207

submitted 7 months ago by RNAi@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 69 points 7 months ago

Is that real? I can't believe the SCOTUS would rule 9-0 on something like that because it's actually both a hilarious thing to rule on and also extremely based to disallow public officials from blocking people on bird site

[-] Llituro@hexbear.net 50 points 7 months ago

https://archive.ph/pYYAD (nbc news link)

not only is it real, it's for the funniest reasons.

[-] edge@hexbear.net 51 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The California case arose after two members of the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees, Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane, blocked parents Christopher and Kimberly Garnier from commenting on their Facebook page in 2017. O’Connor-Ratcliff also prevented Christopher Garnier from responding to her Twitter posts. Zane has since left office.

I really want to know what was the dispute that led to that.

This is the most I’ve found:

Christopher and Kimberly Garnier, who have children attending PUSD schools, often criticized the board of trustees. They began posting lengthy and repetitive comments on the Trustees’ social-media posts—for instance, nearly identical comments on 42 separate posts on O’Connor-Ratcliff ’s Facebook page and 226 identical replies within a 10-minute span to every tweet on her Twitter feed. The Trustees initially deleted the Garniers’ comments before blocking them from commenting altogether.

Which lmao, but it doesn’t say what the comments were about.

Edit:

In the years leading up to the dispute at issue in this case, the Garniers were especially vocal critics of the Board, particularly regarding race relations in the District, and alleged financial wrongdoing by then-Superintendent John Collins.

regarding race relations

Oh no. Still not specific enough though.

[-] nemmybun@hexbear.net 55 points 7 months ago

The Garniers left comments about the financial mismanagement by a former superintendent and about alleged incidents of racism.

“I have children of color in the district, and I don’t want them going to school and seeing a noose or the profanity like that,” Kimberly Garnier testified.

Source

[-] SacredExcrement@hexbear.net 14 points 7 months ago

I'm shocked they actually won

This is usually the sort of thing that gets shot down 5-4

[-] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 20 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Almost guaranteed that it was some inanity about CRT and wokeness. School boards across the country are being attacked over that shit. In my area, one of the Mom's for Liberty people has a son who's a Proud Boy :ralph-wiggum: and they all show up at school board meetings to yell and harass people about woke books.

The Dollop did a whole thing on the shit going down in Dave Anthony's school district.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK-tTuhr4Fc

[-] edge@hexbear.net 12 points 7 months ago

lmao yeah I just found this

In the years leading up to the dispute at issue in this case, the Garniers were especially vocal critics of the Board, particularly regarding race relations in the District, and alleged financial wrongdoing by then-Superintendent John Collins.