The price of silence

An American girl cheerleader who refused to applaud a basketball player she claimed had raped her has been told by the courts that she wasn't entitled to stay silent - and must repay her school's $45,000 legal costs.

Such is the American enthusiasm for cheerleading and the disapproval of anyone not entering into the spirit of it - even if they have strong personal reasons for not doing what's expected of them.

The courts ruled that a cheerleader agrees to act merely as a "mouthpiece" for an institution and therefore surrenders her constitutional right to free speech.

The girl's lawyer said this meant students could be punished for refusing to follow "insensitive and unreasonable directions."

HS, as the courts referred to her, was sexually assaulted by Rakheem Bolton at a party in Silsbee, Texas in 2008. She claims he and other male pupils raped her but he only admitted the lesser charge, which allowed him to return to the school and join the basketball team.

At a basketball game four months later she couldn't bring herself to cheer him and instead stood silently with her arms folded.

This seemingly minor incident led to expulsion from the cheerleading team and her family bringing a compensation claim against the school, Silsbee High.

In a disastrous outcome, three different courts ruled against her, the US Supreme Court refused to consider the case and she was ordered to pay legal bills of $45,000 (£27,300).

This seems to me like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, not to mention a vindictive and callous response to a teenage girl who claims she was sexually attacked.

The school might say that a basketball game has nothing to do with a player's private behaviour, and that her refusal to cheer was absurd and perverse.

But if the other cheerleaders were willingly applauding, what did it matter? And why weren't her personal feelings sympathised with rather than punished?

The message is clear: cheerleading is a sacred American tradition, and the slightest refusal to participate fully, even for good personal reasons, is an outrage to be firmly stamped on. How dare you spoil our fun?

Gropes or kisses?

If you look for romance through a dating agency, you have to expect the unexpected. But a Donegal woman claimed she got a lot more than she had bargained for - that she was groped, assaulted and battered.

She was so incensed that she sued the Happy Matchmaker agency for €6000, alleging negligence, breach of duty and fraudulent misrepresentation.

Annmarie McBrearty complained that they hadn't vetted or screened any of her four "prospective suitors", which was why they had behaved so badly and physically molested her.

The district court judge however, having listened to all the evidence, decided that nothing out of the ordinary had occurred and that the men were no more than "unmannerly" or "over-enthusiastic". The worst that had happened was a kiss on the mouth.

So he threw out all the claims against the agency.

Which is puzzling. The judge didn't actually say he thought she was lying from start to finish, but that's the conclusion we're led to. Otherwise, why would he strike out all the claims?

Alternatively, was she in fact groped and attacked but the four men portrayed themselves as such innocent, considerate souls, and there was so little proof of anything untoward, that the judge simply couldn't believe what she said?

As it stands though, the result of the hearing suggests yet more false accusations of sexual violence by a dishonest woman with an ulterior motive. Which unfortunately creates yet more public suspicion of women who make genuine claims.

All in all, a case with disturbing repercussions.