"Young people need to have the ability to express themselves without worrying about being punished when they get to school."

"I never could have imagined that one simple snap would turn into a Supreme Court case, but I’m proud that my family and I advocated for the rights of millions of public school students."

Said Brandi Levy (now an 18-year-old college student), quoted in "Supreme Court sides with high school cheerleader in free-speech dispute over profane Snapchat rant" (WaPo).

The decision is 8-1, with only Justice Thomas dissenting, and Justice Breyer writing the opinion about Levy's barbaric yawp: "Fuck school, fuck softball, fuck cheer, fuck everything."

From the WaPo article (by Robert Barnes):

I know I've been told that's not funny...

... but I was amused by this effort at running all the U.S. Presidents (or at least the first 40) through Snapchat's feminizing filter. It can't handle the facial hair, but other than that, I'm impressed by how attractive the Presidents become. Nixon approaches a Mary-Tyler-Moore-like charm.

Here's my post from a few days about the that's-not-funny chiding over that Snapchat filter.

Anyway, my favorite is Madison:

"A presidential candidate admitting to marijuana use is nothing new. That happened in 2004, 2008, and 2016."

"But I've never seen any presidential candidate other than Kamala Harris follow up that admission with this kind of argument for legalizing marijuana: 'I think that it gives a lot of people joy, and we need more joy.'"

Writes my son John, on his blog, linking to "Kamala Harris says she smoked marijuana in college, calls for legalization" (ABC News).

This reminds me of why I changed my mind about legalization in March 2015 as a result of reading something written by Paul Johnson about Henrik Ibsen:

There was one aspect of Ibsen’s vanity which verged on the ludicrous... He had a lifelong passion for medals and orders. In fact, he went to embarrassing lengths to get them...

[T]here is ample evidence for Ibsen’s passion since he insisted on displaying his growing galaxy of stars on every possible occasion. As early as 1878 he is reported to have worn all of them, including one like a dog-collar round his neck, at a club dinner. The Swedish painter Georg Pauli came across Ibsen sporting his medals (not the ribbons alone but the actual stars) in a Rome street. At times he seems to have put them on virtually every evening. He defended his practice by saying that, in the presence of ‘younger friends’, it ‘reminds me that I need to keep within certain limits.’ All the same, people who had invited him to dinner were always relieved when he arrived without them, as they attracted smiles and even open laughter as the wine circulated....

That's about alcohol, but it jogged my thinking. As I elaborated later:

I'm not a big marijuana legalization advocate, though I did change my position on the subject fairly recently, because I think substance-boosted disinhibition is important, though overdone.

When people didn't understand the connection to the passage about Ibsen, I said,

Here's a clue: freedom and democracy depend on our disinhibition; we need to be able to laugh at authority. 

Without the disinhibiting substance, Ibsen would have got away with his stupid pomposity.

I'm talking about something a bit different from "joy." I like joy too, but there's something with more edge that I'm interested in.

And speaking of edge, here's something else I found searching my blog archive for Ibsen and marijuana. From April 2016, "The perfect problem — when everything big and small and up-to-date and retrospective and cool and puritanical collides in one crowded intersection":

"Snapchat's new Bob Marley lens sparks 'blackface' outrage."

To acknowledge 4/20, known as "Weed Day," Snapchat created a special "lens" that morphed people's faces into Bob Marley, the late reggae icon. The lens added dreadlocks, a crochet slouch cap, changed the shape of eyes and noses, and darkened skin color.

People flooded Twitter with accusations that Snapchat had created a blackface filter....

And this is why we need marijuana.

But that was April 2016, and now it's the Era of That's Not Funny! And it's been the week of hammering it into everyone's head that blackface is always always offensive and never ever funny. Ibsen didn't think his medals were funny. Kamala Harris imagines marijuana bringing joy — just some nice elevated feelings. But what if we get started laughing and we can't stop? It's a slippery slope out of the Era of That's Not Funny.

Snapchat loses $1.3 billion in market value after Kylie Jenner tweets that she doesn't open up the app anymore.

Bloomberg reports.

Here's all it took: "sooo does anyone else not open Snapchat anymore? Or is it just me... ugh this is so sad."

We think of these social media companies as so successful, but they could collapse in an instant, if people just stopped going there.

Related: I've stopped using Facebook.

"President Obama ridiculed on Snapchat by daughter Sasha."

But that's only something we know because Obama talked about it. That is, he ribbed her.

The perfect problem — when everything big and small and up-to-date and retrospective and cool and puritanical collides in one crowded intersection.

"Snapchat's new Bob Marley lens sparks 'blackface' outrage."

To acknowledge 4/20, known as "Weed Day," Snapchat created a special "lens" that morphed people's faces into Bob Marley, the late reggae icon. The lens added dreadlocks, a crochet slouch cap, changed the shape of eyes and noses, and darkened skin color.

People flooded Twitter with accusations that Snapchat had created a blackface filter....

And this is why we need marijuana.

If that last remark is hard to understand, I refer you to my March 24, 2015 post, where I revealed that "In the last couple days, my position on the legalization of marijuana has changed."

Oddly enough, it's because of something I read about Ibsen! I don't have the time right now to explain my train of thought, but I can give you the passage — from Paul Johnson's "Intellectuals" — that got me started on it:

There was one aspect of Ibsen’s vanity which verged on the ludicrous... He had a lifelong passion for medals and orders. In fact, he went to embarrassing lengths to get them...

[T]here is ample evidence for Ibsen’s passion since he insisted on displaying his growing galaxy of stars on every possible occasion. As early as 1878 he is reported to have worn all of them, including one like a dog-collar round his neck, at a club dinner. The Swedish painter Georg Pauli came across Ibsen sporting his medals (not the ribbons alone but the actual stars) in a Rome street. At times he seems to have put them on virtually every evening. He defended his practice by saying that, in the presence of ‘younger friends’, it ‘reminds me that I need to keep within certain limits.’ All the same, people who had invited him to dinner were always relieved when he arrived without them, as they attracted smiles and even open laughter as the wine circulated....

What struck me and changed my mind on the subject was the realization — as I put it in the comments — that "freedom and democracy depend on our disinhibition; we need to be able to laugh at authority."

"So why do some girls post sexualized pictures? Why are they complicit in this potentially very self-­undermining aspect of social­media culture?"

"'I think it’s just to get attention,' explains Lily, a 14-year-old in Garden City, N.Y., where I studied a group of girls for the book. 'It’s to get the likes. Everything’s about the likes.'"

So why does Time Magazine plod at such a mindnumbing low level through serious social issues? Why is it complicit in this potentially very self-­undermining aspect of mainstream media? I guess it's just to get attention....

The author informs us that she spent 2½ years doing research that took her to 10 states and that she talked to "more than 200 girls." So she averaged 1 girl per 4 days of research — 20 girls per state — and arrived at the stunning insight that girls post sexy pictures because it gets attention, which they like?

"Last night a disturbing racist post that was made to social media was brought to my attention."

"This post was hurtful and destructive to our campus community. While social media can certainly bring about positive change, it can also be a place that deeply hurts and harms others."

Said the statement by the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater chancellor about a Snapchat photograph of 2 students who posed in the middle of having a facial that had dark goo spread on their faces. The students say they just thought it looked funny and had no thought of imitating black people.

We're told the students won't face any discipline — why would they? — but that "Following the incident and the reaction caused by the image, the college is planning to host a number of race awareness seminars for staff and students."

Here's an article in the local news. Excerpt:

“Some of our multicultural and nontraditional students feel the environment on campus is not welcoming to all," [the Whitewater chancellor Beverly] Kopper wrote. “Over and over, the students in attendance expressed their need to be heard and for campus to do more than just talk.”...

"There's policy for everything else on campus except for racial injustice, not just for the Black people, but for all minorities," [said one student].

There's a policy for everything else? Is there a policy protecting freedom of expression on social media? Is there a policy for when it's appropriate for university officials to describe student speech as "racist"? The university should want all students to feel welcome, but part of welcoming all students is taking care to understand and not to mischaracterize what individual students are saying and doing.