University of Idaho Loses Major Free Speech and Religious Freedom Case

The University of Idaho has lost a major free speech and religious freedom case after a federal judge ruled in favor of three Christian law students at the College of Law. Judge David Nye granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the students who objected to “no contact orders” issued against them. A faculty member, Professor Richard Seamon, was also made the subject of such an order.

Here are the facts from the opinion:

On April 1, 2022, the law school at the University of Idaho held a “moment of community” in response to an anti-LGBTQ+ slur that had been left anonymously on a whiteboard in one of its classrooms in Boise, Idaho. Students, faculty, and staff from the law school gathered in front of the Moscow, Idaho, campus to express support for all students.

Plaintiffs were present at the event. Plaintiffs Perlot, Miller, and Alexander are law students and members of the University’s chapter of the Christian Legal Society (“CLS”). Plaintiff Seamon is a professor at the law school and the CLS faculty advisor. At the event, Plaintiffs gathered in prayer—with members of their society and others—in a showing of support for the LGBTQ+ community. After the prayer concluded, Jane Doe approached the group and asked those present why the CLS constitution affirms that marriage is between one man and one woman. Plaintiff Miller explained that CLS adhered to the traditional biblical view of marriage and sexuality—including the concept that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. Jane Doe expressed her opinion that the Bible did not support such a conclusion. Miller explained further that the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman in several places and that it condemns homosexuality—along with all other sins. Plaintiff Seamon purportedly affirmed Miller’s explanation of CLS’s position on marriage.

According to both sides, the parties then parted ways without further comment. Shortly after the event, Plaintiff Perlot left a handwritten note on Jane Doe’s carrel. The note read—in its entirety: “I’m the president of CLS this semester. Feel free to come talk to me if you have anything you need to say or questions you want to ask. I’m usually in my carrel: 6-034. over by the windows. Peter [smiley face].”

A few days later, on April 4, 2022, Plaintiffs Perlot and Alexander attended an event with other students regarding the American Bar Association’s accreditation of the law school. According to Plaintiffs, Jane Doe and others raised concerns about CLS and its members—namely that they held religious beliefs that were bigoted and anti-LGBTQ+. Plaintiff Alexander then spoke up, defended CLS, and stated that the biggest instance of discrimination he had seen on campus was actually against CLS and the administration’s failure to timely recognize and register it as a group.

That same day, several students staged “walkouts” for two of the courses taught by Plaintiff Seamon—seemingly in response to his participation at the event on April 1. Also on April 4, Defendant Lindsay Ewan—Deputy Director of OCRI— interviewed Miller about the events that took place during the law school’s community event on April 1. Three days later, on April 7, 2022, Plaintiffs Perlot, Miller, and Alexander received no-contact orders from OCRI. Apparently, Jane Doe reported to OCRI that Plaintiffs’ actions at the events described above left her feeling “targeted and unsafe.” The no-contact orders prohibit Plaintiffs from having any contact with Jane Doe unless they receive advance permission from OCRI. The orders apply on and off campus, do not have termination dates, and state that “[a]ny action deemed to be in violation of this no contact order will be taken seriously and considered retaliation. Further action may be taken by this administration as a result, which could include suspension or expulsion.”

Plaintiffs apparently tried to resolve these issues with the University themselves and then with the aid of legal counsel, but to no avail. This lawsuit followed.

The record is very troubling in the failure of the law school to afford greater protection and respect for the views of this faculty member and these students.

On free speech, the court noted that not only were these plaintiffs exercising protected rights but:

The disparity in Defendants’ approach is what bothers the Court most about this case and leans towards a finding that Defendants’ actions were designed to repress specific speech. Jane Doe approached CLS members at the community event on April 1. She asked them a question. And critically, her question was not “what do you believe on this topic,” but “why do you believe the way you do on this topic?” In other words, Jane Doe knew (at least to some degree) what members of CLS believed on the subject of marriage.15 That she did not agree with the answer Plaintiffs provided is, therefore, not surprising. What is surprising, however, is that Plaintiffs have suffered certain consequences for expressing their personal viewpoints at this event, while Jane Doe has not—even though she expressed opinions contrary to Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs. Certainly, there is nothing in the record at this point to suggest that Plaintiffs went to the event to cause disruption or to target certain people.

The court also noted that “Plaintiffs’ right to ‘free exercise’ includes not just the right to believe, but the right to exercise their faith. It encompasses the right to ‘profess whatever religious doctrine one desires,’ Emp. Div., Dep’t of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990), and to “communicat[e]” those teachings to others, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 199 (2012) (Alito, J., concurring).”

It is distressing to see the lack of support for the expression of these viewpoints at the University of Idaho. However, these students and Professor Seamon have secured a major win for free speech and religious expression. I hope that the University will heed the opinion and not appeal in the interests of these core constitutional rights.

102 thoughts on “University of Idaho Loses Major Free Speech and Religious Freedom Case”

  1. You can always count on the low info low IQ lobotomized left is to regurgitate fake news that’s already been debunked buddy posts a one-year-old Salon article that by All rights should have been retracted it’s fake news buddy the governor spokesman has addressed this last year and just recently and said it’s not true categorically false but you can continue on in your wet dream if you want buddy

    1. Their FIRST mistake was assembling with the pro-sodomite crowd. Second mistake was kow-towing and stating they were there to support/recognize the (non?) rights of perverts. Sticking up for Biblical principal of one man/one woman is good and all, but this was still a fail in the spiritual battle.

  2. Yes, I believe it is a win for Free Speech, yet I still feel ill at is with the situation and the general context of privilege afforded to religion which may not b afforded in other situation in what is called doctrine. For example, does CLS allow homosexual persons to join as members their group. From what is presented in this case, this seems ambiguous. If they do, are they respectful of this member or do they antagonize in the hope he “abandons his sinful way…”.
    What is very interesting is much of what is cited from the Bible concerning Homosexuality comes from King James Bible translation. In it the word “effeminate” is used a number of times. Yet this word is the wrong translation from Ancient Greek. The truer translation is Courtesan. Malakos describes the young boy/adolescent (11 up to 16) apprentice who offered sex to his master to pay for learning the trade of his Master. In a larger degree, Courtesans are a form of prostitutes, the equivalent today would be “call girls…or boys”.
    In this respect, much of what God does not tolerate is the monetization of sexuality, as it was meant as a gift, a reward between human beings. But had to be associated with love and respect, which monetization does not allow. Yet in the James Gospel (Gospel no 54, not in the Bibble but recognize as Christian literature), Jesus says to Mary Magdelaine, “I do not have to forgive you, as you have loved so much, go in peace.” The attitude of Jesus therefore is not one of rejection and punishment or to ostracize towards the prostitutes. But here is not the place for doctrinal arguments. But if “Effeminate, Malakos” in King James Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality as most worshipers want to believe it, then what does God ‘Say’ about homosexuality….?
    We are mostly left with Numbers where a Man shall not sleep beside a Man, and Nor a Woman shall not sleep beside a Woman, which is inferred to mean have no sexual relationship. If Homosexuality is forbidden between men, why do most Christian groups who restrict homosexual men from their community allow and tolerate lesbians…?
    Interestingly, this attitude of reject is only allowed to religious groups, no other non-religious groups would be allowed to restrict access on this basis without committing an infraction to the Law…why? Yet, some beliefs are prohibited from some religious group, like those holding Supremacist views. Could “intolerance” be the privilege of Doctrine?…it seems a reasoning away from Judicial philosophy…and I am left wondering.

    1. Denys Picard:

      “… general context of privilege afforded to religion”
      *******************************
      Ah there’s the reason for the off-center comment on both law and theology. Religion isn’t a privilege; it’s a fundamental right.* See US Constitution. On the other hand,a privilege is a cudgel the Left uses to bully other citizens who they claim enjoy it. See Communist Manifesto. Given our school system and your presumptive matriculation to it (assuming your American citizenship came first), it is sadly an honest mistake. If it’s a Canadian understanding of America it makes more sense.

      *”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….”

    2. It’s the USA Constitution that provides for freedom of RELIGION! not a freedom of “privilege.”

      1. Not just freedom to be,ieve but also freedom to EXERCISE. Our Founders were brilliant.

      1. No, the supremacists were clearly the defendants. She tried to violate the plaintiffs’ free exercise and speech. She suffered nothing. They did.Why didn’t she try to understand the fundamentals of their beliefs. She could have then agreed to disagree and moved on. Instead she went after them.

    3. Can Whites join the Congressional Black Caucus?
      Can conservative Blacks join? This “caucus” may be in violation of federal law.

    4. Before writing anything on Biblical doctrine, it helps to read your selected verses from several of the “about 900” ”printed English translations and paraphrases of the Bible,” which will give you a more modern-language understanding of what is written in it, and are more thoroughly translated from original texts than the KJV was; original texts being unavailable at the time the KJV was translated. (quotes from the American Bible Society)

      Also, there isn’t condemnation of homosexuals in the Bible. That is only against homosexual behavior and acts. Along with that are the numerous other sins that are written about, that we are all instructed to avoid if we want to remain in God’s good graces.

  3. I’m hoping this is a sign that the country is starting to make a major shift back in the direction of reason, tolerance and proper respect for free speech.

    1. carpslaw:

      “I’m hoping this is a sign that the country is starting to make a major shift back in the direction of reason, tolerance and proper respect for free speech.”
      *****************************
      And as usual (as de Tocqueville noted), it is the lawyers leading the way. We just may save the Republic – again.

      1. I don’t know, Mespo. Neil Postman noted in Building a Bridge to the 18th Century: How the Past Can Improve Our Future:

        “In America, where Enlightenment ideas were put into practice on a large scale, most of them were lawyers. The authors of the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance were lawyers. The American Constitution was drafted by lawyers. George Mason, who wrote Virginia’s Bill of Rights, was a lawyer. So were Hamilton, John Jay, and John Adams. Indeed, for the first forty years of America’s existence as a nation, all presidents (excepting Washington), vice presidents, and secretaries of state were lawyers. Shall we say that the decline of lawyering as a learned profession is in itself a measure of the difference between the Enlightenment and our own age? Perhaps we should let that pass.”

        Not all of you are Georgetown graduates, though, so maybe the Republic will be saved. 😉

        1. PR:

          Here’s the great observer of America:

          “I do not, then, assert that all the members of the legal profession are at all times the friends of order and the opponents of innovation, but merely that most of them are usually so. In a community in which lawyers are allowed to occupy without opposition that high station which naturally belongs to them, their general spirit will be eminently conservative and anti-democratic. When an aristocracy excludes the leaders of that profession from its ranks, it excites enemies who are the more formidable as they are independent of the nobility by their labors and feel themselves to be their equals in intelligence though inferior in opulence and power. But whenever an aristocracy consents to impart some of its privileges to these same individuals, the two classes coalesce very readily and assume, as it were, family interests.

          I am in like manner inclined to believe that a monarch will always be able to convert legal practitioners into the most serviceable instruments of his authority. There is a far greater affinity between this class of persons and the executive power than there is between them and the people, though they have often aided to overturn the former; just as there is a greater natural affinity between the nobles and the monarch than between the nobles and the people, although the higher orders of society have often, in concert with the lower classes, resisted the prerogative of the crown.

          Lawyers are attached to public order beyond every other consideration, and the best security of public order is authority. It must not be forgotten, also, that if they prize freedom much, they generally value legality still more: they are less afraid of tyranny than of arbitrary power; and, provided the legislature undertakes of itself to deprive men of their independence, they are not dissatisfied.”

          ~ Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America” (Chapter XVI, 1835)

          1. Mespo,
            “the best security of public order is authority.”

            I am inclined towards the best security of public order is goodness. Authority is needed for those who are inclined against it, but if the majority of the people in a locale are good people, public order will be disturbed very little and authority will be used but little, too.

            On the excellent quote, so Tocqueville, too, cautions lawyers to be careful of where their natures might lead them. What informed some of our Founders (Jefferson in particular) to fear not just arbitrary power but tyranny, too?

            1. Prairie Rose,
              “. . . the best security of public order is goodness.”
              I am inclined to agree with you but only to a degree, as of the past few years.
              Read an Bari Weiss Common Sense article with a guest author, Joseph Manson, titled Why I’m Giving Up Tenure at UCLA.
              I cannot do it justice in just a few words (I tried to post the linky to it, did not go through). I will say, this kind of intolerance, use of mob attacks, and attempts to cancel are not the work of “good” people.
              Even having one differing POV gets one called a racist, bigot, or worse. More than a few academics have had to quit, or got fired for stepping outside the newly painted ideology road lines.

              If you have not guessed, I am a farmer. I have fiscally conservative views. I have too. I cannot print hay/feed, seeds, fertilizer, and most certainly not fuel. I have no social safety net, if a crop fails. If I cannot plant. If I cannot afford hay for the livestock.
              If I were to comment that I believe the government should be just as economically fiscal as I, I have no doubt I would be called a racist (note: I am not white). And then get lumped in as a homophobe (I have gay friends/family, a trans friend), anti-immigrant (my grandparents immigrated to the US, legally) and a host of other things.
              All of which promotes division and hate. Not the work of good people.

              1. Upstate Farmer,
                I agree. I suspect this is why we see the rise of more authority, more of a police state. Too many people are not acting good.

                Technology itself, though, throws a wrench in my perspective. Technology is created to be used. To what use does the most recent tech ask/demand to be used? It has taken quite the dark turn, I’d say, a far cry from a spinning Jenny or a dishwasher. What are we losing by adopting digital or biological tech?

              2. “I am a farmer. I have fiscally conservative views. I have too. I cannot print hay/feed, ”

                Like you, many of our founders were farmers. They had to deal with the business affairs of their farms and went broke if they didn’t manage their farms carefully.

                I take note of the left’s attitude. The left does not seem to understand the problems the farmer (or other entrepreneurs) face. They are not qualified to lead.

                I wish the government were as careful in the business of government and finance as I assume you are and I am.

  4. Aaron Burr challenged Alexander Hamilton to an “affair of honor”. Maybe these opponents could have a duel of spoken words or fist-a-cuffs on the commons, not that it would matter, the Woke would still cry dastardly tears. You hurt my feelings and you must pay.

    1. Seeing how the leftist tards use herds of vicious animals to attack single standard bearers, no duel is possible. When was the last time you saw two of these opposing forces line up to fight and a pack didn’t attack when the standard bearer gets the upper hand (as is almost always the case)?

  5. Where int he bible did Jesus say a marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman?

    Abraham took his wife’s slave to bed. Jacob had a couple wives, Solomon had….I’m not sure anyone can count that that high…wives. David looking down from his rooftop seeing a beautiful woman bathing says…I gotta have her but she’s married. Have her husband killed so I can have her.

    And “christians” are going to complain about a man sleeping with a man? or a woman with a woman? Please, get off your high horse and take the log out of your own eye before you take the speck out of your neighbors.

    1. BabyTrump. If you want to sleep with another man you can freely do so. However, you do not have the right to tell my child at an early age in the captive environment of the school that it is acceptable behavior. Most often when I write such a thing the response is that it’s not happening. Here is a book commonly found in a school library in Iowa. https://theiowastandard.com/shocking-images-from-book-gender-queer-which-is-stocked-in-school-libraries-across-iowa/. You say leave the gays alone. OK. I say leave my kids alone. The American people are saying “Your gettin on the wrong side of me.” Your too much is never enough approach is where you lose the upper hand and take for granted the willingness of the American people to be tolerant. We can give an inch but you will not take a mile.

        1. I was commenting on the notion of using Old Testament teaching attempting to claim inconsistencies of Christianity. Jesus exists because of the Old Testament, and Rabbi’s, intent on ‘worshiping The Law (Old Testament) and not worshiping Jesus (New Testament)

      1. (1 Cor 10:1-4) Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; {2} And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; {3} And did all eat the same spiritual meat; {4} And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

        (Deu 32:4 KJV) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

    2. Asked:
      “Where int he bible did Jesus say a marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman?”

      Answered:
      (Gen 2:24) “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
      (Mat 19:4-6) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, {5} And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? {6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

      You state:
      “And “christians” are going to complain about a man sleeping with a man? or a woman with a woman?”

      Christians don’t complain. Christians point to the standard of righteousness, i.e. the 10 Commandments, and explain what Jesus taught regarding that standard. Transgressing/violating that standard is criminal behavior, also known as sin. If one wants to accept the offer of eternal life, one MUST accept the terms and conditions of that contract, i.e. obeying the 10 Commandments (mainly). If one chooses to reject that offer, then ultimately they will inherit eternal death.

      Everyone, eventually, will make that choice.

      You state:
      “Please, get off your high horse and take the log out of your own eye before you take the speck out of your neighbors.”

      Citing the WHOLE of His teaching on the subject, as opposed to picking and choosing a small part of what He said and therefore taking this off point and out of context, …

      (Mat 7:1-5) Judge not, that ye be not judged. {2} For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. {3} And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? {4} Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? {5} Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

      …Jesus was teaching that when one judges a person on a matter, they had better not be a hypocrite and judge a person in a sin that they themselves are practicing.

      Christian men do not practice sleeping with men, nor women with women.

      Again, this is called sin. Christians follow Jesus’ admonition.

      (John 8:11) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: GO, AND SIN NO MORE.

  6. Homosexuals do not acquire validity and legitimacy through semantic appropriation.

    Marriage and matrimony derive from Mother Mary, and mater, the Latin word for mother.

    Marriage and matrimony are physically and semantically descriptive of and related to motherhood, not aberration and deviation.

    The normal acquiesces in submission to the abnormal for bizarre and inane political purposes, perhaps votes?

    1. marriage existed well before Mother Mary arrived on the scene. marriage (man and a woman) ensured that the mother and any offspring of the marriage would be protected and supported by the man

      1. What, exactly, existed before Mother Mary et al., gay marriage?

        Perhaps “civil unionage” or “civil unimony” existed before Mary, eh?

        Seriously? You just said that?

  7. I know someone at the University, The “Facts” are in dispute. Just because a court says so doesn’t make it so.

    1. Sam:

      “I know someone at the University, The “Facts” are in dispute. Just because a court says so doesn’t make it so.”
      *************************************
      No that precisely makes it so. It’s called a finding and it can send you to the electric chair. It’s sorta like a Leftist screaming something loudly and passiontely makes it not so. Just some rules to live by.

        1. sam:

          “Yep, trump won the election.”
          *****************************
          No court has ruled on the merits so, of course, your unlettered response remains unlettered. “Unlettered” is a big word for dumb.

    2. If you read the case you will see a long footnote where the judge acknowledges that the facts are in dispute, but that he would come out the same way even if the facts were as defendants claim.

    3. “Just because a court says so doesn’t make it so.”

      – Sam
      _____

      Now that’s a fact.

      Courts are frequently erroneous and the SCOTUS has been the worst offender:

      The SCOTUS (2022) recently acted retroactively by 50 years and overturned the SCOTUS (1973) on abortion.

      The SCOTUS did not strike down the retroactive act of Congress to overturn itself, and its ratification of the 18th Amendment, by the 21st Amendment.

      The SCOTUS must act retroactively by 110 years to fully abrogate the wholly unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act, Departments, Agencies, IRS, Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

      The SCOTUS must similarly act retroactively by 150 years and overturn Lincoln’s denial of fully constitutional secession and repeal the entirety of the effects of Lincoln.

      1. They did, however, act retroactively to overturn Plessy vs Ferguson with Brown vs the Board of Education. It does happen, but a case needs to come before the court that addresses a previous decision.

        1. “…a case needs to come before the court…”

          So you’re saying the Deep Deep State Swamp has the impervious “fix” in?

          It’s like John Dudham moseying on down to D.C. to prosecute a communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO).

          It ain’t never gonna happen!

    4. If the “Facts” are in dispute, both sides had plenty of opportunity to present those differences in court. That they weren’t presented says all that is needed about the “Dispute”.

  8. Music
    Idaho! Idaho!
    Greatest state above Mexico!
    Clear across this great big land.
    There ain’t no place…like OdaHo!

    What kind of whores live in Idaho?

    1. The Lib woke LGBT community should stick to CA… always wanting to FU other states with their self-serving mentally I’ll views… No, your not a minority group, your a disease🤦‍♂️

  9. Svelaz, do you believe that those who disagree with you should loose there ability to make a living? It seems that by your comment you believe that the wrong opinion should be allowed but there must be consequences that would end the careers of those you disagree with? Will anyone speak out against injustice when they fear that there livelihood is in jeopardy. Is this where you want to go?

    1. Thinkitthrough,

      I didn’t say anything about an opinion being wrong or that their careers should end. You’re putting words in my mouth. What I said is i totally support their right to express their opinions and beliefs. HOWEVER that doesn’t mean they are also protected from the consequences of making those opinions or beliefs known. Nobody has a right to be protected from the criticism, derision, mockery, and yes even loss of a job or career.

      If you say something so monumentally stupid or worse completely unacceptable you are certain entitled to say it. But that doesn’t mean you’re protected or absolved of the responsibility from the consequences.

      An employer can certainly fire you for exercising your free speech. The 1st amendment only prohibits government from punishing you for expressing your views or opinions or beliefs.

      If I was an employer and I had an employee that had an opinion that I deemed wrong. I legally could fire that employee. Especially if it’s was an at will employment state.

      You don’t seem to understand that the right to free speech is not a right to be protected from the consequences of exercising it. There’s a responsibility that comes with the practice of using that right. Too many idiots equate criticism as censorship.

      1. Svalaz, people are being cancelled and their careers are being ended because of something they have said. True, an employer can fire you for something you say but a University is supposed to be a place where different ideas are welcome. Universities are not the equivalent of private businesses. I believe that Marxist should be allowed to voice their opinions on campus without repercussions but you believe that it’s permissible to censor those on the right at our higher learning institutions. In your world we would be better off if all Universities were controlled by the state and any disagreement with the position of the state would meet with your so-called consequences. This is the philosophy of the say what you will but rest assured that your life will be ruined and the possibility of your internment may be imminent. My view is that no one who speaks of the benefits of Marxism on campus should be cancelled. You have given us what you believe as to the fate of those on the right who speak out where a free exchange of ideas should be the prominent course of action. You make yourself easily understood. You put the words in your mouth not I.

        1. “ Svalaz, people are being cancelled and their careers are being ended because of something they have said. True, an employer can fire you for something you say but a University is supposed to be a place where different ideas are welcome. ”

          Being cancelled is a consequence of exercising free speech. Nothing protects you from being cancelled because ironically those calling for cancelling of someone or a group are exercising THEIR free speech right.

          Yes a university is supposed to be a place where different ideas are welcome. BUT,… that doesn’t mean the university is also going to protect those from the consequences of expressing them because that’s also a big part of freedom of speech, accepting and acknowledging the responsibility AND risk that comes with it.

          “ I believe that Marxist should be allowed to voice their opinions on campus without repercussions but you believe that it’s permissible to censor those on the right at our higher learning institutions.”

          No expression of opinion, views, or beliefs is without repercussions. Not even in universities. Part of the lesson about the free and unfettered exchange of ideas at universities is also learning and understanding about the repercussions and consequences of exercising it. That’s why many universities don’t get involved in “supporting” one group over another. The university is not there to be your mommy or daddy when one gets upset because they got criticism or derision or got condemnation because a controversial or despicable view was expressed.

          I don’t believe it’s permissible to censor those on the right at our higher learning institutions. You’re putting words in my mouth. Having said that many of those on the right conflate criticism for censorship and play victimhood games when they get pushback or backlash because they don’t understand that their speech has direct consequences.

          1. Svalaz, why aren’t Marxist on college campuses losing their positions? Shouldn’t the repercussions be equal in their application. You try to gloss things over but the trend toward limiting the speech slants overly toward the right. Somehow you see no injustice in the application of cancellation and censorship on the right but not on the left. It seems that in your assessment justice has nothing to do with it.

            1. Thinkitthrough,

              “ Svalaz, why aren’t Marxist on college campuses losing their positions? Shouldn’t the repercussions be equal in their application.”

              Is there a rule or law that requires repercussions or consequences to be equal?

              Who or what says they have to be equal?

              The most likely explanation is what you call “Marxist”. Isn’t what you think it is. Conservatives have been throwing around labels like, “Marxist”, “leftist”, “liberal”, “socialist”, “woke”, etc to mean anything they deem left of their views.

              It may be as simple as the fact that their views are not as controversial or offensive compared to conservatives on campuses. It may also mean that the majority the students don’t share the views of the conservatives.

              Ironically in private universities where conservatives are a majority and their views are accepted more freely they censor or diminish the views of those students who have more liberal views.

      2. “The 1st amendment only prohibits government . . .”

        You’re dropping the context of *this* case.

        UI is a public university, and thus a government institution. In this case, 1A does apply.

  10. Don’t give a S**T about someone’s feelings being hurt. Like I said before if you need ” a Safe Space” because a ” Microaggression ” ” Triggered” you, GROW UP!!

  11. I protest, is it Jane Doe,Joe Doe,Z Doe,Her Doe,Hir Doe,He Doe,Cis Doe or just a Dodo?

    1. Doe…a dear…
      A female deer.
      Ray… A guy from OreGun.
      Mee…the name…I call myself…
      Faa…a long long way to run!

      This …articles H itDhay!
      And there is no way to run.

  12. “Judge David Nye granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the students who objected no contact orders issued against them.”
    ***************************
    The potato head administrators at the Idaho law school shoulda seen the handwriting on the wall and folded. The injuction issuance meant the judge thought the plaintiffs would likely prevail at trial.

    They did. Go Chips! Go!

  13. I’m waiting for ‘Jane Doe’ to ‘suffer some consequences,’ since she initiated the interaction which led to her ‘feelings of discomfort’……perhaps Idaho is the wrong place for Jane —- she’ll feel more comfortable in California I would venture to say — this snowflake generation getting law degrees is causing a lot of us older folks great ‘discomfort.’

  14. Why wasn’t “Jane Doe” named? She’s an adult and a law student, not a child. She instigated this mess by making the ridiculous complaint about “feeling unsafe.” I think future employers would be interested in knowing who this fragile wokey is, before they waste time hiring her, because she certainly can’t handle the rigors of practicing law.

    1. TIN………..Norma McCorvey (Roe), from Marksville, Louisiana, now deceased, was not a lawyer. She was an at-risk girl who manipulated people to get her way. Sarah Weddington, an acquaintance of ours in Austin, represented her. Wade was the Dallas D.A. Sarah was a Methodist and Norma was Catholic.
      I saw Norma at Walmart one day, a few years ago, standing alone in the bathroom accessories aisle. It was like watching a Jim Jarmusch or Mike Leigh film…….seeing this woman who changed our culture forever, shopping alone at small town Walmart.
      She became a strong anti abortion advocate….but frankly, she went however the wind was blowing. A lesbain from her teen years on, she was a complex and soul.

    2. Sorry TIN!!! I thought y’all were talking about Roe!! Forgive me for eavesdropping!

  15. Many are correct, Feelings should not be a judicial action. However. Those on the right are publicly calling for private activities among the LBGTQ+ community to be criminal. Why can’t people just leave other people alone for who they love and want to sleep with?

      1. I didn’t say laws, I said “calling for private activities among the LBGTQ+ community to be criminal”.

        Here is just one example…
        calling for private activities among the LBGTQ+ community to be criminal

  16. The quickest way to get these institutions to behave, apart from suing their pants off, would be to tax their endowment funds.

  17. The court also noted that “Plaintiffs’ right to ‘free exercise’ includes not just the right to believe, but the right to exercise their faith.

    🙀

    The horror

    Thankfully the Left do not exercise their dogmas and doctrines of Woke religion on America. Otherwise, they would be denouncing heretics, brandishing disbelievers with scarlet letters of “D” for deplorables, ending careers, censoring dissenters and encouraging their masses to engage in violent demonstrations at the private homes of Supreme Court Justices. Oh wait

    A Catholic Inquisition right about now would be dandy, and providentially most of the SCOTUS Justices are trained Catholic scholastics. This is a win win situation

    Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America
    https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Racism-Religion-Betrayed-America/dp/0593423062/

  18. What I find astounding is that Jane Doe’s entire complaint rests on her “feelings.” Since when is the world responsible for the “feelings” of a few over-protected, narcissistic children?

    1. Interesting question, isn’t that exactly what Florida legislators used to justify banning discussion of CRT in schools because kids…feelings may be hurt?

      If legislators in Florida believe feeling uncomfortable is reason enough to ban discussion of a theory it shouldn’t be an issue if Jane doe’s …feelings were at issue.

      1. You are incorrect. “Feelings” has not been the basis of any of the legislation to which I believe you refer. Or do you mean the “feelings” of parents vis a vis their kids’ education?

      2. Svelaz, you are correct in saying that in Florida the teaching of white children that they are born evil because of the color of skin is being banned. What is also banned in Florida is teaching black children that they are evil because of the color of skin that they were born with. Is it your contention that white children in Florida should be taught that they were born evil? By your comment it does seem that this is what you want. Some say that bigotry only runs in one direction but they are sadly mistaken.

        1. First off,
          The College was 100% Wrong in backing woke world. They should have said “ Get over it”, leave those Christians alone or go to your Dorm room & Start Packing ‘
          Secondly,
          The Christians were trying to show grace, share the correct verbiage of
          The Bible in a Safe, kind way while showing how to discuss something with a person who doesn’t agree with their viewpoints, No Malice and No anger intended just calm discussion.
          Third,
          Jane brought this pathetic suit, she should have been named
          She’s over 18 and not special
          (No matter what she thinks).
          To the U of I ;
          Stop Bowing down to woke whiners.
          Everyone has opinions, but the Christians were right, protected by the Constitution and singled out incorrectly.
          Shame on U of I cowardly woke leaning leaders.

        2. Thinkitthrough,

          Nobody is teaching children they are born evil. That’s just mindless BS some racist has been spouting. Are you really that gullible?

          1. Svalez, separating white children from people of color and telling them that they are the evil privileged group in front of the other students is depicting these students as being mean people. Imagine if you will what happens to the white kid on the playground after the students have been taught that the white kid is privileged because of the color of skin he was born with. White people in the south demonized the black kids in the south. How is demonizing the white kid any different. It didn’t take you long to call me a racist. My racism is bad but your racism is somehow justified. The CRT curriculum was exposed in Virginia and the result is a Republican Governor. You can tell us all you want that CRT isn’t a real thing but the parents in Virginia beg to disagree with you. Are you really that gullible or do you just have an alternative agenda.

            1. “ Svalez, separating white children from people of color and telling them that they are the evil privileged group in front of the other students is depicting these students as being mean people.”

              None of that is happening. I didn’t call you a racist. Re-read my post.

              “ Nobody is teaching children they are born evil. That’s just mindless BS some racist has been spouting. Are you really that gullible?”

              You jumped the gun on that one.

              “ You can tell us all you want that CRT isn’t a real thing but the parents in Virginia beg to disagree with you.”

              I never said that CRT isn’t a real thing. You’re having some real issues with reading comprehension today.

              “ The CRT curriculum was exposed in Virginia and the result is a Republican Governor. ”

              That wasn’t a CRT curriculum. That was an entirely different type of lessons that those demonizing CRT conflate as CRT. Gullible and ignorant parents sadly bought into the misinformation and disingenuousness of conflating anything that is related to race or equality as CRT. What is funny is that the majority of those parents have no clue what CRT is. All they know is what they are being told what it is by those who are actively demonizing the theory so they can scare parents for votes.

      3. Svelaz,

        “Interesting question, isn’t that exactly what Florida legislators used to justify banning discussion of CRT in schools because kids…feelings may be hurt?”

        No. Not at all. This is a commonly used, false narrative about the Parental Rights Education Act, i.e. calling it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. This is a bill that puts parents – not government – at the forefront of their 5 – 8 year old children’s sexual indoctrination. And despite what you hear from Disney, this bill has the overwhelming support of our Florida mama bears. To my friends of all stripes: It’s perfectly OK to say, “gay.”

  19. Here is more of the famous leftist ‘tolerance’ we keep hearing about. Just waiting for some s@@tlib to explain why the right to speak freely shouldn’t apply to groups such as the CLS. I would respect s@@tlibs more if they were just honest and admitted they DO NOT support free speech for such people but they won’t.

    antonio

    1. Antonio,

      “ Just waiting for some s@@tlib to explain why the right to speak freely shouldn’t apply to groups such as the CLS.”

      I totally support their right to speak freely. It should apply to all groups.

      The problem is that right also involves the responsibility to recognize that the right doesn’t protect anyone from criticism, derision, mockery, insults, and even condemnation.

      I totally support their right to be as bigoted and ignorant as they want to be. It’s certainly their choice and if their faith makes them look like jerks, you will not have and argument from me. Let them be jerks. They seem proud of that attribute.

Leave a Reply