Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

Re:Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme ... by MelvinButtsESQ on Monday April 26, 2021 @03:08PM (#26946648)

I'm reading she essentially agreed to a contract in the form of the "team rules" and then violated those rules for which she was held accountable. This isn't a free speech issue, it is a contractual issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme ... by tclancy on Monday April 26, 2021 @03:13PM (#26946713)

You need to be 18 in PA to legally sign a binding contract as best I can tell. https://law.jrank.org/pages/11848/Legal-Ages.html

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme ... by kube-system on Monday April 26, 2021 @03:17PM (#26946760)

Contract law is not ultimate. If your contract violates other laws, or is missing elements of a valid contract, then it could be invalidated.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme ... by agloeregrets on Monday April 26, 2021 @04:16PM (#26947492)

Super iffy for two general reasons:

1: She could not legally sign that contract 2: The cheerleading team is ultimately an extension of the government (as it is part of a government institution).

By literal means, the state is punishing someone for what is ultimately private, off-campus speech. A lawyer with goals in life would see that as a case worth fighting.

[ Parent | on HN ]