) end up screwing people over on an individual basis. The courts aren't arbiters of moral virtue--they are there to interpret the law as it stands.
Anyways, the bottom line is that I think this girl is just pissed off that she is getting fucked over when she is actually the victim. I agree with her. But direct that anger at the school where it's wholly deserved.
You seem to be confusing "ruling that the school should not have removed the girl from her position" into "passing a new law stating schools cannot remove kids from positions in clubs". You do realize appeals courts cannot actually pass laws, right? As for this opening the door to "frivolous claims" nonsense (which is the same argument lawyers of fast food companies used, by the way), let them. I'd rather have 10 frivolous suits get struck down immediately in court than have 1 innocent victim's claims be quashed because some court (short of the Supreme Court, of course) thought it had the ultimate authority on what claims should be allowed to be heard before a court.
By the way, I disagree with the court's reasoning on entirely non-First Amendment related reasons. Their argument was intrinsically bizarre, as is even pointed out in the article. I mean, seriously, "mouthpiece through which the school could disseminate speech"? "Substantial interference with the work of the school"? This place sounds more like a Ministry of Truth propaganda factory than a United States high school.
|
Her coach must be a real bitch.
|
On October 27 2010 16:47 Disarray wrote:
technically its correct, however I fail to see how the fuck a felon would be allowed back at the same school
Very true. I think it's sad in so many ways.
She should've left herself anyway.
|
I fail to see how there was no restraining order placed at the original trial...
|
I hate how there can be 10 pages of posters, and so few people who actually understand what is going on. We all read the same article, how can understanding be so different?
It's all very he said - she said. Nobody knows what happened inside the room but the people in the room. Maybe they were trying to rape her and got scared off. Maybe she wanted one of them but didnt want the other one. Maybe she was trying to blackmail them.
At any rate, the first grand jury threw out the case, meaning there was insufficient evidence to even try the case. This is when he was allowed back to school, back onto the teams.
Second grand jury recommends the case goes forwards, he takes a plea. The charge is a Class A assault, and he was sentenced to a year. Rule of thumb is anything requiring jail time of a year is a felony, however it is not always true. Some felonies have shorter penalties and some misdemeanors have longer ones. Google says that in Texas a Class A assault is a misdemeanor. Even so, this is not sexual assault, and sexual assault is not rape. The thread title itself is actually very prejudicial given that the facts don't actually indicate that this guy is a rapist. Certainly, he COULD in fact be a rapist, but LEGALLY he is not; he is not even a felon. Putting that in the title is boardering on libel.
If you are going to be part of a group that does something, and then refuse to do what the group is for.... how can you be angry when you are removed from the group? She wanted to continue to be a cheerleader knowing that at some point she would have to cheer for him. Sure, he raped/assaulted/stared at her but where do you draw the line? Cheerleaders can just not cheer for whoever they do not like? That guy cheated on me? That guy asked the other girl out? etc etc.
Point is, weather or not he actually raped or sexually assaulted her IN FACT. He legally isn't even worse then a person who got a speeding ticket (legally, remember). And he has to be treated as such. The law protects people innocent people from being found guilty of some things, but unfortunately it also sometimes allows guilty people to walk. As a society, we determined that while tragic, this is the lesser evil.
|
On October 28 2010 08:53 infinitestory wrote:
What I don't get is how a juvenile sex offender managed to get into the same school as his victim AND get put into a position of some respect (basketball team player). If anything, after this situation emerged, the school (ethically) should have removed the rapist rather than the cheerleader, so in that sense the girl getting kicked off the cheerleading squad is wrong IMO
There seems to be a lot of confusion on the time line of events:
The alleged assault occurred in October of 2008. The accused were arrested and removed from their school (and allowed to attend an alternative school during the investigation.)
In January 2009, the grand jury refused to indict the accused. The accused, innocent until proven guilty, were allowed to return to their normal school.
In February 2009, the cheer-leading incident occurred.
In December 2009, a new grand jury was convened.
In September of 2010, one of the accused plead guilty to a lesser charge.
The article in the OP seems a bit misleading. This was a very controversial, racially charged case. The NAACP even came out in support of the accused, and demanded an investigation of the prosecutor's behavior.
|
Careful, the NAACP isn't really the ACLU or anything. Just because they support somebody doesn't mean anything other then the fact that the person supported is black.
|
On October 28 2010 11:54 Krigwin wrote:
There is no misunderstanding, you just appear to think courts should just be one guy holding up sheets of paper and reading the law by the letter. The whole reason why we have an entire judicial system is so that we can interpret the law and dole out judgments appropriate for the situation. The school in this case made a series of seriously questionable decisions which ultimately led to the removal of this girl from her cheer squad and the entire situation must be considered before rendering judgment on whether it was the school's right to do so...
...And you didn't provide any actual laws from Texas to back up your points here, and I'm guessing you're not, after all, Chief Justice, or even just a judge...
...By the way, I disagree with the court's reasoning on entirely non-First Amendment related reasons. Their argument was intrinsically bizarre, as is even pointed out in the article. I mean, seriously, "mouthpiece through which the school could disseminate speech"? "Substantial interference with the work of the school"? This place sounds more like a Ministry of Truth propaganda factory than a United States high school.
OK, I've edited some of your post so I can try to clear up some of the legal confusion here. Many of the posters are (understandably) confused about the scope of this decision, what it says, and what it does not say.
I'm glossing over many issues here for the sake of simplicity, but I'll try to keep the big picture on track. The specific decision here is the work of a federal appellate court. This federal court only ruled on the issue of whether the Attorney General, School District, Superintendent, Principal, Cheer Coach, etc. violated certain aspects of the girl's 1st or 14th amendment rights. The 1st amendment claim is the section of the opinion your "mouthpiece" and "substantial interference" quotes come from. It is important to note that the question in front of this court was limited to these constitutional claims. The court was not deciding the question "were the school board's actions correct?" It therefore makes no sense to state, as you do, that you disagree with their reasoning on non-1st amendment grounds when the only thing they are deciding is a 1st amendment claim. Texas state law does not apply here. This is a federal court deciding constitutional issues.
The girl does have some state law claims alluded to in the opinion. These could potentially include questions about whether the school's decisions were reasonable in light of their mandate/policies/state law, etc. These claims are presumably still pending in state court. This federal appellate decision does not address them.
|
On October 28 2010 12:26 aeyr wrote:
I fail to see how there was no restraining order placed at the original trial...
This is exactly what came to my mind when reading this. Either justice wasn't brought to this girl (for the "sexual assault" not the cheer-leading incident) or we're not hearing the entire story. After reading this article and seeing how blown out of proportion the timeline for this case is I'm leaning towards the latter.
|
At my school if you had missed any homework or your grades were low you could not participate in sport. I was the captain of our cricket team and got let off easy all the time. Not very fair, but shut like this happens all the time.
|
On October 28 2010 04:25 j2choe wrote:
Probably been said before, but I actually agree with the Court of Appeals here. The problem I see is that this isn't about the moral repugnance of sexual assault, but rather concerns whether an 'employee' (for lack of a better word) should be required to perform his or her job duties despite stressful personal reasons.
To judge that the girl should be allowed to refrain from cheering (essentially, her job duty) because of a personal reason, no matter how severe it might be, essentially makes the employer bear the penalty of the assaulter's act without justification. Also, the law works in terms of precedents, so you can't just look at the case at hand when making a call like this. A judgment in favour of H.B. here puts a lot of similar employers at risk because this case could be used as a precedent to shirk job responsibilities.
The free speech argument does not work because you waive those rights when you volunteer into a position that restrains speech. You don't sign up to be a cheerleader so you can just cheer however you want. Imagine a cheerleader spitefully cheering against her own team and using a free speech claim to justify her action. If such a claim succeeded, the result would be absurd because schools would be forced to hire cheerleaders that don't cheer for them. Finally, free speech claims can only be made against the state, and I'm not sure whether the school that the girl attends would meet that definition.
Anyways, I am not denying that what happened to the girl is repulsive. However, if her job requires her to do tasks that cause her mental stress and suffering that was not imposed by the employer, then I think the onus should be on her to leave the job rather than to force the employer to retain her.
I couldn't see this as a proper excuse for the school to do what they did, unless if this is a professional work. Do you get paid when you're becoming a cheerleader in this school?
Aside from that, in my work place, if case like this is happening involving employees (both the victim and the guy are employees), upon proven the guy will definitely fired without respect, all his benefit will also be forfeit. And also during the process I think the guy will be forced to work from home.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
That guy is a piece of trash. How can he have the audacity to not intervene into this and what the fuck is wrong with the students and teachers of that school that it is not HE but her who has to hide from social activities?
Even in an Islamic country women are treated with more respect.
|
On October 28 2010 18:47 Fenrax wrote:
That guy is a piece of trash. How can he have the audacity to not intervene into this and what the fuck is wrong with the students and teachers of that school that it is not HE but her who has to hide from social activities?
Even in an Islamic country women are treated with more respect.
You mean, not having freedom of religion nor freedom of speech?
Being only allowed to marrry another Moslem?
Not being allowed to go to school?
Yes. Sounds like they respect women more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
