(TX) Cheerleader must compensate school that told her to clap 'rapist'

[kpete]

Source: Independent UK

Cheerleader must compensate school that told her to clap 'rapist'
By Guy Adams in Dallas
Wednesday, 4 May 2011SHARE PRINTEMAILTEXT SIZE NORMALLARGEEXTRA LARGE

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.

...............





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

[RKP5637]

1. Yet another WTF moment. n/t

[Solly Mack]

2. K&R

[no_hypocrisy]

3. She not only should appeal, but make an application to the trial court for the school to pay HER

attorneys fees. The Supreme Court didn't rule AGAINST her; it just passed on ruling for or against either party.

[rfranklin]

13. The ruling sticks because they passed on it...

She is out of luck. Maybe if Oprah or some other celebrity takes her side they can win in a PR war but otherwise this travesty stands.

[jberryhill]

72. Which means the appellate decision stands

You can't "appeal" from a denial of certiori.

[blondeatlast]

104. Once you get to SCOTUS, it's do or die. nt

[kelly1mm]

127. What court is she supposed to appeal to? This was the US Supreme Court. nt

[SpiralHawk]

154. Republicon Family Cesspool Values -- strikes again

And once again, Republicon 'values' give us degenerate, perverted injustice.

[niyad]

4. this is beyond sickening

[atreides1]

5. It figures...Texas

[Chris_Texas]

15. Those damn "soft on crime" Texans!

Oh... wait.

Here's a thought for you. Just because a state votes mostly one way or another means very little in the real world. Further, just because someone is a political opponent does not mean that they are, in all ways, evil. When you make comments that imply that they are you look ignorant to all reasonable people.

Further, keep your talking points straight. Sometime this week it is likely that someone will post a thread criticizing the almost lunatic tough on crime insanity Texas is now famous for -- perhaps a starving shoplifter stealing from a dumpster getting thirty to life or some such, and everyone will say, "Well yeah, that's Texas, that's the prison industry police state..." And when they do, you will be right there nodding along, oblivious to the hypocrisy.

[Wednesdays]

31. I'm in Oklahoma, and I cringe at some of the crap legislated here

Since I'm totally against such crap legislation, I don't take it personally when someone says, "Figures...it's in Oklahoma," since I never voted for the cretins in the first place.

[kentauros]

44. However,

what you are not taking into consideration is that Oklahoma doesn't get even a tenth of the hate on it as Texas does. For whatever weird reasons, there are members here that will never forgive us for Bush or any of a number of other idiots to come out of our state. Nevermind the good people to come from here, we are to be hated and punished for the slightest transgression.

I don't see that happening with any other state on this site, save for Florida. They're a close second for the same kind of attention.

So try and forgive us for constantly being on edge around here. We put up with more shit than any other state residents on DU.

[Chris_Texas]

59. No doubt about that.

[avebury]

76. Many people are also upset with the control

that Texas has over textbooks. Whenever I hear about Texas forcing textbooks to be rewritten to reflect attempts to rewrite history or to impose their ultraconservative views on the masses it makes me cringe and glad that I don't have children in school.

[kentauros]

82. On that issue

blame must be shared with the publishers. They are the ones saying it's okay to use Texas' idea of "history" because they can't be bothered to switch to POD (print on demand) for all the other states.

Someone on a GD thread mentioned that their children's school uses Kindles now instead of physical textbooks. If more schools switched to that, the writing of the textbooks could be handled by each state, instead of just a handful due to antiquated publishing methods.

[JDPriestly]

169. Sorry. I didn't even notice this was about Oklahoma or Texas.

Now don't mention Iowans.

(I'm originally from Iowa. Every state gets a razzing from time to time. Nothing wrong with Oklahomans.) Texans? I'm not so sure. And there are those Californians. What a bunch.

[ScreamingMeemie]

170. Well...I'm here now (from MI) and I like y'all.

:hi:

[garthranzz]

233. Hey, you gave us Molly Ivins!

That counts for a whole lot, in my book.

[Nevernose]

273. The Bush family is from New England

Nixon and Reagan were from California and Illinois. The John Birch Society was started in Wisconsin or Minnesota. There was a mosque defaced in Maine yesterday. The Oakland police are known for their "tough on crime" attitude. That asshole congressman Steve King is from Iowa. And the list goes on and on and on...

But it's ALWAYS "figures that happened in Texas" or sometimes, if the poster is feeling especially (and totally ignorantly) geographically bigoted, "I assumed it happened somewhere in the South."

[primavera]

352. You're in good company

There are a lot of us who live in scary red states. Don't forget all of the crap that South Dakota's gotten over its anti-women legislation, or Kansas, or even California for having elected the Gropenfuehrer. I live in New Orleans, do you imagine I'm proud of MY state? New Orleans is a pretty cool and relatively liberal place, but I'm the first to admit that the rest of the state are a bunch of inbred, redneck, cross-burning wingnuts. People on DU know that there are good people in even the scariest of red states, but that doesn't mean that the state as a whole isn't still doing some pretty frightening shit.

[RaleighNCDUer]

145. WTF?

It's fucking TEXAS - where the little people are ground up and spat out, where the courts support the powers that be - in this case, the AUTHORITY of a school and coach to degrade a woman.

Yeah, IT'S FUCKING TEXAS.

[valerief]

22. +1

[readmoreoften]

181. You mean, it figures, US Supreme Court?

:shrug:

[One_Life_To_Give]

6. Sue her attorney for bad advice?

The case itself sucks. But I havn't seen anyone here argue that she legally had the right to refuse to Cheer without consequence. Most of us would make an exception in a case such as this. But pursuing a legal challenge might win in the court of public opinion, but not in the courtroom. Atleast based on what I have read.

[Wednesdays]

35. True, the school could argue that cheerleading is a privilege, not a right

However, what is "legal" may not always be what's morally right. The only way the school could exonerate itself, in my eyes, is if it never knew of the rape when all this was happening.

Barring that, the school has all the compassion of Vlad the Impaler.

[RaleighNCDUer]

146. And since the asshole had been arrested and then returned to the team,

they ALL knew about it.

Not just her, not her and the coach, not her, the coach and the team - the whole fucking school knew what was being demanded of her.

[MedicalAdmin]

166. Time for a title 9 challenge.

Just my opinion.

[iverglas]

202. agreed

This young woman's ability to participate in school sports was subject to serious interference. I'm not at all familiar with the ins and outs of Title IX, but some form of discrimination complaint, based on the hostile atmosphere she was forced to tolerate if she wished to engage in ordinary school activities, is surely appropriate.

She was entitled to accommodation, and whether that meant removing the young man from the team, not including his name in the names to be applauded, allowing her an alternative activity, whatever, she was entitled to be considered over him.

Sadly, her "sport" of choice is cheerleading ... an integral part of the whole woman-as-haidmaiden culture in the first place.

[Chris_Texas]

37. Yep

[rpannier]

7. I see where the school's priorities lay

[BlueIris]

8. Two years of probation, community service, a fine and was required to take anger-management classes.

And he still got his victim to clap for him.

I'd say justice was done.

:sarcasm:

[vduhr]

87. AND...

The rape charge was dropped! WTF!

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chervilant]

118. What?

"Boys will be boys"? "Maybe her skirt was too short"? "Maybe she was asking for it"? "No really means yes"?

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RedCloud]

159. And yet the grand jury was "hung"

[sulphurdunn]

168. His Guilt? Innocence?

What does any of that have to do with the girl's decision not to do a little rah-rah-rah-mouthpiece-ziff-boom-bah for a guy she obviously despises for some reason?

The real issue is that anyone would expect the kid to do cartwheels for someone who'd been accused of raping her and then plea bargained a lesser charge.

Oh yea. What the fuck does a black athlete getting a BJ from a white girl have to do with any of this either? Are they some how related? Are you suggesting this might be about race rather than rape? Because if it was about race the boy would be doing hard time and the girl would still be a cheerleader. Seems more likely to be about rape and the prerogatives of high school athletes in bum-fuck Texas.

[readmoreoften]

183. If he forced her to give him a blow job, he's a rapist. If she wanted to give him a blow job,

he's a guy that got a blow job. So, yes, if he forced her I consider him a rapist. If he didn't, I don't.

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Quasimodem]

271. It's statutory blow job ...

... but the courts have no sense of humor.

[hamsterjill]

140. AND...

He's being allowed to play basketball. And please do not tell me that coaches can't decide who plays and who doesn't play.

I'm betting he's a hot shot player of some sort. Winning is everything, of course! (Sarcasm intended).

[RaleighNCDUer]

147. Or the Mayor's nephew. nt

[marions ghost]

135. Exactly.

Justice in America is very elusive. People often have no idea how the system works against the victims of certain crimes. Maybe the case will help people who are shocked by this come to grips with the lack of real avenues for correction. Perpetrators walk away more often than not.

[slackmaster]

9. I don't understand this ruling, and I'm not even going to try.

I have too much other stuff going on in my life right now.

[BladesOfAiur]

10. "Texas. It's like a whole other country"

A country I would NOT want live in. DISGUSTING.

[teabaghater]

110. That's why I laugh

when I see those "Come to Texas" tourism ads. Yeah, great place.

[Art_from_Ark]

390. Big Bend National Park is one of the most fantastic places

I have ever visited. I would visit it again if I could. But living in the state might be a different matter.

[MasonJar]

11. Amazing! The school insisted she clap for someone who had raped her?

[Eric J in MN]

12. This case shows the problem with forcing people who sue to pay for "frivolous lawsuits."

Just because a right-wing idiot thinks a lawsuit is "frivolous" doesn't mean it really is "frivolous."

[jberryhill]

73. Ding, ding, ding... we have a winnner /nt

[kelly1mm]

129. Really? Do you feel the same about SLAPP suits? nt

[tblue37]

156. But I WANT Righthaven to have to pay DU's legal fees! nt

[Taverner]

14. You shoulda THANKED that boyah, I say. THANKED him foh lettin yuh still cheer

Nowah go be a good girl and give him a hug. A hug, I sayah.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

16. this exemplifies contempt for female existence

I don't even want to say "Sexism", because that word has become useless....it carries no righteous clout, it seems.

I want some human rights/women's rights organisation to take up the cause here!

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chervilant]

120. Why

am I NOT surprised that you are an apologist for patriarchy?!? EVERYONE is diminished by patriarchy, including the 'alpha' males who think it's a justifiable social construct.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mojeoux]

141. Where in the Article does it say anything about 3 female employees???

It was the school super.

You SUCK!

[tblue37]

157. Because there never was such a thing as a Kapo--and female genital mutilation

is not committed mainly by women on behalf of the patriarchy? And women never bound their daughters' feet in old China?

[AtheistCrusader]

172. Victim's family agreed to the lesser charge against the boy as well.

It would be helpful if the guy had actually been charged with and found guilty of rape.

[iverglas]

206. I agreed to a sentence of four years when I was the victim

After a trial, he might have got double that or more.

Sometimes it just doesn't seem worth either the risk of an acquittal (triers of fact can be capricious, unpredictable animals) or the stress of the trial.

There isn't really any reason for the case to be viewed differently either way, unless what happened in fact was as truly minor as an unwanted kiss.

[AtheistCrusader]

208. I know there's risk.

I know it's absolutely brutal to be called as a witness as well. She/her family probably made the right call for themselves, but damn, I really hate to see these sorts of charges pled down, if there's merit.

I don't see much in these news articles about the facts as presented to the court.

[iverglas]

209. ah, on that aspect

but damn, I really hate to see these sorts of charges pled down, if there's merit.

... I absolutely agree. I'd thought you were more suggesting that if there had been a conviction on the more serious charge there would be more substance to her complaint.

[Mojeoux]

139. NO the first school rep to give her a hard time was RICHARD BAIN the

School Superintendent.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mojeoux]

138. I agree. This is CRAP. So What if it was 3 female employees and 3 women sit

on the court. Misogyny is not just a man's affliction. Many women want the old patriarchy back with a passion. Because they are women, does that make them right? You are right when you say this is a human rights issue.

So did all 3 women on the SC vote against this young woman? This is Bullshit!

[Chris_Texas]

17. Let's review the case

1. She agreed to be a cheerleader knowing that this guy was on the team and that she would be expected to cheer for him.

2. She waited until a game to refuse

3. She was then verbally corrected, and told that she could either cheer or leave the squad.

4. She stilll refused and was kicked off the squad for failing to fulfill the job requirements.

5. Then SHE sued the school, demanding money and claiming that she should be able to remain a cheerleader who refuses to cheer.

6. The courts ruled, correctly and repeatedly, that she was the one who had violated her agreement.


It really is that simple. It is not the school's place nor job to assign punishment for this sexual assault. That is the job of the courts. They did so, assigning a punishment that they felt was appropriate for this case. The Basketball player completed this punishment.

[peacebird]

21. so you are saying she should give up her highschool dreams of cheerleading?

Really? You are saying - you have been raped, now CHEER for him, or don't become a cheerleader? You do of course know that many girls dream of being on the squad? Why should she have to give up her dreams? There should have been some accomodation possible in this instance that did not require her to cheer for her rapist. Let her be getting a glass of gatorade when he is being announced, something....

[Chris_Texas]

27. Again, to review....

1. She was not raped. That is a different crime. She was sexually assaulted in some unknown way. One might suspect that it was a fairly minor way because in Texas, black men who rape girls don't get a slap on the wrist. However, the crime is irrelevant.

2. This is not a case about her right to be a cheerleader. It is a case about free speech. She is claiming that she has the right to remain a cheerleader and that she also has the right to perform or not, at her own discretion, with no repurcussions.

3. The courts, for obvious reasons, disagreed.

As with many cases that go to court the questions are complicated and the answers rarely completely satisfy anyone. Cheerleaders have a JOB that they agree to do. They are entertainers. They don't have to do it of course, but then they do not get to remain as cheerleaders. The same would apply if this girl were starring in the school play, would she be allowed to remain in that role if she refused to perform because this guy was in the audience? Obviously not -- she either goes out there and says her lines or her understudy goes out in her place.

[kag]

75. Chris, I actually think you've made some...

interesting points. I know we all want "justice" for the cheerleader, and we all feel compassion for her. How can we not? But it is very difficult to read through this story and stay objective. I actually appreciate your thoughts in that respect.

I do, however, take exception to one of your points. Having been born and raised and lived my life until adulthood in Texas, I am fairly certain that men (black or otherwise) who rape girls CAN INDEED get off with a slap on the wrist on the condition that that rapist is an athlete. Athletes in Texas and many states, if they are talented enough in their sport, can get away with A LOT. I've seen it happen. It's sad for everyone, including the athlete, but it does happen.

[ashleyforachange]

92. Agree with slap on the wrist....

a lot of rapists are slapped are the wrist. All it takes is the great a ability to throw a ball or money or both and there you go.

[Chris_Texas]

95. Fair enough.

I really should not have added that actually. It's not relevant to this girl's claim.

Really, adding it was more my way of saying, "Y'all need to git your Texas hate talkin' points in order." It was a distraction.

[bbdad]

399. I seriously doubt that many football fans have compassion ...

... for the cheerleader. After all, athletes can do no wrong. They rule.

[trud]

90. feeling sick

a "fairly minor sexual assault?" Yeah, sure. Here's a clue - there is no such thing.

[Lance_Boyle]

107. Sexual assault on a minor was the charge.

What is unknown is whether the original charge that the grand jury declined was rape or "statutory rape" which is not a violent crime (and should really be renamed).

[iverglas]

200. can you point me to that fact?

1. She was not raped.

He was convicted of sexual assault on what I take to be a plea agreement. The fact that he was not convicted of rape does not mean she was not raped.

Plea agreements that accept a guilty plea to a lesser charge are quite common, and often make no sense, logically. Someone can plead guilty to a charge of possession of a much smaller quantity of a narcotic than they actually had, be given a ticket for driving at a lower speed than they were actually driving at, etc.

Unless we know that she was not raped in fact, it should not be stated as such.

[Sivafae]

228. It just seems more and more, that High School kids DON'T have free speech

While I understand what your points are. However, in describing it a job, you are forgetting that this is an after-school activity as well; not a full-fledged professional position. There has to be some room to make mistakes because these are not professionals. If it came to light that indeed crimes were being alledged by the cheerleader, you can bet you bottom dollar that if it were a professional position, both of them would have been put on adminstrative leave until the matter was reviewed and settled.

I think that the Title 9 position would have been far more productive rather than a free speech position.

Another thought; if she is representing the school, doesn't that also include herself? Or is she just representing everyone else besides herself? What if she wasn't the only girl on campus that the athlete took liberties with?

[That Guy 888]

231. Did you read the link in the OP?

1. She was not raped. That is a different crime. She was sexually assaulted in some unknown way. One might suspect that it was a fairly minor way because in Texas, black men who rape girls don't get a slap on the wrist. However, the crime is irrelevant.

Legally speaking we do not know if she was raped or if she wasn't. What we do know, is that her assailant was convicted of Sexual Assault. That conviction was the result of a Plea Agreement which in my non-professional understanding is usually to a lesser charge, in this case sexual assault instead of rape. Do we know how or why this came about? No we do not. Maybe the DA thought he couldn't get a rape conviction and was able to convince rakheem bolton's lawyer to get his client to plead to a lesser charge in exchange for almost no penalties (two years of probation, community service, a fine and a requirement to take anger-management classes).

To put it in a historical context, Al Capone went to prison for income tax evasion. Does that mean he didn't commit murder, conspiracy to commit murder, producing and selling alcohol during prohibition, or bribing public officials?

She waited until a game to refuse

Actually she waited until she had to specifically cheer for her assailant when he was making a free-throw.

From the link at the OP:

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.

To me HS's school officials could have taken any number of actions, perhaps having her sit out the rest of the game and calmly and rationally coming to an amicable agreement (assuming that's not a right reserved for "Star" athletes/rapists) However that is not what happened.

again from the link in the OP

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 fact that many people find this legal decision repugnant seems to have got your Texas up. I live here too. In my experience this combines two of the things I like least about Texas:

Athletes are Gawds! - How many schools near you have lost focus on their key mission - EDUCATION - in order to pursue higher athletic standards?

and

Tough but Fair - i.e. really screwing someone over with a strict reading of the rules in spite of common sense and common decency telling you it's not the way to go. Usually this is applied with a bit of subtle sadism.

[valerief]

23. The school could have just let her refuse to cheer him and everyone would have saved time

and money. She was 16. You'd think the adults would know better.

[Chris_Texas]

28. That decision is not within the scope of the court's power

Nor was that the question the court's were presented. This girl claimed that she had the constitutional right to perform or not perform, at HER discretion, based entirely upon her personal views of individual players, and that the school had no right in this regard.

This is a laughable position for her to take. It's an unfortunate situation, obviously, but the courts ruled correctly.

[valerief]

33. If they hadn't kicked her off the squad, she wouldn't have sued. The adults should have

known better. They should have let her not cheer and kept her on the squad.

Your lack of empathy is amazing. School games are not really important.

[Chris_Texas]

39. You need to think this through a bit more.

[valerief]

88. Why shouldn't the school have let her refuse to cheer and kept her on the squad?

What's the risk?

[Chris_Texas]

217. That's a question outside the scope of this discussion.

This thread is about how "terrible" this ruling supposedly was.

In any case, while not an answer to your question, you might also ask why she sued the school (seeking, presumably, compensatory damages) rather than suing her attacker in civil court for damages including the loss of her position on the team. Why the school instead of the boy?

And now to answer your question: I don't know. Perhaps they felt that this was the easier route, perhaps it was the least expensive in terms of court costs (since it really is a silly case), perhaps her bahavior went beyond what we are aware of and they felt that she was no longer a good fit for the team (note that the other cheerleaders, who are no doubt aware of the entire situation, did not join in her protest and so far as I know have not had much to say in her defense). Again, we really don't know.

[stevenleser]

225. No, it's not. This is not a purely legal discussion. n/t

[sumsmum]

402. good question, what is the risk?

Cheerleaders, apparantly are expected to represent their schools/teams/community, whereas the athletes who make the real money are under no such "contract" to represent anything except their own egos. The risk of not throwing her off the team was that it would lent credence to the fact that if the standard was not a double one, the young man would have been kicked off the team for not representing the school/team/community. To hold this young woman to some standard that included the DUTY of having to cheer her rapist's name while allowing the rapist to play on the team at all is just another indication that things are way screwed up in our world. Anyone ever see the movie Koyanisquatsi? This story would make a great final scene... Regardless of whether the girl had ever even pressed charges, she certainly had the RIGHT to refuse to cheer for him. Calling cheerleading a job that demands such an act as if it were comparable to a surgeon refusing to save the life of a person of another color or religion takes the idea of school sports, or sports at all to some level it does not deserve. Pharmacists have been allowed to refuse to give women the morning-after pill because it goes against their own religious beliefs....

[boppers]

353. "she wouldn't have sued"? How do you know this?

She could have sued for being *expected* to cheer (even if she didn't), and wasn't kicked off the squad for it.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chris_Texas]

49. Stay classy

Few points:

1. This is a thread about a court decision; a decision of constitutional law. In America we try to discuss questions of law without allowing emotion or personal bias to cloud our judgement. Kinda like how I am ignoring your insults and how those might make me feel, and instead addressing the topic at hand -- with the best reason my mind is capable of.

2. Being a cheerleader is, in fact, a job. It is a volunteer job, but a job none the less. It requires a lot of work and dedication, it brings prestige, and it carries some level of responsibility. In this case the girl is claiming that she is entitled to keep a job, or if you prefer, a position, while refusing to perform that job.

No one, including courts, or the school, or me, has even suggested that her FEELINGS are unreasonable. That was never the question. The question is: does she have a constitutional right to perform or not, at her own discretion, and remain a cheerleader. The courts ruled, correctly, that this is not a constitutional right covered under the first ammendment.

[jbeing]

71. So this is the best reason your mind is capable of?

You want to frame the argument by hiding behind court rulings. That way, you are never wrong. So, I guess you could live with the Dred Scott decision, as well? - Legally correct, but morally wrong.

You're saying that the girl should be enslaved to perform a function, even though she has to do so for the guy who raped or assaulted her? He plea-bargained his way into a lesser charge, but is still guilty.

If I'm not mistaken, she was under age at the time of this crime and the so-called contract you reference. Therefore, the contract is null and void. Minors can't sign contracts and I bet there is no contract (written or unwritten) that states she has to cheer for an individual. You ever hear of such a contract? I haven't. All I can remember signing is a liability release. That way the school and school board are not responsible for any injuries that occur. So, she can be maimed or crippled, but the schools aren't contractually liable. But, when she exercises her right of free speech to not cheer for her assailant, she is contractually obligated to do so. Do you see the problem here?

As for the courts, I am shocked that they could not tell a victim from a perpetrator. The girl is the victim here. She was the one who suffered injury. The judge(s) who ruled for this are idiots. And so is anyone who defends the judgment. She has a right to free speech and no one can take from her. Now, they want to charge her for her suit, which was very reasonable path for her to take. Remember, in Texas we worship guns and revenge. And nobody dare resort to torts.

I hope there is a way for her to get this ruling reversed. I also hope that she sues the school system for abusing her beyond what she had already suffered. If not, then all of us lose our free speech rights.

I grew up in Texas and know how twisted their view of sports and cheerleading can be. But this is beyond twisted, it's draconian.

So, your defense of the court judgement shouldn't shock me. But your legal opinion is not needed.

Hopefully you will come you your senses and gain some humanity or empathy for the girl. But until then, you are being a dick.

[Chris_Texas]

151. Wow... okay point by point then

1. Enslaved? You are drawing an equivalence between SLAVERY and volunteering as a cheerleader? Perhaps you could throw "Hitler" in there somewhere as well, and cover all your bases.

2. Contract. There is no legal contract. There is, however, a verbal agreement that says you will perform in this way, follow these rules, or you are off the team. In this case neither party is forced to continue the relationship, she can choose at any time to quit. The question here is: does she have the constitutional right to ignore the agreement and yet continue in that position. The courts ruled that she does not.

3. The courts: In the case these courts weighted there is no victim or perpetrator. There is the plaintiff, the girl; and the defendant, the school. They were asked to weight the question of constitutional law and they returned a reasonable and predictable ruling. So reasonable, in fact, that they judged the case to be frivolous and awarded the school DAMAGES. Which really should tell you just how silly this case actually is.

4. My understanding is that this has already been to court, then appealed, and the girl's lawyers lost both times. Perhaps they can continue to appeal, but this is likely only going to wrack up additional legal fees and damages they owe the school.

Finally, if the girl wants "justice" she should seek it from her attacker, nit sue the school for mythical rights.

[jbeing]

158. Yes, enslaved

I never used a Hitler reference. You did. I was just pointing out that you seem to see the judicial part of this only - you lost the human thread.

You obviously have no regard to what happened to the girl.

There was no "contract" between the girl and the school.

Yes, she and her lawyers framed this all wrong. This is clearly a Free Speech issue. And that the school denied her.

As for charging her for the lawsuit, that is just wrong. Frivolous is in the eye and prejudice of the beholder.

[Chris_Texas]

199. There is no free speech issue, That's why she lost

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MedicalAdmin]

173. If I may interject a few points of color into your argument?

First of all cheerleading isn't a job, it's a sport. And as such it is protected by title 9 among other laws.

Further, if the crime against this girl left her psychologically damaged, then she should be able to apply the ADA to the schools decision and demand reasonable accomodation.

Final thoughts. The school is so wrong about this it isn't even funny. They forced the situation and although I think the argument her lawyers went with was a losing one, it doesn't mean that she is wrong. I support her and her position 100% and back when I was a teacher I would have backed her all the way to the unemployment line.

[iverglas]

204. nonsense

2. Being a cheerleader is, in fact, a job. It is a volunteer job, but a job none the less.

Being a cheerleader -- participating in any extracurricular activity in a public school system -- is a benefit offered to all students who qualify to participate. Unlike some extracurricular activities, sports tend to determine qualification competitively; students must meet certain standards, and then comply with the rules of the activity.

Schools really just don't have a free hand to make arbitrary rules that students must comply with in order to participate, if those rules violate a higher set of rules.

Rules that prohibit discrimination are such rules. Creating a hostile environment for a student or group of students based, for instance, on sex is simply not permissible.

And that's what this school did. It made it a condition of the girl's participation in an extracurricular activity that she cheer the boy who had sexually assaulted her. That just about reaches the level of intentional infliction of mental anguish.

There is simply no way that her participation in her choice of her school's extracurricular activities, for which she otherwise qualified, should ever be conditional on her agreeing to be exposed to that kind of extremely hostile environment and take part in a ritual that could only exacerbate the pain of what happened to her and the distress that the memory conjured up each time could not help but cause.

Schools are not employers of their student athletes. They are public institutions established to provide educational and para-educational services to students, and the students' welfare, not whatever other objective this school was pursuing, is their primary concern.

[One_Life_To_Give]

374. Yet that is not what the lawsuit alleges

Of all the things that could of/should of etc. been done. SCOTUS was asked to rule on a very narrow question that applies to a hundred million kids across this country equally about their free speech rights.

Predicting the results of such a suit is not difficult. Which brings up the question of Why file this particular suit then? Publicity Maybe? (Hopefully not just to make the next payment on the Ferrari.)

[iverglas]

381. the framing does strike me as dumb

I've seen it before, in relation to obnoxious Tshirts worn to school, for instance. No one ever seems to raise the equality rights issue/argument, in that case that other students have the right to equal treatment in the schools, which means not being subjected to an environment in which they are denigrated for their religion or sexual orientation, for instance.

Equality rights aren't the strongest in the US (they're expressly entrenched in the Constitution here in Canada, although it's legislative guarantees that apply to non-state actors like schools). But there are anti-discrimination laws and I never understand the reluctance to use them, especially when they're so glaringly obviously relevant!

[Divernan]

62. As a lawyer/former law professor, I find Chris is absolutely correct.

He's not pretending to know the law. He does know the law. He's politely tried to explain to you how the legal system treats such claims. Clearly, you needed someone to explain legal reality to you, but you refuse to move beyond your emotional name-calling.

Again, the basketball player was not convicted of rape, but of sexual assault. The school could have decided, given the crimes he WAS convicted of, to preclude him from participating in athletic activities. The people responsible for that decision are the elected members of the school board.

Aside to Chris: it was good of you to try to raise the level of discourse and legal understanding here by pointing out legal realities.

[Chris_Texas]

65. Thank you.

[Lance_Boyle]

78. The school did preclude him from playing AFTER his conviction.

I think the Duke Lacrosse mess may have schools thinking twice about punishing student athletes based on accusations alone. As they should in a place where persons accused of crimes are still regarded as innocent until proven guilty.

[iverglas]

207. excluding someone from a school sport is not punishment

and the determination on which it is based is not a trial.

Accordingly, the "innocent until proved guilty" thing doesn't apply.

There would be reasons for schools to be wary about doing it, but that isn't one.

As long as we're talking law here.

[stevenleser]

364. deleted - wrong spot

[valerief]

89. The school could have decided to let the cheerleader not cheer and kept her on the squad.

What's the harm with that? No suit from the boy or girl. Games go on. No problem.

[stevenleser]

119. You are arguing that what happened to her in our legal system is OK because it followed the law?

The Court Martial of Johnson Whitaker followed the law too. In the legal system at that time, it was OK to accuse a black man of "shamming" because that was "the way black people acted".

What happened to this young woman was not justice regardless of whatever statutes or other legal references you put forth.

[Chris_Texas]

162. In what way?

TWO separate cases were involved here.

In the first case, against the perpetrator of this crime, she won. He pled guilty and was punished based upon the severity of the crime. Would you like him punished again, perhaps more, and by a second court which did not hear or consider the evidence in the case? Are you suggesting that we dispense with the rule of law entirely, and if so upon what grounds?

And then we have the second case.

The second case has NOTHING to do with the question resolved in the first. Nor is it even the same defendant. In the second case the girl is claiming that she has a constitutional right to be a cheerleader, regardless of whether or not she follows the rules or performs her job. And by claiming that cheerleading is a Constitutionally protected form of free speech, a right, she is also claiming, by extention, that ALL cheerleaders who make the team have the exact same rights. All can perform or not based solely upon their own feelings and NO ONE has the right to question these decisions or remove them from their position.

This is, of course, laughable. She chose to participate in a voluntary extra-curricular activity, and then refused to follow through on her end of the bargain. And while that refusal, and the emotions behind it, might be understandable, it does not change the fact that she refused to actually perform the job. That, in itself, is all that you need to know. If you don't cheer you aint a cheerleader. No one is forcing her to cheer, they are simply taking away her school issued Pompoms and handing them to someone willing to wave them.

[stevenleser]

203. OK, let me explain the many ways you and what happened here are wrong.

First, I am aware of everything you wrote. None of that changes the reality of what happened here.

1. This shows what happened when those trained in the legal profession lose all perspective and ability to see the big picture and lose their minds in the letter of the law. Step back from the process and letter of the law and acknowledge what happened. A girl was raped, who, yes, happened to be a cheerleader, at a public school. Her rapist was playing on a team for which her cheerleading squad happened to cheer. When asked to cheer for that specific player, she refused and the heartless folks who run the cheerleading program kicked her off the team for that choice. So first question back at you is are you saying that what happened to her is OK morally, or it is OK because there is no legal remedy for it?

2. Do you think it is OK to kick a child out of, as you put it, "a voluntary extra-curricular activity", at a public school because they refuse to perform a small part of the function that would require them to do something that provides a benefit to someone who assaulted them? I don't think that is OK, I think that is not only wrong, it is appalling. It would be wrong and appalling to kick an adult out of anything in a similar situation.

3. The acts of those at the school and in the court system flies in the face of the anti-bullying initiatives the country and most school systems are implementing. Yes, I realize that this is not exactly a case of bullying, but what is bullying, really? It is abuse and/or assault or threat thereof. People and certainly children (and I include teens in high school in the term "children") should be protected from dealing with persons who would abuse or assault or threaten them.

4. Assume she cheered for the guy. What would a defense attorney do with that in the first case you mentioned above? They would put her on the stand and say "Is it not true that you cheered specifically for this person in a game?" To which the girl would have to answer "Yes". The followup question then is, "How badly could you have felt about what happened if you felt good enough about your relationship with them to cheer for them? You weren't really raped were you?" The school and everyone else concerned should have protected the girl from any contact with the accused that would have impacted the pending criminal case.

I could go on... in the face of that what do you have to offer in rebuttal? More legal procedural stuff? Mocking referrals to the idea that cheerleading is voluntary?

[COLGATE4]

256. "Losing your mind in the letter of the law" is what our legal system

is based on. What you suggest is letting emotion (or, to use your term, 'morality') shape decisions on a case by case basis rather than settling cases according to established legal principles. The reason we have a legal system is so that doesn't happen.

[stevenleser]

276. Except I am not talking about the legal aspects of this case. That is the problem with your various

responses.

[One_Life_To_Give]

373. Except this is a court case

And my original comment that kicked up this shit storm was about the case being over before it started as far as the court was concerned. When asked what color the Sky is the Scotus ruled it's Blue. And arguing about what happened to this poor girl or what the school might have done doesn't change the color of the sky.

I would of expected DU to be far above average in recognizing when a Lawyer files a case with no expectation of winning in the court. Solely because it will gather press and highlight what the School Did/did not do. Presumably in the hopes that it will help deter such actions from happening elsewhere in the future. Essentially trying this case in the Press. For while the school can technically claim to have followed the letter of the law. In the court of public opinion they are @#$^%.

[Jakes Progress]

187. Give it up. Some people live in their heads.

Emotion. Indignation. Degradation. Morality.

These mean nothing. All of these are sneered at by some people. See anything by any rand to try to understand their stunted lives. They are actually proud of the way they think.

[readmoreoften]

194. Yes. He is. And it's called begging the question.

With a helping of naturalistic fallacy.

[COLGATE4]

266. That's your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions...

[stevenleser]

365. Shouldnt you be out preaching to someone what the law says about their lawnmowing schedule? n/t

[WolverineDG]

142. I've given up trying to explain such things

this isn't the first time this particular story has made the rounds on DU. Apparently, we're for the Bill of Rights & Constitutional protections, unless the accused is a male charged with rape. Even then, there is an exception for Julian Assange. The reaction is very predictable.

dg

[Ikonoklast]

161. Ouch.

The women falsely accusing Assange were paid, have an agenda, it never really happened, blah blah blah...

It is funny how the dynamic changes for the situation.

[COLGATE4]

186. You know the saying: Trying to argue about law with non-lawyers

is like trying to teach a pig to sing. You don't get anywhere and all it does is irritate the pig'. (Lawyer 25 yrs practice)

[iverglas]

213. charming

The only problem is that a lawyer just isn't always right, and may in fact have an axe of their own to grind in situations where they are arguing not as an officer of the court, but as a discussion board poster.

(Called to the bar 1979)

[stevenleser]

214. Which would be a good response if what we were arguing was purely a legal question

It isn't.

[COLGATE4]

258. No? Why not?

[COLGATE4]

259. No? Why not?

[stevenleser]

277. Why not what?

[Divernan]

243. Amen to that, brother (or sister).

People watch years of various Law and Order series and think they've been to/suffered through law school. I enjoy Law & Order shows a lot - but when it comes to hearsay objections; direct, cross & redirect examinations; & closing statements, the writers break a lot of rules of evidence and procedure - I think, to adequately develop their story lines in the time alloted.

[October]

397. Well lawyers argue with each other, as well. Arguing is part of their job...

By your logic, citizens aren't supposed to understand laws? or have opinions?

The laws are supposedly meant to protect/guide us -- but we're not supposed to question or understand them -- let alone dare ask a question of an attorney?

[readmoreoften]

193. Question begging with a heaping of elitist moralizing.

Rape is a form of sexual assault. Sexual assault is the broader category. To clarify that the player was accused of rape and not sexual assault is to clarify nothing. Are you asserting that sexual assault is a lesser crime than rape. For example, urinating on someone's face is arguably a lesser offense than forcing a penis into a vagina. This smacks of some detached, language-bending lawyerese that defies the reality of human experience.

Perhaps the posters don't really care about the 'legal reality" because their point is that the fact that such a decision is made shows that the legal system doesn't function. So if your argument is that people shouldn't be outraged at how the system functions because they don't understand how the system justifies this decision, then you are begging the question. Your argument is really no more logical than the outpouring of rage over this decision. Your argument (question-begging assertion, really) is that people should accept and understand "legal realities". They have outrage. You have an elitist appeal to process and some moralizing about "raising the level of discourse."

What is your argument for "raising the level of discourse"? People are outraged at the system that they live in. Whether or not they understand its machinations is irrelevant. They don't like what it has produced.

[October]

396. How condescending of you.

You insult the person making a post while accusing him/her of name-calling.

Obviously other legal minds disagree with you -- that's the way law works, too. They argue their case/interpretation of the law.

Cheerleading is a sport.

[vduhr]

106. and a cold hearted arrogant one at that..

I have yet to see Chris show any kind of empathy towards this girl. All I've seen is a cold-hearted disregard for morality. Chris, I hope you don't have a daughter, or if you do, that nothing like this ever happens to her.

[kelly1mm]

131. Do you think empathy has a place in the law? How would that work exactly? nt

[stevenleser]

218. Does your question include the legislative process to create law? It impacts my answer n/t

[kelly1mm]

393. No, it does not. Just the judicial branch. Empathy should be involved

in the legislative process IMO.

[Chris_Texas]

174. I do have a daughter, and a wife who was sexually assaulted twice

Though, as she was a kid at the time of the first, I personally would call it rape.

In any case, I have shown all kinds of compassion for this girl. I have said repeatedly that her FEELINGS and even ACTIONS are entirely reasonable. I would not cheer the guy either.

My feelings (and hers) are totally irrelevant to this case. That's not how the law works. We do not invent constitutional rights based upon the feelings of anyone, be they a President, Supreme Court Justice, or an unhappy teen cheerleader. Her claim is that cheerleading (and, presumably other youth activities) is a constitutional right and NO ONE can remove her from this position regardless of her behavior (or in this case, lack). Understand that she could be removed by the school for ANY reason: if her grades are not up to snuff, if her dancing was sub-par, if she got pregnant, if she smart-mouthed the teachers or coaches or the fans. ANYTHING. That's how it works, that's why it is an honor. By claiming cheerleading as a constitutional right, she is claiming that she cannot be removed for any reason, and that she can do whatever she damn well likes and NO ONE has the right to do anything about it.

This is, of course, laughable. So yeah, she has all the reason in the world not to cheer for this guy. There is a proper proceedure for this: she can sit in the stands, she can pretend to cheer, she can cheer the TEAM and her school rather than this individual, but what she cannot do is disrupt the performance of the other girls. She does not have that right.

[boppers]

354. I applaud your decency and decorum, SIr.

That is all.

[RobinA]

64. You'd Think.... nm

*

[Mojeoux]

137. OMG I sooo Agree. WTF, so she was silent! Big Whoop!

That was her one little act of dignity. Fuck those PIGS.

[valerief]

165. Yeah, and other posters are quibbling about the law. That's not the issue.

It's the damn school.

And if a young girl and her angry parents want to sue, well, the school should STILL have been more responsible from the get-go. These people all have their heads up their asses.

[One_Life_To_Give]

197. School has their Heads up their Arse, not the court.

The legal points have all been that the Court had little (none) freedom in how to rule on the suit. The mechanics of the case were predictable. What the suit does accomplish is give Publicity to what the school did to this girl. This thread is proof that it has been effective at convicting the School in the Court of Public Opinion. Perhaps that gives this girl some comfort.

I would of expected a suit against the School and School Board for failure to protect this girl from the trauma of having to cheer for her attacker might of had more success. But I am not a lawyer.

[Eric J in MN]

25. Organizations have to try to accomodate people based on religion and disability.

They should have done the same thing for a rape victim.

[Lance_Boyle]

32. Should they be required to do the same for any accuser?

Accuser and victim are not the same thing. At the time of the incident she was an accuser and nothing had been decided in court (except for the first grand jury refusing to recommend that the case go to trial). When organizations punish people based on accusations that are not proven, it's not a good thing. Duke ended up having to pay the lacrosse players it wrongly punished based on a false accusation with no trial or finding of guilt beyond "she said so." I can see why other schools/school systems might be leery of taking on the role of judge, jury and executioner.

[Eric J in MN]

42. If a girl says she was raped, make a reasonable accomodation by not requiring

...her to cheer for the person she says raped her.

If he didn't really rape her, the football game can continue anyway with one less person chanting a player's name.

[boppers]

355. football? They have free throws now?

[Chris_Texas]

36. How?

She is a performer. An entertainer. She agreed to do the job when she took it.

She is claiming that she has a constitutional right to remain a cheerleader who refuses to cheer at her discretion. Should she also be allowed to not cheer for Tommy because she saw him kissing that slut Tiffany? This is, after all, the constitutional right that she is claiming -- that every cheerleader has the RIGHT, once on the team, to decide for themselves, to make whatever decisions they like, and that the school has no authority.

Do you not see how silly this is?

[Plucketeer]

43. So you're arguing..........

this gal, HS, was CONTRACTUALLY BOUND to cheer on command? What the hell sorta nation/notion does that mindset hail from? Things must've changed A LOT since I was in my high school band! - "Son, you'll PLAY that horn or we'll see you in court!"

Secession sounds better every day.

[kentauros]

48. "Secession sounds better every day."

Because cases like this happen only in Texas :eyes:

Unless you're thinking of asking California to secede? You should go for it :)

[Chris_Texas]

53. Not exactly

No one has suggested that she either perform or pay a fine. They have stated, and two courts have agreed, that she can either fulfill the voluntary job she agreed to do or she can leave.

If she volunteered for the salvation army at Christmas, put on the uniform and grabbed the bell, then refused to stand outside ringing it because she was disagreed with their message, hated red, was cold, whatever... the salvation army would not have some legal obligation to let her continue to pretend she was a volunteer.

If she was the quarterback on the football team who refused to pass the ball, or dropped it onto the ground every play, she would be removed from the team -- whatever her personal reasons.

If she were a wrestler (we saw this case just a few months ago) who refused to wrestle the opposite sex out of religious beliefs, she would correctly lose her match.

She AGREED to do this job, then refused to do it. When called on it, she claimed that she had a constitutional right to remain a cheerleader and that no one could tell her what she could or couldn't do.

[Plucketeer]

252. I'm thinking of Lara Logan

who described her ordeal while covering the freedom uprising in Egypt - did you catch her spot on 60 Minutes last Sunday? I wonder if her employer paid her her wages after that assualt. I mean - after all - she stopped reporting simply because she was being stripped and violated by a gang of guys.:sarcasm:

You see..... what I'm trying to convey here is the notion of common sense. There's laws - sure. But there's also judges to decide how to behold and apply those laws - with allowances for "circumstances". Common Sense has gotten to be a RARE commodity nowdays.
Rebuking this gal for refusing to laud someone who sexually violated her in some way is just plain ..... no INjust plain stupid. We had a neice who recently stepped in front of a semi on purpose. She did it because after her swimming coach molested her, the school took the coach's side - EVEN THO he had a reputation for taking advantage of female subordinates. She's dead and the coach is still coaching at another school. But hey! This is all the result of legal wrangling and all in line with some judge's decision. Who would have a bone to pick about that?


Edited to add the sarcasm smiley, because sure as hell someone would take me to task on the notion I was serious with what I said! :crazy:

[boppers]

356. Is Lara Logan refusing to do any reporting, and demanding a paycheck for it?

Oh wait, "did you catch her spot on 60 Minutes last Sunday", so she's back on the job, and not refusing to do it.

[Plucketeer]

385. But would you....

fault her if she did refuse??? Matter of CHOICE, not DICTATES.

[boppers]

395. Nope, I think it would be perfectly rational for her to stop reporting.

Just as it would have been perfectly rational for the girl to stop cheering.

[Eric J in MN]

46. It's a matter of REASONABLE accomodation not UNREASONABLE accomodation.

Having one less person in a football stadium chanting a player's name because he raped her is a reasonable accomodation.

Allowing her to not cheer anyone at any time for any reason would be an unreasonable accomodation.

[Chris_Texas]

54. We do not know what concessions the school offered

As it happens, I assume that the school offered all kinda of help. I suspect this because I respect the people in our education system, and I believe that most of them do the best job they can.

Not really relevant to this case obviously, this is a case about freedom of speech.

[Jefferson23]

94. I see your response here and I am flabbergasted by it. In post # 77

I asked you what the concessions were. Clearly you do not know what they were IF there were any at all.

Yet you presume "the school offered all kinds help". I made clear in my first response in this thread,
I was not speaking about the legalities of the case..I had not
read the rulings. I was speaking to the decision of the school to ignore the victims request
not to cheer his name and why this was such a huge concession for them that they could not accommodate
her.

The issue could have been resolved for the young woman to keep her DIGNITY, this seems imo, to be have been her goal
from the outset.

[Chris_Texas]

175. Whatever concessions offered, if any, are irrelevant to this case.

[Jefferson23]

180. No they are absolutely relevant, as there may have been no legal

action in the case to begin with had they tried to allow her a means to keep her dignity. You imagine the school did all kinds of things
to assist the young woman, yet you have no evidence at all they did any such thing. So now you give the school
a pass. How nice for you and for them.

[Chris_Texas]

230. Okay, I understand. Now read on...

Whatever concessions the school might have made or not made are not relevant to this court case. Again, this COURT case.

You are arguing that there might have never been a court case had the school reacted differently. This is obviously true. It is true in almost every civil case. I have not heard anyone giving the school a blanket pass on how they handled this issue, but while it is tempting I wont condemn them without knowing more about what they did or did not try to do. You can if you like.

But again, this thread is about this court case, a case in which this girl claimed she had a constitutional right to a be a member of a sports team and a representative of her school while refusing to participate or follow the rules. In doing so she claimed that her right to freedom of speech and expression allowed her to violate those rules at will and still remain a member of the team. As I have said all along, I have sympathy for this girl. I think it is a terrible position she was faced with, and I doubt I would have cheered the guy either. But my feelings, my empathy, are irrelevant to the case her lawyers attempted to make.

This case WAS frivolous. Her lawyers wasted a lot of the school districts money chasing a settlement. They took a terrbile gamble, using this poor girl as a pawn, and they lost.

[stevenleser]

234. No, no, and no. You keep wanting to make this thread only a legal question. It isn't.

I realize that the law is your comfort zone and thus that is why you keep trying to steer all of the discussions that way, but the OP and what happened here is not simply a legal issue. There are moral and societal questions to be considered.

My only interest in the legal aspects of what happened here are how to fix them so that something like this does not happen again.

[Chris_Texas]

238. Fair enough :)

However, I am not trying to stear them that way because it is some comfort zone. I am trying to stear them that way because the thread topic was how messed up this decision is. I happen to believe, with the information we have available, that it was the only decision the courts could reach. This girl's lawyers had no case at all, they wasted everyone's time and money.

[boppers]

357. A horrible bit of nitpicking:

steer

not

stear

[COLGATE4]

260. You can beat your chest about 'moral and societal issues to be

considered' but all that has absolutely no relevance in a legal proceeding. The law is designed to prevent purely individual notions of 'right, wrong, moral, immoral' from preventing a fair and consistent set of results when certain facts are produced in evidence. You can be outraged as you like because you don't like the result (or the legal arguments) but that has no bearing whatsoever in the legal disposition of this, or any other case.

[stevenleser]

278. I dont care if it has relevance in a legal proceeding. I'm not talking about the legal aspects n/t

[Jefferson23]

241. Again, as is indicative from my first post which you responded to, I did

not address the legalities, as I have not read the rulings.,,so save your breath repeating yourself about the ruling. I did address the school's response which resulted in legal action from the young woman.

You presumed the school did all kinds of gestures to resolve the issue. I based the lawsuit that followed
as the indicator she was not afforded an appropriate concession that would allow her to retain her dignity. Why the
school could not find within themselves to remedy this situation was my point. Why they were so invested to
ensure the basketball player was cheered by this victim despite that he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge should be examined by
this community in Texas.

You have indeed given the school a pass when you presumed they did all kinds of things but when asked what the concessions
were you produced nothing. You won't condemn them before knowing more about them? This is a backward slide you're
on, and disingenuous at best so spare me the, I can condemn them line.

Your post #54: We do not know what concessions the school offered
As it happens, I assume that the school offered all kinda of help. I suspect this because I respect the people in our education system, and I believe that most of them do the best job they can. (end)

The legal merits of the case do not absolve the school's decision to not afford her any respect at all.

[RaleighNCDUer]

150. As if athletics has anything to do with education...

[bbdad]

400. Yes, we all know that star athletes are held accountable ...

... for any misconduct off the playing field. Yeah, sure. Football fan, perhaps?

[Lance_Boyle]

80. The language of reasonable accommodation is out of place here - this is not an ADA case.

The accommodation made by the school was wholly appropriate - you can be a member of the cheerleading team and cheer as directed by that team, or you can *not* be a member of the cheerleading team and cheer or not cheer at your sole discretion. Seems correct.

[onpatrol98]

111. Judgement call

Teachers and administrators make reasonable accommodations all the time. They don't always have to be tied to ADA. It's a matter of protecting children.

[stevenleser]

240. That is not a reasonable or appropriate accomodation for a childs club in a public school.

If you think it is, you have issues.

[jbeing]

98. Now, you are in strawman land.

You're the one who tells others to stick to the facts. Now you're throwing in conjecture.

You added all these other scenarios, such as wrestling, football and school play? Isn't there a mitigating factor involved here? Rape? Or does that matter to you?

Chris, I was hoping for more from you.

Performer? Entertainer? What is she Lady Gaga now? What did she agree to when she took the job? To cheer for the guy who assaulted her (not the slut-kisser you so charmingly added)? To be forced to cheer when she was the victim of a crime?

Actually, the school has no right to force her to do anything, nor do they have the right to re-vicitmizer by kicking her off the squad. BTW-She was not given the honor or privilege, she had to earn it.

You frame everything about this situation as if it's her fault. Not once have you said anything about the guy who caused this mess. But, hey, don't mess with Texas athletes - they are privileged.

Now, you spout legalese out of one side of your mouth and spit strawmen out of the other.

Your lack of empathy is louder than anything you write.

[Chris_Texas]

176. And yet two different courts agreed with me :)

What, besides emotion, do you have?

[jbeing]

270. And what besides a sociopathic love of court ruling do you have?

You obviously cannot see the human impact of this. I thought that because you sounded reasonable and thoughtful, you were.

In this case emotion is the issue, as is freedom of speech (expression).

You are trying to feel "above" the fray and stick to facts, as you call them.

You have no feeling about this. So, let me guess - it's okay with you that this girl was punished by the school for refusing to cheer her rapist.

Am I right?

And I don't want to hear the court case BS. I want to hear your opinion of the girl's situation.

[iverglas]

221. do the courts where you're at go for this kind of stuff?

This is, after all, the constitutional right that she is claiming -- that every cheerleader has the RIGHT, once on the team, to decide for themselves, to make whatever decisions they like, and that the school has no authority.

I believe she actually claimed the right not to have to cheer the individual who sexually assaulted her.

Would that be an accurate characterization of the situation?

[WatsonT]

26. Yeah that does paint it in a bit of a different light

she should have refused prior to the game.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. She also shouldn't have accepted his plea to a lesser crime than rape.

If rape is what it was.

Not going to reduce the shockingly high rape rates in this country if we keep letting people get away with it.

[Eric J in MN]

47. The prosecutor decides to take a plea bargain, not the victim. NT

NT

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Not entirely.

When there is a victim, the victim is consulted. (A victim, versus the state as a victim in the case of possession of contraband, for instance)


On Nov. 24, the new grand jury returns an indictment against Bolton and Rountree on charges of sexual assault of a child.

Bolton has since plead guilty to a lesser charge of Class A misdemeanor assault. He received two years’ probation and a $2,500 fine. That plea deal was reportedly signed off on by the cheerleader’s family before it was accepted.

Rountree has not yet gone to court on the felony charge of sexual assault of a child. He remains free on a $250,000 bond.

http://www.silsbeebee.com/news.php?viewStory=2165

Silsbee bee isn't maybe the greatest paper, but that was widely reported at the time. I can search for a better source if you like.

[ejpoeta]

152. i doubt the girl had any say in whether there was a plea or not. that would be up to the

prosecutor and the accused. and it sucks that people get away with it, but rape is hard to prove. usually ends up a he said/ she said situation without much other evidence.

[AtheistCrusader]

167. Post 52.

Victim's family approved the lesser charge. At least, that's how it was widely reported at the time.

(being that the victim was a minor, I doubt she could consent to the charge without parental approval)

[LanternWaste]

30. a precise and relevant detail which, if omitted consciously may reveal bias.

"claiming that she should be able to remain a cheerleader who refuses to cheer..."
...her assailant.


Again, "claiming that she should be able to remain a cheerleader who refuses to cheer
...her assailant."

I believe that's a precise and relevant detail which, if omitted consciously may reveal bias, regardless of one's opinion of the outcome.

[COLGATE4]

34. What about that statement makes it 'relevant'??

[Chris_Texas]

40. Not exactly.

"claiming that she should be able to remain a cheerleader who refuses to cheer..." at her discretion.

THAT is the right she is claiming in court.

Again, imagine she was starring in the school play and discovered that this guy was in the audience. Would she then have the constitutional right to go out on stage and say nothing, just stand there saying nothing at all? Or would the school not have the authority to say, "Sorry, we understand how you feel, and we hate to lose you, but if you refuse to perform we have to send out your replacement."

[oberliner]

103. What if she was performing in the school play and this guy was cast as her romantic lead?

What if the play required she kiss this guy and she refused to do so?

Would your argument be the same in that case? She'd be kicked out of the play under those circumstances?

[MedicalAdmin]

177. Were I the play director in that hypothetical I would ...

... toss HIS ass to the curb. Not her's.

[Chris_Texas]

178. Very likely she would be.

Fair? No. The law does not always give perfect results. It just gives us the best results overall. Sometimes those results suck, but it is better than the alternative.

[boppers]

358. Creepily enough, that *exact* scenario happened at my High School.

Girl and Guy were cast, drunken "casting party" happened, accusations flew afterwards.

Both roles were re-cast, because the school was under no obligation to let somebody act in a play... let alone play on a sports team, or cheer for a sports team.

[HankyDubs]

38. Sick

that's the word that comes to mind. Seek treatment.

[COLGATE4]

60. What is sick is disregarding the facts of the case to insult a poster

who has made a perfectly legitimate point. Legal questions aren't (thankfully) decided by emotion.

[jbeing]

109. Colgate4

You need to brush up on your empathy.

The girl is the victim here. She is being punished for her response to the crime committed against her. The school and the court said that she can't express herself (silently, in this case). That by some twisted logic, she is required to cheer for her assailant. If not, then she has to pay for her legal right to sue the people who further victimized her - the school. That's because in Texas, you have to be peppy, cheery and blind to rape, when it comes to an athlete.

So, name-calling is justified when somebody hides behind the law or tries to be above the fray. They are just whacking off to someone else's tragedy, and deserve ridicule.

[Chris_Texas]

185. Wow! That's quite an accusation there.

I think people need to have a thick skin, so okay, feel free to say anything you like to me.

But allow me to make a couple points:

1. Your post, the sheer batshit crazy post-rage you are displaying here, says FAR more about you than it does about me.

2. You might want to take a step back, away from your keyboard, and relax a bit. Go take a walk or something. Garden. Hug a kitten. But definately leave political discussion alone for a bit.

[COLGATE4]

188. I'm an attorney. I deal in law, and the facts of a given case. Empathy

has absolutely no business in arriving at what is a legal decision. Chris is correct - this was a legal case, a legal decision was taken and it was the correct one. You can be as empathetic as you like to the young woman - that's your prerogative. However, legal decisions are taken based on the facts of the case and the law, and that's what happened here. As for name calling, I'd say that "hiding behind the law" (whatever that means) is 'whacking off to someone else's tragedy' seems to fit the bill quite nicely. Pot, meet Kettle.

[jbeing]

274. An attorney?

Yeah, right.

This pot is calling the kettle out.

You think that the girl was trying to get rich off this issue? What damages was she suing for?

Can you not understand the reality of the situation? She just didn't want to be punished for refusing to to cheer her assailant.

You're probably a tort reformer, too. Very interesting for a "lawyer."

The school failed the girl and she got punished. The judges were wrong and didn't consider the damage done to her. Part of being a judge is more than just listening to arguments. It's also about finding the closest thing to the truth out there. It's lawyers that try to twist the narrative to their advantage. In this case the girl was raped again by the courts. Texas RW judges.

[stevenleser]

348. No, you dont get it. Ultimately, we dont care if the law supports what was done here.

We want to talk about the injustice of what happened and what the next steps are. That might mean boycotting the school, or town or whatever else. The legal aspect is only a small part of this. So, basically, your legal knowledge just isnt that valuable to this discussion.

[stevenleser]

351. Which you brought on yourself when you assumed we all wanted to discuss only the legal aspects of

the situation.

[pnwmom]

55. The part that is most disgusting to me is calling this a frivolous lawsuit.

And charging her $45,000.

What a way to stack the deck against the individual.

[Chris_Texas]

57. It was frivolous actually

[pnwmom]

125. Yeah, the boundaries of free speech is such a frivolous issue.

:sarcasm:

[COLGATE4]

189. This has nothing to do with free speech.

[pnwmom]

216. It IS a free speech issue, even though the Robert's court

wasn't interested in taking it up. The Court hasn't ever recognized a universal right to free speech.

[Chris_Texas]

223. What right of "free speech" do you believe....

...A cheerleader has while performing (or in this case not performing) and how were these right infringed?

What limits -- if any -- would you place upon her right to self-expression? Does it extend to, say, costuming, makeup, jewelry, dance routines and styles, music selection?

Does she or does she not waive those individual rights, assuming any exist, as a precondition of her being allowed to perform with a school sanctioned team?

If "cheerleading" is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, is it not then a violation of the constitution to impose membership limits or requirements? Should not every student be allowed to participate at will? Just hit the floor and dance however they like, jitterbugging over here, pole dancing over there, expressing themselves as long and as loud as their little hearts desire?

Or is it perhaps possible that it is NOT a constitutional right at all, but rather a voluntary school activity with very strict and demanding requirements, a sport, where the participants compete not only to earn but to keep a spot. And that they do so knowing that it is going to be tough, it's going to hurt, they might get injured so badly that their entire future might change and with it all their hopes to advance into the world of professional entertainers. A sport they join knowing that they will be called upon to smile when they feel sad, shout when they feel like being silent, dance to music they despise, do moves they consider obscene or degrading or painful, wear costumes in public they would not wear for their boyfriend in private. And that they do all this, ALL THIS, for the chance to be able to say that they made it, they were a cheerleader, they performed in front of thousands of people, and they succeeded at something that few girls even try.

[pnwmom]

226. I believe she had the right to protest with her actions a rapist's inclusion

on the team. And that that town's collective brain has been addled by football.

So sue me.

[Chris_Texas]

244. By your avoidance of my questions I am concluding you have no answers

That's the problem with law and government. It easy to sit back and criticize process or outcomes, but really tough to come up with a better system. Simply saying, "Well, it shouldn't turn out that way!" is not an answer. Of course it shouldn't. Innocent men should never go to prison, the guilty should never go free, the law should protect the weak and oppressed with an iron fist that turns to satin when it embraces the needy. And I could go one forever.

We turn to the courts for a verdict, a decision. We know it wont be perfect, we know "justice" wont be done, but then justice is subjective and it is the job of the courts to be objective. So we go there for an answer, and we hope at best it will be kinda fair and that the court will return the same answer regardless of who brings the case.

To answer your statement, she did have that right. She excercised it. No one ever made any effort to stop her, other than her friends and coaches who likely warned her what would happen. No one has ever told her she had to cheer for this guy, they told her she had to perform if she wanted to remain on the team.

[pnwmom]

347. And you have given no answer as to why her lawsuit was frivolous,

and why the District should be able to punish her for filing it.

[Iggo]

66. THATLITTLE FUCKING TRAMP!

:sarcasm:

[neoralme]

67. Incongruent. This woman had the right to violate her contract with

the school should said contract exitst as 1)There was no consideration in the contract, rendering it void from inception. 2)The contract is also not valid because the agent for the contractor performed an illegal activity (rape) rendering the contract void. A new contract could not be written because of item 1 and/or item 2 because the cheerleader no longer had the capacity to be contracted for cheerleading because she 1) was a victim of an illegal assault by an agent of the contractor and 2) was not acting in her own free will in entering said contract but rather based on extraneous real or inferred pressure from the school administration and/or societal expectations that she act in a certain way not in her or the communities best interest.

I'll do what I can for the girl.

[COLGATE4]

190. Don't try and play lawyer - you only embarass yourself.

[neoralme]

201. Like you, oh obvious english major?

[COLGATE4]

205. No - as a practicing attorney with 25+ years courtroom experience

[neoralme]

211. Acta exteriora iudicant interiora secreta

[COLGATE4]

263. Non sequitur ad absurdum

[boppers]

359. iudicant?

Really?

[Chris_Texas]

220. About that... the best thing you can do for her is to stay away

[ashleyforachange]

99. Above statement and this story plus many others makes me ashamed to say I'm from Texas

1. First of all, Cheering is a sport itself. Their main function is to compete against other squads. Cheering for a team has become secondary.

2. She didn't wait until the game. She brought up the issue beforehand.

3. They were told specifically to cheer for this guy knowing that her assault which was RAPE was by him.

4. Cheering is not a JOB...It is a after-school activity. No one treats it as a job.

5.She has every ability and right reason to claim she should remain as a cheerleader.

6. The courts were wrong. She did nothing. I spoke with my old high school(i went to school in Texas) friends(who were cheerleaders) and teachers(who coach the cheerleaders and other sports)and all agree that 1) Common sense on the coaches part would have prevented the boy from participating in any activities. Doesn't matter what the crime is. 2) The cheer coach would have known the situation and make accommodations.

This is a girl who has been sexual assault aka RAPED. I do not think she should have clapped for him. I also think no one should have clapped for him. He should have been booed off the court.

[jbeing]

113. Thank You

[MedicalAdmin]

179. Hell ya - and pelted with used corn dogs on the way out.

The school, the coach, the administration and likely at least some of the teachers screwed this up and everyone suffered.

And let's not forget that this little girl was used by a self entitled little prick. I leave it to you to figure out who I'm referring to.

[stockholmer]

121. sorry, but she(having won a cheer squad place) should NOT have to cheer for the fucker who raped her

WTF is wrong with the USA, and Texas in particular. This case makes all on the wong side look like pure asshats.

:argh:

[stevenleser]

350. I so agree. That anyone would argue that here is beyond appalling.

She agreed to be a cheerleader so she has to cheer for her rapist? I've never disliked any woman enough to put them through something like that. Not even my ex wife.

[RaleighNCDUer]

148. Wrong.

She was a cheerleader before the rape.

She was told to cheer the guy who raped her.

She refused, and was kicked off the squad.

She sued to regain her rightful place, and reputation.

She was denied, and charged a wholly inappropriate amount in court costs.

--

She was the one fighting for her RIGHTS. Of course, in Texas, only athletes have rights.

[truedelphi]

210. I don't see that she had to cheer for him. Not if the school

Officials could have been empathetic.

The school could have agreed that her emotional reality was such that she could not bring herself to cheer for him. And that her refusal was understandable.

[cstanleytech]

242. I hate to do it but I must agree

with you that as much as it sucks its legally the correct decision by the courts and she should have to pay the court.
That aside I do hope she has filed a civil lawsuit against the kid and his family, hopefully she can win enough to pay the costs as well as afford to seek counseling in dealing with this.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

250. She was right not to cheer her rapist and its a damn shame he was allowed to come back to HER school

he got a slap on the wrist.

The courts in this case SUCK.

What human could cheer a rapist?

What humans let this rapist go back to the school that his victim attended?

[cstanleytech]

262. The court was following the law

though, it sucks true but it is what it is regardless of how we might feel about the case.

[Jefferson23]

18. I need to read the prior rulings, but putting that aside, what is as telling if

not more so than the rulings, is the school. They had no understanding of her need to not
say his name. No empathy for the victim, and the young man pleads guilty to a lesser charge, I wonder
why he did that..hmm.

A disgraceful choice on the part of school officials..and when you think about how Yale is now
being investigated for their handling of sexual assault/harassment, one has to wonder
how much our society values our daughters.

[Chris_Texas]

56. You do not know this at all

You have no information at ALL about what concessions the school offered to her. And none of that is relevant to this case. Again:

She is claiming that she has the constitutional right to don her cheerleader uniform, go out on the floor representing her school, and then NOT PERFORM as instructed, and that this behavior is protected under freedom of expression and NO ONE can do anything about it.

What would you say if one of the Basketball players deliberately launched the ball into the crowd every time he got his ghands on it? Would you say that the coach has the right to bench him, or kick him off the team... or would you argue that the coach MUST put him into the game, and that other players MUST pass him the ball, by LAW, because otherwise his freedom of expression is being violated?

That's what this case is about.

[Jefferson23]

77. So why don't you tell me what the concessions were?

and this is a ridiculous statement from you: "What would you say if one of the Basketball players deliberately launched the ball into the crowd every time he got his ghands on it? Would you say that the coach has the right to bench him, or kick him off the team... or would you argue that the coach MUST put him into the game, and that other players MUST pass him the ball, by LAW, because otherwise his freedom of expression is being violated?"

[Chris_Texas]

91. Again....

1. You do not know what concessions were or were not offered. Nor is this relevant to THIS CASE -- the subject of this discussion. The "outrage" here is that the courts did not dispense with the law or rewrite the consitution to suit the emotional demands of some reading about this case. The courts, correctly, ignored the emotions behind this case and returned a reasonable ruling on the law.

2. The example given was what this girl claimed as her right. You found it ridiculous because it IS ridiculous. Of course a player would not be allowed to behave in this way, regardless of his motivations or feelings, and expect to remain on the team. Of course the courts would not decide that he has a constitutional right to act in this way. The same applies to this girl.

Her feelings might be 100% reasonable. We can even grant that they are. It doesn't matter. Her feelings, however powerful, do not grant her constitutional rights to behave however she likes without consequences. No one told her she had to cheer, they told her she had to cheer if she wished to remain a cheerleader.

[Jefferson23]

96. They are certainly relevant, as the issue could have been resolved.

You ever find out what the concessions were, get back to me.

[Chris_Texas]

195. You believe she has the right to concessions from the school

She may have been offered some, and refused; she may have been offered none at all. It is irrelevant to this case. There is no law requiring the school to make ANY concessions to her feelings.

She had a choice, the same choice every cheerleader on the team had. She can either do her job as a performer or the school will replace her. That's it. It is the same choice faced by millions of people, and thousands of kids, every day. If Tyrone thinks the song the school has selected for his band to play violates his religious beliefs, or offends some moral opinion he holds, he can either play the song or quit the band. He has no legal right to demand a change. If Tiffany doesn't want to kiss Brad in the school play she does not have the legal right to demand they rewrite the role to suit her, she can either do it or sit in the audience. If cheerleader Tracy thinks the dance routine or costume is too racy she can quit the squad -- she doesn't get the option to make up her own dance or show up in a ballgown.

The school reporter does not have the legal right to use profanity, the football team does not have the legal right to wear pink tutus at their pleasure, even if they really really want to, even if they are trying to show solidarity with their tutu wearing crossdressing friends. And cheerleaders do not have the legal right to remain as cheerleaders if they refuse to perform.

No one has to offer any of these kids concessions. They probably do most of the time, because really most people are generally reasonable. But there is a difference between an offer of concession or compromise, and a legal requirement. In the later case, we do not call it compromise or concession, we call it the law.

[Jefferson23]

249. Don't do that, YOU are the one who stated you assumed the school did make concessions.

Yet when pressed for it, you had nothing, and this is ridiculous: "There is no law requiring the school to make ANY concessions to her feelings."

If you think the school had an obligation to avoid settling this because of the law, you're wrong. Settlements are common place
and for the good of the student nothing prevented them from doing that except what? She had to cheer the guy who pleaded guilty
of assaulting her, evidently the school was heavily invested...that is the shame they own.

[boppers]

360. "If cheerleader Tracy thinks the dance routine or costume is too racy"

One word: hijab.

Another word: leggings.

Of course, this is a somewhat minor distraction, as it adds an additional component to the argument, because they were *not* arguing the case on religion grounds. (IIRC, there are now breakaway hijab designed for cheering, and leggings are accepted.)

[jbeing]

102. You forgot a small bit of information.

Was the basketball player raped by a cheerleader, who pleaded down to a lesser crime?

Did you just pull that analogy out of your butt, or did someone else come up with that idea?

Either way, that is the dumbest thing I've heard about this situation, so far. But, I'm still waiting for the rest of Texas to respond.

[MedicalAdmin]

182. What would you say...

... if the cheer coach told all the cheerleaders to expose themselves? OR the BBall coach told all the boys on the squad that raping is good practice for winning. What is someone decided not to follow that mandate from the coach and NOT DO THEIR JOB?

Should they be removed from the team? Hey - this is fun. I can make up BS examples too. Let's all play.

[plumbob]

19. There's no contact info for school board members in Silsbee, so I

just called the general number and left messages.

409-980-7800

Board Member Names:

http://silsbeeisd.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=157725&sessionid=8f793793d36ac5814973eec610fc3507&sessionid=8f793793d36ac5814973eec610fc3507

I didn't cuss or threaten. I just let them know how disappointed I am that they haven't been Raptured yet.

[valerief]

24. LOL!

[Rozlee]

61. Thanks for the info. I just called them.

I wasn't abusive either, but I did get snarky and quoted Deuteronomy 22:23 and asked the snotty lady who answered why they didn't stone both the girl and her rapist as that is what the Good Book says they're supposed to do. She got flustered and said, "I'm sure the Bible doesn't say anything like that!" "Got a pen so you can write down this Chapter and verse," I asked her. She changed the subject and thanked me for my call. I guess I should have quoted the chapter where it said that the rapist had to give the father silver for the girl he'd raped and make her his bride.

[MedicalAdmin]

184. You could always calll back.

Or you could post the reference (so I know WFH I'm talking about) and I'll do it for you. Sounds like fun.

[boppers]

361. Deut 22:23 applies to raping the engaged.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A23%2CDeuteronomy+22%3A24&version=NIV

You can switch versions around, if you like, but it's not about all rape, it's about raping engaged young women ...often translated as "virgin", much to the amusement and annoyance of modern scholars, and the resulting embarrassment of entire churches who think intact hymens are spiritually special, and thus assume significant figures in their religions were always "virgins".

...but I digress.


edit: clarify engagement

[Zorra]

20. That's just shameful, and disgusting. nt

[orbitalman]

45. I thot the school was supposed to educate, not show stupidity. n/t

[Zoeisright]

50. I would have handled it a totally different way.

Which would have changed the rapist's life forever.

[Iggo]

68. ...and yours.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevenleser]

112. He was not cleared. He pled guilty to a lesser charge. n/t

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alp227]

51. then as punishment the state should withdraw 45k or even more in funding from the school

Shame, shame, shame all around.

[DesertDiamond]

58. I always say, there's something in the water in Texas...

[kentauros]

63. Yep! Tasty goodness!

:D

[SoapBox]

69. Outrageous

...just try'n to control ALL women.

Check out the school and district:

http://silsbeeisd.org/

[neoralme]

70. This decision needs to be reversed or vacated. You can bet there are

people working on it. It is disgusting.

[jberryhill]

79. Hello... the US Supreme Court didn't take the case

So, uh, who should reverse or vacate it?

[joeglow3]

81. What is the legal basis for that?

Emotionally, I agree with you. However, I see no basis in the law for your position.

[neoralme]

86. That's good.

[Blue Owl]

74. Fuck that shit

I'd send 'em a leaky bag of diarrhea as their "compensation"

[jmowreader]

83. She's fortunate...

Seeing as it's Texas, if a football player would have raped her she would have had to pay $45,000 to the school plus $50,000 to the rapist for possibly damaging his future viability in the NFL.

In reality, this ruling is pretty fucked up.

[RevStPatrick]

85. Can she declare bankruptcy...

...in order to duck out of the judgment?
That's what I would do.

[barbtries]

97. i don't believe that shit.

if i was her i'd sign up for debtor's prison before they ever saw one cent of my money. how mean our world has become.

[Buenaventura]

100. With Clarence Thomas on the bench it's no surprise. n/t

[Eric J in MN]

105. Ruling wasn't from US Supreme Court. NT

NT

[Buenaventura]

132. No, but they declined to hear the review - hence the article.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[I Have A Dream]

101. All of this disgusts me, but the thing that MOST disgusts me...

is that the courts considered the lawsuit to be frivolous. Decide against her if the law dictates that it must, but how is this lawsuit frivolous?

:wtf:

[Lance_Boyle]

108. Suing to protect a made-up Constitutional Right to be a cheerleader

is as frivolous as lawsuits get.

[jbeing]

130. So what recourse did she have?

You framing it as if she is asking for her right to cheerlead is pure BS.

You probably think that the assault was her fault, too.

She was victimized twice, and you seem to forget that. Why should she be punished because she was sexually assaulted then dumped from the cheerleading squad.

What recourse did she have? A gun? (Very Texas). She chose the legal way to deal with it. Some of you have forgotten that we have courts so that people don't get revenge on their own. Actually, if she had shot the guy, she would have gotten off for less money than she is being charged now.

Would that meet your frivolous threshold?

[Lance_Boyle]

133. Not my framing - that was the suit!

She sued over a nonexistent "right" to be a cheerleader. More specifically, she sued for being kicked off the team after refusing to perform the duties of a cheerleader. Lawsuits do not get more frivolous.

Her recourse was to cheer as a member of the team, or to not be a member of the team. She chose the "frivolous lawsuit" option instead.

[jbeing]

155. So, a professional lawyer would

sue for her right to cheerlead? Are you kidding me?

Sounds like someone is trying to minimize her plight.

Shouldn't be surprised though. This is a typical RW approach to people who they feel superior to.

If, in fact, the lawyer did this, I would sue him/her for negligence. That was not what the case was about. It was free speech.
If the judge(s) actually said this, I would find a way to have him removed from the case and his judgement vacated. This sounds prejudicial.

More likely this is a RW rewrite of history to suit someone's world view.

[joeglow3]

247. Please explain how it is free speech. nt

[cstanleytech]

264. See the problem is she gave up some of her rights when she joined the cheerleading

squad knowing she would be required to say things when on duty for the squad (kind of like when you join the military or the police, they both have rules regarding what you can and cannot say when on duty) that she might not agree with, it (as I have said repeatedly) sucks and I do feel sympathy for her but regardless of how I feel for her it does not change the facts in this case.

[jbeing]

279. Totally different

You don't give up your free speech rights (even to say nothing) just because you become a cheerleader. Of course, if you say or do something that breaks a strict code that was previously agreed to, then, yes, you could lose your position. But there was no strict code - other than running naked across the court or giving the finger to the other team. But this case is not simple as "cheer or leave." It's about a mitigating circumstance that the school chose to ignore. They cared more about the player's feeling than the victimized girl. The school system failed the girl.

We've gotten too free with giving up our basic rights, just cause we think it's okay or appropriate to a job or set of circumstances like national security.

...but cheerleading? For that, we are to lose our right of free speech?"

You're kidding, right?

[cstanleytech]

376. Problem is she made the agreement

to cheer for the team, that means also she has to cheer for certain players of said team regardless of her personal feelings towards that team member for whatever reason.
But let me ask you something, would you be so all fired in defending her actions in refusing to cheer if she had refused to cheer for someone on the team because of their race?
After all in that case she would be exercising her "rights" to freedom of speech or would you agree that she should be dismissed from the team for not obeying the rules?

[stevenleser]

349. Really? Did that get explained to the parents when they signed the permission slip?

I could be wrong but children cannot do things that sign away their rights without parental consent.

[cstanleytech]

377. Unless her parents were total idiots

they should full well know their daughter would have to cheer for people they might dislike so yes, they agreed to this.

[Chris_Texas]

196. Blunt but accurate

[jbeing]

163. Was she suing for money

or just to get back on the cheerleading squad?

Big difference.

If no money was involved, how could it be frivolous (a euphemism for trying to get money)?

Anyone have an answer?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

251. If we could recommend comments, I'd recommend yours X 1000

thanks for saying this.

It hurts me that they let this monster come back to the school of his victim.

Maybe his status as sports star in the school helped him get the light/nearly nothing sentence.

[iandhr]

116. family values

:sarcasm:

[BrightKnight]

122. Athletics and cheerleading are about the student not the school.

Everybody there is being paid to act in her best interest. Forcing her to cheer for someone who raped her is not in her best interest and it is not in the best interest of the school. How could anyone find this acceptable?

[caseymoz]

126. I'm sympathetic, but . . .

This was such a bad legal strategy. She should have resigned from the squad after she knew she would be required to cheer him.

Then she could have gone to every game dressed like a cheerleader to jeer him from the stands, not letting anyone forget what he did, and driving him off the team. Then it's an issue of free speech she would have definitely won.

$45k is an awful lot of money to lose, but this case was very high risk, and the costs of appeals all the way to the SCOTUS are astronomical.

[Lars39]

128. Just the assault charge should have kept him off the basketball team.

If this had happened, we wouldn't be hearing of this case now.

[kelly1mm]

134. Just the charge, not the conviction? You do know that at the time of

this incident he was not convicted (via plea) of anything right? If you say 'so what, he was accused of rape!' I would ask if you remember the Duke Lacrosse Team debacle?

[Lars39]

153. That's not the timeline the article has.

"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. "

[kelly1mm]

171. You are right, mea culpa! Tried to self delete my post but time expired.

My personal opininon is that the school should not have allowed him on the team after the conviction of assault (pled down to) of another student.

[tammywammy]

275. The timeline is this

He was arrested.
He was removed from school.
The grand jury failed to indict him.
At that point he's under no charges and returns to his regular school and basketball team.
She refuses to cheer.
A second grand jury indicts him.
He's removed from the school & basketball team.
He pleads out later.

[Lars39]

280. That timeline seems more complete than that of this article.

I haven't read any other articles about the subject.

[tammywammy]

281. I've read quite a few articles on this

I was amazed that a student charged with such a crime would be in a regular school (and not alternative), let alone playing basketball. Since at the time he wasn't charged with anything, the school wouldn't be able to keep him out and he would be eligible to return to extra curricular activities.

[jbeing]

136. One Question

After the girl made the accusation, did the school do anything to help her or did they let her flounder?

I've never heard what they did to support this girl.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enthusiast]

160. Reminds me of the damn Taliban. nt

[JDPriestly]

164. Horrors. Can this story be true?

What kind of people are sitting on our Supreme Court?

Roberts and Scalia and perhaps some of the other Justices have daughters. If this young woman had been their daughter, they would have gone to the school and had the kid arrested. That's what most fathers would do.

In a sense, the Supreme Court members are the parents (and grandparents) of all Americans. They are responsible for some of the moral tenor of the country.

Letting that decision stand is just outrageous.

[Odin2005]

191. I am fucking speechless!

:grr:

[ZombieHorde]

198. No one is watching out for us anymore. I hope her father is able to secretly take care of the

situation.

[MsPithy]

212. There is a real "Take it, bitch!" quality to this whole

sickening situation. This is one of those times that I am hard pressed to accept that rape is even a crime at all.

Why is someone who pled guilty to the LESSER CHARGE of assault still on the team?

[mn9driver]

215. Law and Justice are not synonymous

The decision of the court is consistent with the law. It is not just. My own personal experience with the legal system has driven home the fact that the concept of "right and wrong" has nothing at all to do with what happens in court.

[Arugula Latte]

219. Absolutely disgusting and sickening.

Fuck these people. :grr:

[azureblue]

222. the key words are basketball star

is "football star". In Texas, HS sports is second only to religion. Maybe first in some areas. The girl accused the school basketball star of rape, so she was doomed from the start. The "tell" is the fact that he is still in school and still playing sports. Any other state, he would be expelled at worst, and off the team at best. The plea down and it's ridiculously weak punishment, both by the courts and the school reek of a backroom deal to get out of the rape charge. Think about it - if the boy never raped her, then he would do all he could to defend himself and dare not risk even an assault going on his record. That would kill his college chances right there, so if he were innocent, he would make sure there was no blight on his record. But the deal in itself convicts him of rape. So he got a talking to and he pleas down to avoid the rape conviction. Now he is in trouble, but the HS doesn't want to risk losing him as a player and maybe ending his chances at college ball, so they let him play. And the girl gets screwed over, Texas style.

Another "tell" is the fact that the squad could have understood where she was coming from and simply changed the routine - like having some cheerleaders do flips or jumps, and others clap. Easy way out. But no. not one iota of sympathy, or effort to defuse an explosive situation. They hard lined and forced the girl to live by her convictions. My take on that is that the girl had already created a lot of "bad feelings" and the squad was looking for a way to get her (how dare she accuse out football star!) off the squad. Texas style.

Right now, we can debate this issue all day long, but that will not help the girl or her folks. Not only are they now branded, they have to pony up because they got a poor lawyer. Sorry to make an awful pun, but the girl got screwed three times. Maybe four. I feel for here and her family. She did the right thing, and Texas justice came right back with "don't you mess with our football boys". And sad to say, I think they may have to move out of state if they are to have any future peace.

Maybe a fund can be set up to pay for the legal bills. But all in all, it's travesty. It should not end with this. There is no way to retry the boy for rape. But this decision is wrong, and needs to be corrected. I hope the girl and her family knows that they are not the bad guys here and a lot of good people are behind them and looking for a way to help.

[Chris_Texas]

237. Quite an imagination there

You have painted a picture in which everyone, EVERYONE, except this sweet innocent righteous girl is part of some grand conspiracy. Everyone, from the kid who (according to you) raped her, to the police, the District Attorneys, the Detectives, the School Board and Coaches and Teachers, the media, the first grand jury, her fellow cheerleaders, her fellow students, future colleges, the local courts, district court, federal court, supreme court, they ALL cared so much about this one high school sports basketball team that they decided to not let a little thing like rape (in Texas no less, where they hang you for spitting on the sidewalk) get in the way of a winning basketball season in some small Texas town.

Doesn't that sound a little "birther" to you? If you add NASA and Obama in there, or Bush -- your pick -- you'd have the makings of a first rate thriller.

Only no one would believe it.

You know, if you are just going to imagine scenarios, why not go with the most plausible. Ready?

Everyone involved at every level cared about doing the best job they could. None of them gave a fuck about some local basketball kid (it's Texas, they love HS football anyway) or whether or not the team did well, including the students and teachers and admin at the school. The cops and DA looked at the assault case and decided it was kinda weak, but they wanted to do their best for this girl so they took it to a grand jury which refused to advance the case. So they tried again, and eventually got this kid to plead guilty to the best that they could get, a minor sexual assault change.

The school, knowing the details of the allegation and the plea and deal, and having no choice anyway, allows him to return to the school and his team. They don't dare kick him off the team because then they are facing a civil rights lawsuit with Jesse Jackson marching and the folks at DU sending them threatening emails for harrassing this poor black kid, so they just cross their fingers and hope for the best. Only his accuser isn't having any of it. She is talking before the game to her friends, the other cheerleaders, the coaches. Everyone tells her to just pretend, jump around and act happy, support the school, and THEY aren't gonna back her up. But she isn't listening. She is too angry at how messed up life is.

She goes out there in front of the crowd and, like a normal teen, makes a big show out of not supporting her team. She gets called on it because the prinicple couldn't help but notice -- everyone noticed-- canned, and then runs home to daddy who hires a team of lawyers. They look at the case and see nothing there, because there is nothing there unless the school settles, but they convince dad to go for it anyway, cash up front please. And the rest is history.

And everything I just wrote is fiction. It's total crap. But then so is everything you wrote. The difference is that I did not twist myself up like a pretzel to make everyone out to be a monster.

[LisaL]

248. He plays both football and basketball.

[jbeing]

268. No, you are twisted for a different reason

You seem to enjoy that the girl was raped twice. The second time by the justice system.

[COLGATE4]

368. Once again, the law does not function based on emotion, empathy

or individual morality or any other subjective standard, such as what you are applying. Our legal system is based on adherence to a set of rules, agreed to by the community and passed into law by their duly elected officials. A challenge is weighed according to these rules, not by the emotion or outrage of the day. That is what happened here. The legal system did not 'rape the girl a second time'. She got bad legal advice from her parents and her attorney, particularly when they decided to appeal after losing the first time in court. There is a price to pay for blindly charging ahead when you've already been told that your case lost - now the parents have to pay it.

[catgirl]

224. I hope there is a donation site for her

Anyone know of one? This is just terrible. I feel so bad for her.

[Wabbajack_]

227. Compensate them for WHAT?

Makes no sense. How can the school be so cruel?

[Egnever]

239. Legal fees they had to pay to defend themselves.

[COLGATE4]

369. For the thousands of dollars the school district (which is probably

not swimming in money, like all school districts these days) had to pay to defend themselves against this frivilous lawsuit.

[femrap]

229. SCOTUS SUCKS.

I don't think they have any comprehension of JUSTICE.

May the dudes find out how the cheerleader feels.

Can she go to Civil Court?

[COLGATE4]

370. This WAS civil court.

[femrap]

375. No Justice

for women in America. May the rapist BBer tear his knee up very badly. Maybe he'll have to limp someday.

[WillyT]

232. Jesus...

:wtf:

:mad:

:banghead:

:kick:

[garthranzz]

235. Excuse me? Excuse me? Has anyone seen the court's decisions?

What was the reasoning (laughably so-called) of the lower court and the appeals court? Did the bought-and-sold-hypocritical-not-so "Supreme" Court issue any statement why it refused to consider the case? How do the "Supremes" (do-run-run) decide whether or not to hear a case? Majority bribe, er, vote? Any dissenting opinions?

So long as the bribed, bought-and-sold, thieving Scalia and Thomas wear the black robes, there's nothing legitimate about the "Supreme" Court.

That said, I'd still like to see what "reasons" the courts came up with. For all of it.

Yeah, legally the *insert curse word* school & (water)board may have been right, but charging her $45k? *curse word*

[COLGATE4]

371. Lower trial court opinions are not published - there are just way too

many of them. Appellate decisions are usually published, and you can certainly look the decision on this case up on Lexis/Nexis. In fact, I hope you do so. Unlike what we see on TV, etc. appellate decisions are closely and carefully reasoned, and the decision is supported by precedent and case law. It might be an eye-opener for you to actually look at one before charging ahead and demeaning the legal process. BTW, The Supreme Court rarely if ever issues and reasons for why it declines to hear an appeal (called denial of certiorari).

[Citizen Worker]

236. Women must be taught at an early age that they are mere chattel and shall forever be subservient to

men, regardless of the crime(s) committed against her.
This decision implies that institutional rights supersede those of the individual further eroding the Bill Of Rights.

[RSillsbee]

245. Kinda sucks the high School had that name

That said , certain things are right and certain things are wrong. not. one. fucking. dime. would I pay to that school

[fascisthunter]

246. absolutely sickening... no one can defend this

you have to have a broken moral compass to even try. Thank whatever I am not that shallow and apathetic.

[Ken Burch]

253. Why are they being this vindictive?

There's no way this Bolton kid could've been THAT good at the foul line.

Something is twisted in the Lone Star State(and any OTHER state that has the "Sports Uber Alles" mindset).

[mackerel]

254. Why aren't girls and women in that school district

protesting?

[Ken Burch]

255. Maybe they've got them on lockdown.

And perhaps there afraid THEY'll get punished like she was if they defy the basketball patriarchy.

I think Baptist Sharia has been imposed in that district.

[mackerel]

257. Possibly...

sadly I think a lot of women ignore things like this until it's too late and there is too long a history.

[mackerel]

261. Interesting link. Apparently Rakheem has many protectors.

http://charlespaugh.com/tag/rakheem-jamal-bolton/

[Canuckistanian]

267. "Baptist Sharia"

Good description.

[Canuckistanian]

265. Looks like Texas just became a "right to rape" state

That judge who ruled this should be drummed out of the legal profession.

[Anakin Skywalker]

269. Texas Loves Its Jocks! They Can Do No Wrong!

[BrightKnight]

394. Basketball is actually popular in a number of States now. Texas is just another State

with no more or less reverence for athletics.

[ThomCat]

272. I hope she can declare bankruptcy and never pay a penny of this.

This is absolutely horrible that she should be forced to do anything to honor her rapist, and then have to pay a large amount of money because she didn't want to do it too!

:wtf:

This is not justice.

[tammywammy]

282. I agree with the decision

Do I think the school should have acted differently? Yes.

[U4ikLefty]

283. Is the athlete's name Kobe Roethlisberger?

I hope he gets what's coming to him someday.

[RamboLiberal]

284. Cheerleader who wouldn't root for assailant loses

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

A Texas high school cheerleader who was kicked off the squad for refusing to chant the name of a basketball player - the same athlete she said had raped her four months earlier - lost a U.S. Supreme Court appeal Monday.

A federal appeals court ruled in September that the cheerleader was speaking for the school, not herself, and had no right to remain silent when called on to cheer the athlete by name.

The Supreme Court denied review of the case Monday without comment.

The girl, identified by her initials H.S., was 16 when she said she was raped at a party in her southeast Texas hometown of Silsbee in October 2008. She identified the assailant as Rakheem Bolton, a star on the Silsbee High School football team.





Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/02/MNSI1JAT0E.DTL&tsp=1

[texastoast]

285. Figures.

Morals in Texas are there when they don't interfere with high school sports.

[midnight]

286. K&R

[ZombieHorde]

287. This is so obviously depraved. Sports has a weird effect. nt

[femrap]

337. Patriarchy always

wins. Women rarely do. Those 5 on the SCOTUS believe women are only good for sex and procreating.

This country just gets worse and worse.

Just wait until they rule on the women of Walmart.

[primavera]

288. Of course, if she were seeking an abortion after the rape...

... the courts wouldn't hesitate to crawl into her uterus to stop her, but since she's only seeking protection from harms related to being raped, well, that's obviously nothing the court has any business interesting itself in.

[2banon]

289. exactly. The majority on this SCOTUS are corrupt chauvinist pigs

and I haven't used that term in over 25-30 years.

[HankyDubs]

290. the scotus we have

is far more dangerous than any terrorist group. It will take generations to undo the harm they are doing.

[DeSwiss]

291. +1000

:thumbsup:

K&R

[primavera]

295. + another 1,000!

[Hissyspit]

303. +1000 +1

[xxqqqzme]

308. The five are destroying this country.

It appears no one knows how to stop them.

[Quantess]

329. True!

[ThomCat]

328. Right.

The court manages to find the ruling that will limit, humiliate, and restrict the rights of women. Women who expect the court to respect them, and protect them, are again sadly disappointed.

So the lesson here is that when a woman is raped the obligation is upon Her to avoid him by abandoning every activity and association in Her life in order to avoid doing anything that would even symbolically inconvenience him, or else she can just pretend she wasn't raped and keep associating with him as if the rape never happened.

x(

This court continues to prove that it just gets worse with every damned ruling.

[pfitz59]

292. Did she press charges after the alleged rape?

Was the player convicted? Did she approach school administrators? Did the allegations surface AFTER she was kicked off the squad? this story is incomplete....

[spooky3]

293. did you read the article? It answers some of your questions.

[LisaL]

297. He pleaded guility to assault and got one year suspended sentence.

"A judge sentenced Rakheem Jamal Bolton, 19, to one year in jail, but the sentence was suspended and Bolton will remain free if he follows the terms of his probation."
http://www.kfdm.com/articles/former-39394-school-high.html

[Ken Burch]

300. Why the hell didn't they kick him off the team?

Nobody's THAT good at the foul line.

Some of us used to think that sports was about teaching character and values and...well, silly stuff like that.

[DFW]

304. It sounds like the guy is pretty foul already

As well as our Texan (and national) "justice" system.

The girl should have incorporated herself, and put "Inc." after her name on the lawsuit.
The rightist Supreme Court majority ALWAYS votes in your favor if you're a corporation.

[tammywammy]

318. Because at the time of this incident he wasn't charged with anything

One he was he was removed from the team.

[Freddie Stubbs]

321. He plead guilty AFTER the girl refused to cheer

It would appear that the school decided to take an "innocent until proven guilty" attitude toward this.

[Ken Burch]

340. Well then, after the school HAD the facts, why didn't they just do the decent thing and say

"Ok, we get it. You were right and we were wrong. We're sorry and we're revoking your dismissal from the squad"?
What the hell did the school think they had to lose by backing down on this?
Why were they so adamant about fighting this to the bitter, ugly end?
It's not like backing up the cheerleader would have destroyed the team's chances.
This school district put way the hell too much emphasis on winning games rather than standing up for what's right.

[NashVegas]

342. Tribal Behavior

Protecting the alpha male and propping them up when they fuck up.

[Downwinder]

294. I pointed out to my Texas Granddaughter,

What a Cheerleader's duties involved.

I don't think she will try out.

[SoapBox]

296. Outrageous...

[avaistheone1]

298. This is one of those cases where

the law is an ass.

[Ken Burch]

299. Making free throws matters more than the dignity of a rape victim

That's Middle America for you.

[Lance_Boyle]

310. *alleged* rape victim

The guy was never tried on rape charges - I believe he was tried on simple assault charges. The article is very good about not convicting the accused in print.

[Ken Burch]

311. She WAS raped, that part goes without saying.

HE just wasn't convicted of it. That doesn't mean you're entitled to question whether she was raped at all. There's still a huge number of women who don't even report they've been raped because they're scared or because they don't believe the rapist will ever face justice.

Women almost never make false rape accusations.

[Clovis Sangrail]

312. why does that part "go without saying"?

If you know more about this incident than was in the article please share.

Assuming the accuser is telling the truth based on your feeling about what they are alleging makes no more sense than assuming the accused is telling the truth based on what color socks they happen to wearing.
In theory we have a system where people are innocent until proven guilty.
I realize this isn't always how things work but it's good to at least pretend to put that in practice with our own evaluations of other people.

[Lance_Boyle]

323. No, that does not go without saying.

What goes without saying is that it is improper (at best) to refer to someone who was never tried (much less convicted) for rape as a rapist.

I'm sure Crystal Gail Mangum would love to hear your theory on the impossibility of false rape allegations - maybe you could offer testimony at her next trial.

[U4ikLefty]

330. He's a rapist.

An asshole too.

[Lance_Boyle]

331. As long as the law disagrees with you (which it does),

I'm content to allow you your delusion of certainty in the matter.

[NashVegas]

343. This Is Not a Court of Law

This is an internet message board.

[U4ikLefty]

346. The "law" doesn't tell me that Bu$h is a war criminal.

You delusion is that "law" is perfect when humans apply it.

[Ken Burch]

339. By that logic, only those women whose rapists were actually convicted were REALLY raped

I understand the "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but you have no idea how sexist and insensitive you sound here. It's totally inappropriate to imply that she made a false accusation or that she wasn't raped. You really need to back off on that one.

In the eyes of the law, this man wasn't convicted raped. But she is a rape victim.

[LanternWaste]

336. And cionfirmed assualt victim...

"*alleged* rape victim..."


And confirmed assault victim... I imagine many think she should have cheered on her indicted assailant with back flips, rah-rah's and pom-poms.

[Lance_Boyle]

338. This is correct.

At the time of the cheering incident behind this case neither she nor he were confirmed anything but student athletes.

[slay]

301. The group always wins over the individual with our SHIT supreme court

they are a huge part of the problem. This one they refused to even look at but I'm not surprised they let the previous shit verdict stand.

[Hissyspit]

302. LOL

Stupidest Supreme Court we've probably ever had.

Really. Not controversial, not nuanced. Just stupid.

[Lasher]

305. The cheerleader had a shitty lawyer.

His contention was that this cheerleader had a right to act unilaterally while performing as a member of her cheerleading squad. And since he alleged this to be a legal right, it would have gone to follow that every cheerleader is entitled to such self expression under any circumstances. This is a flawed argument.

He should have come up with a better argument. As it was, he left this unfortunate family with a $45,000 bill, in addition to all the money they wasted paying him.

[COLGATE4]

320. K&R

[antigone382]

345. It would be nice if we could raise some of the money for the court costs.

I really hate that this girl has been put through this; it's pretty thoroughly disgusting.

[trud]

306. every person on the cheerleading squad

should have resigned. But then, that's Texas for you.

[kentauros]

313. Why the broad brush against Texas?

Everywhere else in the country they would have done as you suggested but not here? Got any evidence to back that assertion up?

[Javaman]

315. I think Texas gets the bad rap of insane cheerleaders ever since

that cheerleader murder case a few years back.

FYI: I live in Ausitn.

[kentauros]

316. Perhaps.

I remember that story, since it took place not far from here. Channelview is just northeast of here (Houston) and like where the edge of East Texas (Redneckistan) touches us.

But, DU loves to hate on Texas, for any reason. I try to call it out every time I see it, even if I don't read LBN or GD as thoroughly as some.

[The Wizard]

307. It's a free speech issue

She has the right to remain silent even if not being placed under arrest. The current configuration of the Supreme Court is a greater threat to democracy than than Hitler, Hiro Hito and bin Laden. Fascism has come to America concealed in black robes and hiding behind a bench.

[harun]

314. Word

[COLGATE4]

372. As an individual she has the right to remain silent. As a de facto

spokesperson for the government, she does not. That's the difference in this case.

[cstanleytech]

378. She wasnt under arrest though so that doesnt apply

she was refusing to cheer for someone who she clearly did not like (with good reason) however that doesnt give her an out in refusing to cheer for that person on the team because she agreed to cheer for the team and also the members of the team when she joined up.
That means even if she didnt like the person regardless of what they have done, their race or their religion that she has to cheer for them.

[florida08]

309. "the cheerleading was speaking for her school"?

And this school protects it's debauchers?? This is insane. Why was he still on the team? Oh right because he was the 'star'. But seriously what can you expect from a people who removed Thomas Jefferson from their school history books, the man who pushed for a bill of rights and Jesus from the Bible because he was just to liberal. Freedoms interfere with their will..can't have that. Now Ayn Rand on the other hand is sacred. I'd say that's fairly a satanic culture brewing there.

[tammywammy]

319. He was on the team because at the time of this incident he hadn't been charged with anything

Once he was, he was removed from the team.

[florida08]

322. not exactly what I read

The original assault happened in 2008.

In September 2010, Bolton pled guilty to a lesser charge of Class A Assault and was sentenced to one year in prison, a sentence that was suspended by the judge in lieu of two years probation, a $2,500 fine, community service and an anger management course.

Silsbee school officials had two responses to the incident. First, they urged H.S. to keep a low profile, such as avoiding the school cafeteria and not taking part in homecoming activities. With the support of her family, she refused to do so, rejecting the notion that she had anything to be ashamed of. Secondly, school officials kicked her off the cheerleading squad for refusing to cheer for Bolton. No kidding.

Bolton had been allowed back on campus during a brief period when one grand jury withdrew the charges before another grand jury reinstated them. During a basketball game, H.S. cheered for the entire team but refused to cheer “Rakheem” during his free-throws, so she was off the squad...Richard Bain, Jr., the superintendent of schools, allegedly ordered H.S. to cheer for her attacker.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/10/15/cheerleader-required-to-cheer-for-man-who-assaulted-her/

[tammywammy]

325. This doesn't contradict what I said.

It was between the two grand jury proceedings when this incident happened. After being no-billed by a grand jury the students were allowed to return from the alternate school and resume athletics. After a second grand jury indicted them, they were removed once again. If you are no-billed by a grand jury for all intents and purposes you're still an innocent citizen, that's why the students were allowed to return. Which honestly, that's how it should be. If I'm wrongly arrested (not saying this guy was) and then there's no evidence and a grand jury doesn't indict, why shouldn't I as a student be allowed to return as a regular student at that point?

[Clovis Sangrail]

327. never know who's telling the truth

but the local paper seems to have a time line of this:
10/08 - Assault happens
1/09 - First Grand Jury opts to not indict
2/09 - H.S. refuses to cheer for Bolton
9/09 - Bolton indicted for the first time
9/10 - Bolton pleads to Class A assault

http://www.kfdm.com/articles/former-39394-school-high.html

[alp227]

333. you're right, that "speaking for the school" argument is BS given the circumstances

and that school is nothing to be proud of representing given its horrible, horrible choice of actions regarding the cheerleader. And even more disgusting? How multiple WOMEN were able to further victimize this girl and stand with a monster. They include:
- Gaye Bolton, principal of the high school at the time of the rape
- Sissy McInnis, coach of the cheer team that provided that ultimatum
- Edith Clement, federal judge on the 5th Circuit appeals court, a George W. Bush nominee
(here's the decision those two judges along with Emilio Garza ruled on)

And it takes four justices approval for Supreme Court to hear a case (rule of four) - I wonder if the women justices (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan) were included?

I mean, look at this description of the incident, from an ABC news report:

H.S. was a16-year-old junior at Silsbee High School, when, drunk at an October 2008 house party after a football game, she was pushed onto a pool table, then to the floor by Bolton, a star athlete who played football and basketball. Rountree allegedly joined in on the assault.

"They start fondling her, disrobing her from the waist down," said H.S.' attorney Larry Watts. "Putting her on the floor, she starts saying, 'Stop, no,' calls for help."

H.S. was then raped, according to court documents, as other partygoers, hearing her screams, banged on the door to the room. When the door burst open, the documents allege, Bolton and Rountree had made their way out a window in an adjacent bathroom.

H.S. was found under the pool table, half-naked and sobbing. Both Bolton and Rountree were arrested the next day.

BUT...according to the good ol' people of Texas from the high school admins to the grand jury to the federal judges, it wasn't that bad, and only slutty women who don't follow the Bible and God's Way get raped.

[CBGLuthier]

317. It's the unheralded side-sport of jocks. Cheerleader raping.

Just one of the perks. Now fully sanctioned by the supreme court.


Please to notice I said jocks. Not athletes. There is a difference in mentality.

[SpartanDem]

324. While the circumstances behind the case are sad it was right decision

organizations have the right remove members for what they say or don't say publicly it's why CBS was able to fire Imus for his racist comments or the Michigan AG who got fired for homophobic, political actives done on his free time. It gets back to that old saying free speech in not consequence free speech. Now that this involved a school that was more concerned about its star player than a rape victim is beyond sad, it doesn't change that legally it is right decision. Sometimes the law just plain sucks.

[tammywammy]

326. I also agree with this decision

Do I think the school should have come to a better conclusion or work around? Most definitely.

[hakko936]

332. Two things....

1) Why is it a problem is she won't cheer for him? He was convicted via a plea deal of assaulting her. Why in the hell would the school system expect her to chant his name? Even if it wasn't a sexual assault, why should she be forced to chant the name of her assailant? That just strikes me as dumb as hell.

2) He was charged with sexual assault and got a plea deal. SOMETHING of a sexual nature happened. Apparently the DA didn't think he could make the sexual assault charge stick.

[Freddie Stubbs]

335. At the time when she wouldn't cheer, the player had yet to be charged

[Ken Burch]

341. Then they should just have asked her what happened, and when she told them, said

"OK...we get it...you were right and we're sorry we did that to you"?

Why did they have to defend something then that they KNEW was wrong all the way to the bitter end?

What's wrong with these people?

Isn't there something deeply twisted in saying that winning a damn basketball game is THAT important?

[NashVegas]

344. Just Another Fucked Up Texas Town

Did you see the fuss over the NYT article about the recent arrests of some 20 men for raping an 11 year old girl? The gist of the quotes from people they spoke to was that the townspeople were more worried about the future/reputations of the accused (and filmed! so let's not put up with any "alleged" bullshit here) and implying the victim was at fault for dressing like a 20 YO and being unsupervised.

Anyone from a dysfunctional family who has clarity of their situation can tell you all about how the people surrounding an abusive situation, who are not directly involved, will protect what they perceive as their present interests before giving thought to the victim.

[Odin2005]

334. Disgusting.

:grr:

[gtar100]

362. I cannot understand this case. Such injustice for this young girl. Why?

What is wrong with Texas?

[JAbuchan08]

363. legally this decision was correct

but it is severely messed up that the school pursued this.

[FlaGranny]

366. God, after reading this thread

now I do understand why attorneys get a bad rap. So many are so tightly wrapped in every minute letter of the law they totally become cold to reality of life. Claiming children enter contracts to become cheerleaders??? My daughter was in the color guard in high school and she never signed any contracts and neither did I. Back in those days this issue would never have arisen. High school administrators and coaches had sense. Much more sense than attorneys today who want to argue the case that children enter contracts to perform. I've never heard such nonsense. Minors don't enter into contracts. Nothing here should have been a legal issue (only in attorneys' litiginous minds). The school should have ignored the girl's silence. Everything in this world is not a legal issue. Some things are just common sense - except for attorneys who like to litigate and are looking for every reason to do so.

[COLGATE4]

367. Who are you arguing against? The attorneys who defended the suit

or the attorney who took the girl's frivilous case which has now resulted in her (and/or her family) having to pay $45,000 in legal costs? Sounds like you're mad at the girl's attorney. I agree - he/she should never have taken her case to begin with.

[FlaGranny]

380. The professed attorneys

here - the ones who seem to think the school was right to require the girl to cheer. There was absolutely no reason to make the girl humiliate herself by cheering the jock. Kicking her off the squad might be legal but IT IS NOT RIGHT. I don't blame the child for wanting to sue them. Commen sense would have/should have stopped the entire story in its tracks (even if the school could have made a legally binding contract with a minor). The girl should have been excused from her duties and life would have gone on. Period. End of story. Stop excusing the inexcusable. The school handled the incident with stupidity. The girl took offense. If you can't see the unfairness in all that - NOT THE LEGALITY OR ILLEGALITY, BUT THE UNFAIRNESS, I truly feel sorry for you. I hope all attorneys do not lose their humanity.

[COLGATE4]

387. Nobody ever said life was fair. The school district didn't sue

the girl - she sued the school district. The school's attorneys aren't to blame for the actions the girl and/or her parents took. In addition, once they had their bite at the apple of justice and lost, they should have called it a day. Instead they insisted on appealing the case, which wound up costing them $45,000.00. That's a lot of money to try and 'prove a point' which a court had already told them wasn't going to fly. You should be mad at the school, or the girl, or her parents, but don't get mad at the lawyers.

[October]

398. It's more than a mere POINT they were trying to prove

Life isn't fair -- too many lawyers. Bad ones.

[jpak]

379. texas

yup

[bitchkitty]

382. I just don't get it.

WHY did they allow this creep to return to the school, much less the football team? He pleaded guilty to assaulting the girl, or have I missed something?

They allow a rapist to go free for the sake of a freaking football team. I just don't get the football worship in some places.

[JAbuchan08]

383. Someone should start a legal defense fund for this girl and her family

n/t

[Name removed]

384. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DailyGrind]

386. The problem isn't with the courts or the ruling, it's with the school

Once it got into the hands of the legal system, they pretty much had to hand down this verdict or ignore the law. I doubt they enjoyed it.

The school however, should be totally ashamed of themselves. It sounds like she did everything a cheerleader is required to do except specifically cheer this jerk's name during some specific routine or something; is that so hard to accomodate? I'm guessing the cheerleader coachettes are as eager to please the jocks as the boosters. Shameful.

Thanks for looking out for the students, not.

[COLGATE4]

388. You've got it. Although, to be honest, the lawyer that took the girl's

case really didn't do well by them. Any lawyer worth his/her salt would have told the parents that it was a guaranteed loser. I think somebody took advantage of the parents' pique and drained them of some serious money (not to mention the $45,000.00 they noe hsve to pay).

[survivorthriver]

389. sign cause petition to request Fair Appeal for cheerleader

http://www.change.org/petitions/force-federal-appeals-court-for-fair-appeal-in-16-year-old-girls-rape-case

Please share the link and have as many people as you can sign the petition for a Fair Appeal for this cheerleader.

The $45,000 legal fees should be made to look like chump change after she sues for civil damages against the boys and the school.

[COLGATE4]

392. What are you petitioning to "appeal"? The appellate decision

was already appealed to the US Supreme Court, which declined to review the decision of the lower court. This means that the lower appellate court's decision is final. That's the end of it - there are no further appeals possible.

[TK421]

391. what a twisted, fucked-up world we live in n/t

[bbdad]

401. As a poster at another website's forum said,

"Sports in High School are more important than rape."

Another poster said, "Not just in Texas, but all over America, the ability to catch, hit, or throw a ball in some 'sport' is a free pass to (sic) committ sexual assault, drunken driving, and a host of other offenses that would see most of us rotting in prison.

American society encourages brutal and lawless atheletes by winking at criminal behaviors. Nothing matters but that 'our' team win! And the players on 'your' team don't give a s--- about any of the fans.

Hasn't really changed from the days of the Roman circuses and gladiators."

But, of course, the sports fans will have their way; and nothing will be done to deal with this injustice.

[derby378]

403. Loser pays, winner preys, rapist stays

Yet another reason we needed more Texas Democrats to turn out at the polls this past November. Have we learned our lesson yet?