Endovelicus Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cheerleader-must-compensate-school-that-told-her-to-clap-rapist-2278522.html 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. The family's lawyer said the ruling means that students exercising their right of free speech can end up punished for refusing to follow "insensitive and unreasonable directions". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheels Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Pah mere pennies to Atholl Streets finest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endovelicus Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 The money's irrelevant. The fact that the poor kid was punished for refusing to cheer and applaud her rapist is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I could be reading it wrong but she and her parents took a law suit against the school and lost and now they have to pay compensation? If that's correct don't see the problem, if she has been made to pay the cash because she refuse to cheer then yes it is out of order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endovelicus Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 1. Because he was a promising basketball player, a bit of legal chicanery meant that the rape charge was dropped and he was able to plead guilty to a 'misdemeanour assault.' That was totally wrong. 2. The girl was expelled from the cheerleading squad for refusing to cheer the man who'd raped her. That was totally wrong. 3. The Texan courts - who seem to be more concerned with sporting success than justice for someone who suffered a serious assault - have been joined in that disgusting view by the Supreme Court. Thommo2010 - I understand that you're a (male) member of the local constabulary. I only hope that if something of that kind ever happened to me, that you wouldn't be the one to interview me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 1. Because he was a promising basketball player, a bit of legal chicanery meant that the rape charge was dropped and he was able to plead guilty to a 'misdemeanour assault.' That was totally wrong. 2. The girl was expelled from the cheerleading squad for refusing to cheer the man who'd raped her. That was totally wrong. 3. The Texan courts - who seem to be more concerned with sporting success than justice for someone who suffered a serious assault - have been joined in that disgusting view by the Supreme Court. Thommo2010 - I understand that you're a (male) member of the local constabulary. I only hope that if something of that kind ever happened to me, that you wouldn't be the one to interview me. What I said was if you read it properly is I took the article to mean the girl and her family took the school to court for unfair dismissal and lost the case and had to pay the legal costs. I also said if that wasn't the case and the school sued her for not cheering then it is out of order. What's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 1. Because he was a promising basketball player, a bit of legal chicanery meant that the rape charge was dropped and he was able to plead guilty to a 'misdemeanour assault.' That was totally wrong. 2. The girl was expelled from the cheerleading squad for refusing to cheer the man who'd raped her. That was totally wrong. 3. The Texan courts - who seem to be more concerned with sporting success than justice for someone who suffered a serious assault - have been joined in that disgusting view by the Supreme Court. Thommo2010 - I understand that you're a (male) member of the local constabulary. I only hope that if something of that kind ever happened to me, that you wouldn't be the one to interview me. I was under the impression that the Police, whilst having to investigate an accusation, are supposed to be impartial. It's not like there has never been a false rape accusation before.......oh wait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endovelicus Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 1. Because he was a promising basketball player, a bit of legal chicanery meant that the rape charge was dropped and he was able to plead guilty to a 'misdemeanour assault.' That was totally wrong. 2. The girl was expelled from the cheerleading squad for refusing to cheer the man who'd raped her. That was totally wrong. 3. The Texan courts - who seem to be more concerned with sporting success than justice for someone who suffered a serious assault - have been joined in that disgusting view by the Supreme Court. Thommo2010 - I understand that you're a (male) member of the local constabulary. I only hope that if something of that kind ever happened to me, that you wouldn't be the one to interview me. What I said was if you read it properly is I took the article to mean the girl and her family took the school to court for unfair dismissal and lost the case and had to pay the legal costs. I also said if that wasn't the case and the school sued her for not cheering then it is out of order. What's the problem? Sorry Thommo - my mistake. I read it quickly and got it wrong. My apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 1. Because he was a promising basketball player, a bit of legal chicanery meant that the rape charge was dropped and he was able to plead guilty to a 'misdemeanour assault.' That was totally wrong. 2. The girl was expelled from the cheerleading squad for refusing to cheer the man who'd raped her. That was totally wrong. 3. The Texan courts - who seem to be more concerned with sporting success than justice for someone who suffered a serious assault - have been joined in that disgusting view by the Supreme Court. Thommo2010 - I understand that you're a (male) member of the local constabulary. I only hope that if something of that kind ever happened to me, that you wouldn't be the one to interview me. What I said was if you read it properly is I took the article to mean the girl and her family took the school to court for unfair dismissal and lost the case and had to pay the legal costs. I also said if that wasn't the case and the school sued her for not cheering then it is out of order. What's the problem? Sorry Thommo - my mistake. I read it quickly and got it wrong. My apologies. No worries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheels Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Would it not have been cheaper to employ a local meth head to 'bust a cap' in the players ass' as the colonials are fond of phrasing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.