We have all watched while radical gender ideologies have penetrated deeply into our society. June as “Pride Month” is an example of this incursion into the normal sensibilities of most people. The allowing of books into the school libraries that school boards will not allow to be read at board meetings because they are pornographic is another such example. The arrest of a father at a board meeting because he complained about the rape of his daughter in a school bathroom by a drag queen, 15-year-old boy is a third.
It certainly appears on the surface the Left is using anything and everything about radical gender ideology to void the idea of free speech when it comes to sexual perversions. The Left will try to cancel you if you say that marriage is between a man and a woman. Such words are characterized as “hate speech.” The same thing is true if one says anything against the idea that there are 57 genders.
How long will it be before some judge buys into the idea that such speech is violence and, as such, needs to be suppressed? That time may be closer than we would like to admit.
A recent case in Massachusetts shows this. The case involved a t-shirt worn by Liam Morrison—a middle school student in Nichols MS in Massachusetts. The shirt said “There are only Two Genders”. The school refused to let him wear it in school and sent him home. In a second instance, he wore the shirt again with the words “only two” covered over with masking tape that said “Censored.” They sent him home again.
It was clear that Nichols MS didn’t like Liam’s POINT OF VIEW on gender issues. If the school was neutral on the issues involved, then the school might have some basis for objecting to the shirt as possibly being disruptive of the educational process. Such “disruption” is the narrow loophole provided by SCOTUS for suppressing certain speech in an educational setting.
However, the school regularly promotes “Pride Month” and encourages students to wear clothing SUPPORTING the LGBTQ+ community. Since the school promotes an opposing VIEWPOINT, it is essentially black letter law that the school is not permitted to suppress other speech on this issue. So Liam and his parents, with the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), sued the school in federal court.
They lost.
Of course, this is Massachusetts, which along with California and a few other states have sailed into the totalitarian world where only certain thoughts and ideas are permitted. This seems to have permeated the judiciary ranks in federal court.
Essentially the judge drove a truck through the narrow loophole that permits some suppression of speech in school that is disruptive of the educational process. The judge used the idea put forward by the school that some students may feel unsafe and at risk as the compelling factor to allow speech suppression on an issue where the school is promoting a different VIEWPOINT.
Using the logic presented by the judge, shouldn’t the school be enjoined from promoting “Pride Month,” “Pride Day” and all other such BS? Isn’t it logical to assume that some faithful Christians, orthodox Jews and devout Muslims might feel unsafe being subjected to the indoctrination inherent in these events? Wouldn’t such individuals feel at risk? I am not holding my breath for much a ruling.
The school is picking a particular viewpoint to endorse within the topic of discussion and censoring the other viewpoints, which isn’t how the 1st amendment works.
The school could, for example, say X topic and all viewpoints about X topic are forbidden due to the inflammatory nature or raw controversy associated with the topic. The school could say this causes a disruption to the educational process of all students. However, the school didn’t do that, instead they endorsed one viewpoint and forbade all other viewpoints. That’s not allowed.
The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. The First Circuit is more leftist than the Ninth Circuit. It has all Obama and Biden nominees. The court upheld the judge’s decision.
This decision is edging us closer and closer to the idea that “hate speech” isn’t allowed under the First Amendment. That will lead directly to the suppression of political viewpoints that are unpopular.
An appeal to the Supreme Court was not granted certiori. That is, the Court declined to review the case. Justices Thomas and Alito issued a strong dissent to the refusal.
The First Circuit held that the school did not violate L. M.’s free-speech rights. It held that the general prohibition against viewpoint-based censorship does not apply to public schools. And it employed a vague, permissive, and jargon-laden rule that departed from the standard this Court adopted in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969).
The First Circuit’s decision calls out for our review.
I would grant the petition for two reasons.
First, we should reaffirm the bedrock principle that a school may not engage in viewpoint discrimination when it regulates student speech. Tinker itself made that clear. See 393 U. S., at 511 (“Clearly, the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion . . . is not constitutionally permissible”). Curiously, however, the First Circuit declined to follow Tinker in this regard, instead cherry-picking which First Amendment principles it thought worthy of allowing through the schoolhouse gates. By limiting the application of our viewpoint-discrimination cases, the decision below robs a great many students of that core First Amendment protection.
Second, we should also grant review to determine whether the First Circuit properly understood the rule adopted in Tinker regarding the suppression of student speech on the ground that it presents a risk of material disruption. We have described this standard as “demanding.” Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L., 594 U. S. 180, 193 (2021). But the First Circuit fashioned a rule that is anything but. The lower courts are divided on how to apply Tinker’s “material disruption” standard in a context like this one, and the decision below underscores the pressing need for clarification.
Alito went on:
Unsurprisingly, the viewpoint-neutrality rule also applies to student speech. Students do not relinquish their First Amendment rights at school, see Tinker, 393 U. S., at 506, and by extension, a school cannot censor a student’s speech merely because it is controversial…
The court below erred, and badly so: the rule that view point-based restrictions on speech are almost never allowed is not a new principle proclaimed only in “recent decisions” like Matal or Iancu. 103 F. 4th, at 883, n. 9. To the contrary, viewpoint neutrality has long been seen as going to “the very heart of the First Amendment.” [citations omitted]
* * * *
The First Circuit was wrong to expel this bedrock constitutional safeguard from our schools…
One final point deserves comment. The First Circuit repeatedly emphasized that L. M.’s speech occurred in a middle school where children ranged in age from 10 to 14 years old—a point respondents echo in their brief in opposition. That should not make a difference…If
a school sees fit to instruct students of a certain age on a social issue like LGBTQ+ rights or gender identity, then the school must tolerate dissenting student speech on those issues. If anything, viewpoint discrimination in the lower grades is more objectionable because young children are more impressionable and thus more susceptible to indoctrination.
This case is clear evidence that a lot more battles will need to be waged in the fight against theose of the far-Left who would force the acceptance of gender ideologies. The current idea of tens, hundreds even thousands of genders is clearly based on lies. The activists who promote such crap need censorship in order to keep the ideology alive.
People like Liam who tell the truth need to be defended. And we cannot shirk from doing this if we want free speech to survive. We have truth on our side. In the long run, truth should prevail so long as we keep defending it.