Posted on 10/05/2010 11:33:42 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
A former Silsbee, Texas, high school cheerleader did not have a First Amendment right to refuse to cheer for a basketball player she claimed had sexually assaulted her, a federal appeals court panel has ruled.
The student — known in court papers as H.S. — attended a party after a Silsbee High School football game in October 2008, when she was 16. She alleged that several individuals sexually assaulted her, including then-football players Rakheem Bolton, Christian Rountree and an unidentified juvenile.
In January 2009, a racially divided grand jury from Hardin County refused to indict the players, who did not have criminal records. (Later, some of the players were indicted.)
H.S. said that school officials ordered her to cheer for Bolton, who also played on the basketball team, at a February 2009 game. H.S. cheered for the team, but refused to cheer for Bolton individually. She said that Richard Bain Jr., the superintendent of schools, and Gail Lokey, who was the principal at Silsbee High, ordered her to cheer for Bolton when the other cheerleaders cheered or go home. H.S. refused, left the game, and was subsequently dismissed from the squad by cheerleading coach Sissy McInnis.
In May 2009, H.S.’s parents — known in court papers as John and Jane Doe — sued District Attorney David Sheffield, Silsbee Independent School District, Superintendent Bain, Principal Lokey and McInnis. H.S.’s parents argued that Sheffield violated the First Amendment by retaliating against H.S. for filing sexual-assault charges by revealing details about the case to the public.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstamendmentcenter.org ...
being compelled to speak is a VIOLATION of the first amendment!!
What is disgusting - The 5th’s ruling?
Talking about a hostile environment.
one can’t help but wonder why a sexual assault victim would even remain on the cheerleading squad in the first place, knowing that there would at least be close proximity with her attackers.
such devotion to the sport kinda undermines her original complaint
>>>What is disgusting - The 5th’s ruling?
That, and a whole lot of other things...
Grow up sister - this is the new-normal without God.
Don't forget who the victim is - should she have to give up something that gives her some joy in life? The problem is, her attackers got off scot free - thus there's no crime in the eyes of the court. The ruling is therefore not unexpected.
There’s no first amendment right when you are a cheerleader. What if the cheerleader wanted to cheer for the other team? What if she wanted to make a political statement, using her platform in a way it wasn’t intended? What if she wanted to lead a riot?
This isn’t a case where the school handed someone a microphone and said, “say whatever you want, except...” She’s in a uniform with a group of other students in the same uniform. The court’s decision is correct.
The school and the parents could have handled this situation a LOT better. There were multiple ways to work this out without going to court over it.
why? Her participation is voluntary and is subject to compliance with rules or she’s gone. The first amendment doe not apply to this situation.
Blame the victim.....nice.
What is she supposed to do in your eyes? Quit cheerleading and remain indoors until graduation?
The puzzling thing is that the assailant is still able to play basketball. Doesn’t the girl have any male relatives?
Her attacker got off without any punishment!!!!!
Surely there is a way to see that she does not have to cheer for the person who assaulted her?
Where is the common sense?
Respect for the law?
About as much as I have for the Obamaloon.
The law is an ass.
As well as a measurable number of those of practice it.
(And no, I’ve not had any run ins with any law official.)
I think it’s sad that H.S. doesn’t have a father at home. A real shame.
1. She never would have been out at no late night party if she had.
2. There would be no boy to cheer for if she had.
Does a Cheerleader cheer for herself, or for the school? Seems to me that if she’s part of a school team - she has a choice to be either on the team, or not.
My question is simple. If there was a sexual assault made, where charges pressed? If charges were pressed, and there was evidence, then wouldn’t the offenders be in prison?
If charges were not pressed, why not? Or, are we to simply to ‘just take her word for it?; and presume the players are guilty as charged?
Something doesn’t smell right.
Where is the National Organization of Women? Where is Gloria Allred?
Could a student be forced to say GDammit in a school play even if it against that student's morals?
I do not understand your premise. You cheer for a collective not an individual. I guess she could have cheered “Go bears except #55”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.