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.
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.