Posted on 10/05/2010 11:33:42 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
When did I judge you? I simply noted you were judging the cheerleader. You are illogical and not worth responding to.
So you admit that you decide things without making a judgment, LOL?
Yeah, he plead down. Wasnt convicted of rape, wasnt tried for assault. Maybe you should read the story before supporting your own stupid prejudices.
Nowhere did I support the basketball player. I said the court couldnt legally regard the basketball player as a rapist. From the evidence the court had to go on, it really doesnt matter why she chose not to cheer. She was on the team, then she broke the rules of the team (whether the school should have been more courteous is another issue) and was removed, then she took the school to court. This is not a 1st Amendment Issue speech issue. You could say it is an assembly issue, but there is no guarantee in the Constitution that when you assemble with someone, that they have to keep you forever.
>>Her attacker got off without any punishment!!!!!<<
That’s not an issue involving the school.
>>she does not have to cheer for the person who assaulted her?<<
Stay home or quit.
>>Where is the common sense?<<
Lacking in your response here.
This is NOT a constitutional issue. Just because things don’t work out how YOU want them to doesn’t mean its correct to run to the courts and scream a right has been violated.
>>Could a student be forced to say GDammit in a school play even if it against that student’s morals? <<
I’ll respond to this as soon as you can show me any play that has ever been done in a primary or secondary school with that word in it.
>>The problem here is that she is being compelled to speak. <<
No, she’s not. There’s no compelling going on here. She is free to quit. But once she puts on the school cheerleader uniform, she is expected to cheer for the school. That includes the people that are playing the sport. If she feels she can’t do that, she can resign.
Acquiescing to the rules is NOT the same as being compelled to act. You can’t go play tennis wearing a football helmet, pads, and desiring to tackle your opponent. You have to play tennis or quit. You are not being compelled to do anything. Any other conclusion here is silly.
>>your “lead a riot” example is not 1st Amendment activity, but an outright crime.<<
Show me a statute that says that. Whether it is or not, it starts with speech. My point was that there is no absolute right to anything.
>>Saying “You don’t have to cheer for your rapist” is not the same as saying “You have a 1st Amendment right to do whatever you want whenever you want while cheering.”<<
This makes no sense. The court said she didn’t have a first amendment right (read, free speech right) when she is in a cheerleader uniform at a school event. The ruling was correct.
>>the fact that the school pushed the issue is just downright sick.<<
As I stated earlier, I think this could and should have been worked out better, but it seems she pushed as hard as the school did. They should have let her off the squad during basketball season, but it appears she didn’t want that — she wanted to be there and lodge her own protest to make a statement. She can do that on her own time, but not the schools’, and the school no more has to allow it than they have to allow you or me to hijack government and give a rant on Obama.
>>Your reply is exactly what is wrong with this country...too many “what ifs” and no right or wrong.<<
Stupid comments like this are why I quit coming to this site regularly. While difficult to respond to because of its stupidity, I’ll try: 1) there’s no inconsistency between “what ifs” and right and wrong; 2) the statement is clearly incorrect: I stated the court decision was right. How much more right vs. wrong do I need to be? 3) the school does not exist to allow everyone to have their own mouthpiece, nor does it exist to remedy every perceived wrong. Finally, 4) we have a separate justice system where people decide guilt or innocence, not the victims or alleged victims themselves. She doesn’t get to make the decision regarding guilt or punishment.
If that isn’t enough, you ignore those who don’t agree with your version of right and wrong. Is that concept really that difficult to understand, or are you so emotionally wrapped up in the issue, you don’t care? THAT is the definition of being a liberal today.
Don’t know that answer but there are schools that stage the musical Hair WITH the nudity.
And just what “stupid prejudices” do I have? He pled guilty to assault, which is the same thing as being convicted. I don’t really give a damn about the cheerleader, I just have a problem with convicted criminals being on a high school team.
I think you are probably right in not wanting it to change her. I was raped in HS, by someone I’d known since first grade, at a party (not out all night, not a ‘late’ party, just a group of friends hanging out together), after he said “It’s a nice night, let’s talk a walk.” I didn’t lead him on, we weren’t dating, nothing happened before this, not even a kiss. I never said anything to anyone about it, never told anyone. And I continued to go to school, even being in some classes with him. Because I refused to let his actions dictate my own, or allow this incident to change my life.
I think you are probably right in not wanting it to change her. I was raped in HS, by someone I’d known since first grade, at a party (not out all night, not a ‘late’ party, just a group of friends hanging out together), after he said “It’s a nice night, let’s talk a walk.” I didn’t lead him on, we weren’t dating, nothing happened before this, not even a kiss. I never said anything to anyone about it, never told anyone. And I continued to go to school, even being in some classes with him. Because I refused to let his actions dictate my own, or allow this incident to change my life.
You called him a rapist when he was not convicted of rape, and only pled to assault. That would be a stupid prejudice (without proof, you judge people based on what they are accused of).
The point of the article is whether the girl had a Constitutional right to not cheer, so if you dont care about the cheerleader, you should start another thread to talk about the basketball player.
I’m sorry you went through that. May God bless you.
Maybe some other FReepers would like to join me in making these two really uncomfortable?
Richard Bain Jr., Superintendent, Silsbee Independent School District, rbain@silsbeeisd.org; (409) 980-7800
Principal, Silsbee High School, efranco@silsbeeisd.org; (409) 980-7800
If she believed someone raped her, why didn’t she file a protective order against him? That would prevent the school from ordering her anywhere near him.
If my daughter was raped by a current player of a basketball team, I would not allow her to join that basketball team’s cheerleading squad. Never. Not at all. I find it strange that anyone would allow their daughter to knowingly associate with her alleged rapist.
Good grief, he RAPED SOMEBODY.
For her, maybe this was an act of defiance against her rapist.
Maybe she felt that giving up cheering would be like giving up, like being victimized all over again.
Maybe she and her parents expected a civilized society to lock a rapist up (or at least get him off the basketball team), not make him an object of approval.
Maybe they never considered that a coach would mentally abuse their daughter and get away with it.
I don't know how she felt. Neither do you. Neither one of us has been raped and then told to cheer for our rapist.
Get back to me when you can tell the difference between a criminal and an innocent citizen OK?
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.