PDA

View Full Version : Cheerleader must compensate school that told her to clap 'rapist'



Serpo
4th May 2011, 12:51 PM
Cheerleader must compensate school that told her to clap 'rapist'


By Guy Adams in Dallas

Wednesday, 4 May 2011





A teenage girl who was dropped from her high school's cheerleading squad after refusing to chant the name of a basketball player who had sexually assaulted her must pay compensation of $45,000 (£27,300) after losing a legal challenge against the decision.


The United States Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a review of the case brought by the woman, who is known only as HS. Lower courts had ruled that she was speaking for the school, rather than for herself, when serving on a cheerleading squad – meaning that she had no right to stay silent when coaches told her to applaud.

She was 16 when she said she had been raped at a house party attended by dozens of fellow students from Silsbee High School, in south-east Texas. One of her alleged assailants, a student athlete called Rakheem Bolton, was arrested, with two other young men.

In court, Bolton pleaded guilty to the misdemeanour assault of HS. He received two years of probation, community service, a fine and was required to take anger-management classes. The charge of rape was dropped, leaving him free to return to school and take up his place on the basketball team.

Four months later, in January 2009, HS travelled to one of Silsbee High School's basketball games in Huntsville. She joined in with the business of leading cheers throughout the match. But when Bolton was about to take a free throw, the girl decided to stand silently with her arms folded.

"I didn't want to have to say his name and I didn't want to cheer for him," she later told reporters. "I just didn't want to encourage anything he was doing."

Richard Bain, the school superintendent in the sport-obsessed small town, saw things differently. He told HS to leave the gymnasium. Outside, he told her she was required to cheer for Bolton. When the girl said she was unwilling to endorse a man who had sexually assaulted her, she was expelled from the cheerleading squad.

The subsequent legal challenge against Mr Bain's decision perhaps highlights the seriousness with which Texans take cheerleading and high school sports, which can attract crowds in the tens of thousands.

HS and her parents instructed lawyers to pursue a compensation claim against the principal and the School District in early 2009. Their lawsuit argued that HS's right to exercise free expression had been violated when she was instructed to applaud her attacker. But two separate courts ruled against her, deciding that a cheerleader freely agrees to act as a "mouthpiece" for a institution and therefore surrenders her constitutional right to free speech. In September last year, a federal appeals court upheld those decisions and announced that HS must also reimburse the school sistrict $45,000, for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit against it.

"As a cheerleader, HS served as a mouthpiece through which [the school district] could disseminate speech – namely, support for its athletic teams," the appeals court decision says. "This act constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, HS was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily."

The family's lawyer said the ruling meanst that students exercising their right of free speech can end up punished for refusing to follow "insensitive and unreasonable directions".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cheerleader-must-compensate-school-that-told-her-to-clap-rapist-2278522.html

Awoke
4th May 2011, 12:53 PM
Holy shit. Counter law suit?

vacuum
4th May 2011, 12:56 PM
Thats what you get for using the court system. Perhaps alternative methods would have yielded better results?

SLV^GLD
4th May 2011, 12:59 PM
I think it all fits, as sick as it is.
There is plenty of precedent that HS students lose a large degree of 1st amendment rights when they set foot on campus and those rights are still curtailed off campus by virtue of being enrolled in that school.
There should be no argument that being on the cheer leading squad is a privilege that may be revoked for any reason that is not just outright racial/sexual discrimination.
She got kicked off the cheer leading squad and decided she had a court case. The courts decided her case was lacking. The time and money the school spent defending itself came out of a very limited, tax-payer provided budget.
The school seems to have some grounds for wanting that money back.

Please do not shoot the messenger. I do empathize with the lack of humanity in the story. The brass tacks still have to be dealt with.

ximmy
4th May 2011, 01:20 PM
I think it all fits, as sick as it is.
There is plenty of precedent that HS students lose a large degree of 1st amendment rights when they set foot on campus and those rights are still curtailed off campus by virtue of being enrolled in that school.
There should be no argument that being on the cheer leading squad is a privilege that may be revoked for any reason that is not just outright racial/sexual discrimination.
She got kicked off the cheer leading squad and decided she had a court case. The courts decided her case was lacking. The time and money the school spent defending itself came out of a very limited, tax-payer provided budget.
The school seems to have some grounds for wanting that money back.

Please do not shoot the messenger. I do empathize with the lack of humanity in the story. The brass tacks still have to be dealt with.


sooo... you basically just said what vacuum said but took longer to say it...

Awoke
4th May 2011, 01:40 PM
Thats what you get for using the court system. Perhaps alternative methods would have yielded better results?


Such as this? (http://gold-silver.us/forum/general-discussion/german-man-castrates-teenage-daughter's-57-year-old-boyfriend/)

nunaem
4th May 2011, 01:52 PM
Sports fans are as despicable as rapists.


the sport-obsessed small town

Says it all, to sports fans any crime is tolerated if it is committed by their top affletes.

Spectrism
4th May 2011, 02:15 PM
Yes- alternative means for many avenues. Just amazing.

Book
4th May 2011, 02:24 PM
...she later told reporters. "I just didn't want to encourage anything he was doing."



http://womenpics.org/d/82801-2/Cheerleaders+in+blue+navy+short+shorts.JPG

:oo-->

ximmy
4th May 2011, 02:31 PM
...she later told reporters. "I just didn't want to encourage anything he was doing."



http://womenpics.org/d/82801-2/Cheerleaders+in+blue+navy+short+shorts.JPG

:oo-->


Men & boys cannot be held responsible for raping underage girls unless they are wearing burkas...

silver solution
4th May 2011, 02:33 PM
Sounds like double or triple rape.

Neuro
4th May 2011, 02:36 PM
Absolutely everything in that story stinks. EVERYTHING!

Publico Pro Se
4th May 2011, 03:13 PM
I'm assuming she filed a "Section 1983" lawsuit to enforce her constitutional rights. Section 1983 was passed as part of the "Civil Rights Act of 1871 (aka the Klu Klux Klan Act of 1871). The law had three actions. Two parts were for what is known as Sections 241 and 242 of the Criminal Code (Title 18). They provide for criminal responsibility "if two or more persons go upon the highway with the intent to deprive the constitutional rights of any person" (Section 241) and "whoever under color of law, regulation, custom deprives a person of any constitutional or statutory right" (Section 242).

The third section is Section 1983 (Title 42 USC Section 1983) is the civil lawsuit mirror of Section 242. A Section 1983 suit can be filed in either state or federal court of proper jurisdiction. (Can't file a 1983 complaint in family state court or in federal bankruptcy court, etc.) There are different rules of practice and procedures in state courts vs. federal courts that can influence the choice of which venue.

Under 42 USC 1987 the winning party to a Section 1983 claim can seek legal costs and expenses. This is what happened here. What I don't like about it is a jury should be the one imposing the costs not some politically connected judge.

This is from what I recall when I danced in the federal courts with the old man.

SLV^GLD
4th May 2011, 04:26 PM
sooo... you basically just said what vacuum said but took longer to say it...
Yeah, and if I hadn't taken longer mine would have likely come out ahead of his seeing as I was replying to Awoke without quoting him. But thanks for the sardonic observation! You can see how that response and this one add much greater depth to this thread.

ximmy
4th May 2011, 05:38 PM
sooo... you basically just said what vacuum said but took longer to say it...
Yeah, and if I hadn't taken longer mine would have likely come out ahead of his seeing as I was replying to Awoke without quoting him. But thanks for the sardonic observation! You can see how that response and this one add much greater depth to this thread.



and this one add much greater depth to this thread ::)