Discussion Post
• What happens to student-athletes who post prohibited content online? Social media monitoring services alert athletics department personnel of inappropriate conduct/communications. An increasing number of institutions are beginning to use the services of such companies following the NCAA's ruling in a 2012 infractions case against the University of North Carolina in which the NCAA determined that UNC "did not adequately and consistently monitor social networking activity that visibly illustrated potential amateurism violations within the football program." The precedent for future cases of social media regulation is still very much uncertain. Some coaches impose bans on social media use, which could be construed as potential First Amendment violation. There have only been a few examples of student-athletes challenging social media-related suspensions. So far, the courts have primarily ruled in their favor. What do you think of the idea of monitoring services? Do your opinions change if you view the concept from the perspective of an administrator, coach, or even a parent?
• Consider a hypothetical case of an intercollegiate basketball player who turns her back to the flag during the pregame playing of the national anthem of a nationally televised game in order to protest U.S. involvement in a current war. Would a court be more likely to decide that the First Amendment protected this student than [for instance] another student who was suspended by her school for not removing/covering up a tattoo of a cross that administrators said violated a rule forbidding the display of gang symbols? Why or why not?
The response must include a reference list. Using Times New Roman 12 pnt font, double-space, one-inch margins, and APA style of writing and citations.