There is a major ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on both free speech and student rights. The court, sitting en banc, ruled 10-7 that “the mere use of biological pronouns does not entail ‘aggressive, disruptive action.'” In the lengthy opinion, the court split along political lines with every Republican appointee voting with the student challengers and every Democratic appointee voting with the school district.
The case originated in the Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, located in the northern suburbs of Columbus. A parent objected to the district’s anti-harassment policy that included sanctions for any student who refused to use the preferred pronouns of transgender classmates. Such violations were deemed “contrary to the other student’s identity.”
The Olentangy district argued that the use of unwanted pronouns was analogous to “Hispanic students being told by classmates to ‘go back to Mexico!’”
An earlier panel on the Sixth Circuit upheld the ruling of District Court Judge Algenon Marbley, a Clinton appointee, in denying relief.
In an opinion by Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, a Trump appointee, the court ruled that there was no evidence that the use of traditional pronouns produced the “substantial interference” that the Supreme Court set as the test in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969).
“In this case’s current posture, the school district has fallen far short of meeting this demanding standard. It introduced no evidence that the use of biological pronouns would disrupt school functions or qualify as harassment under Ohio law. Our society continues to debate whether biological pronouns are appropriate or offensive—just as it continues to debate many other issues surrounding transgender rights. The school district may not skew this debate by forcing one side to change the way it conveys its message or by compelling it to express a different view.”
Judge Murphy added: “Unlike, say, a political diatribe about transgender rights in math class, the mere use of biological pronouns does not entail ‘aggressive, disruptive action.’ Nor does the school district suggest that such speech has ever disrupted any school activity in the past.”
In dissent, Circuit Judge Jane Stranch, an Obama appointee, insisted that the policy met the standard in combating bullying and harassment of transgender students. She asked, “What, then, must a school district show to demonstrate that particular speech is sufficiently bullying or harassing to render it regulable under the First Amendment?” She argued that officials are allowed to anticipate such disruptions and need not wait for students to be actually harassed:
“Tinker…does not require school authorities to wait for a disturbance before regulating speech, nor does it “require certainty that disruption will occur.” Lowery, 497 F.3d at 591–92 (quoting Pinard v. Clatskanie Sch. Dist. 6J, 467 F.3d 755, 767 n.17 (9th Cir. 2006)). To do so would place school officials “between the proverbial rock and hard place: either they allow disruption to occur, or they are guilty of a constitutional violation.” Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 565 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Lowery, 497 F.3d at 596). “Such a rule is not required by Tinker, and would be disastrous public policy” because it would strip officials of the ability to carry out the “affirmative duty to not only ameliorate the harmful effects of disruptions, but to prevent them from happening in the first place.” Lowery, 497 F.3d at 596. School officials must merely demonstrate that the school reasonably forecast that disruption would occur based on the speech at issue. Id. Given administrators’ need to affirmatively protect the learning environment, moreover, officials will sometimes be unable “to offer any ‘proof’ [of disruption] beyond common-sense conclusions based on human experience.” Id. at 594. Such “common-sense conclusions,” we noted, “do not require substantial evidentiary support.” Id.”
It is not clear whether the district will appeal. An en banc decision will often get closer scrutiny from clerks in petitions for certiorari. The question is whether the district wants to risk doubling down on a losing hand if the Supreme Court affirms the judgment. Some advocates may be leery of rolling the dice on a further appeal given the implications of an adverse decision on pronouns that applies nationwide.
Anonymous Pontificates… 🥸
While the Dude abides….
From a strong LGBT rights supporter. Isn’t a big part of this, they used the wrong pronouns. Less about equal rights and not a “live & let live” mindset (a very conservative, very libertarian value).
All of us were educated in primary school and college about the proper use of pronouns (plural, singular, etc). In a relatively short period of time a group then tries to force new pronouns on everyone – that contradicts decades of English grammar education.
Since it’s not law and being politically correct, many of us simply don’t understand the pronouns and have a really hard time being coerced into compelled speech that violates the 1st Amendment.
Many of us fully support the 14th Amendment rights of transgender Americans, other LGBT-Americans, women and African-Americans. But the pronouns are being used to violate the 1st Amendment rights of most Americans. The U.S. Constitution is a package deal, you can’t protect constitutional rights by violating constitutional rights.
In recent history, we have university professors being fired or harassed for following centuries of English grammar and there is no law requiring any American to use pronouns (violates the 1st Amendment).
Maybe if there were better pronouns that didn’t change centuries of English grammar education, most Americans would use those better pronouns without being forced to do it? Support full and equal rights for transgender Americans as long as their rights don’t violate the rights of others.
Transgender spectrum, including: homosexuals and simulants.
The rational enlightenment of the 18th century (which is our cultural heritage) has led to fantastic scientific knowhow and advances in living standards. That said, this heritage comes with certain responsibilities, such as protecting the environment for posterity’s health and wellbeing — and maintaining the family kinship system based on marriage between a man and woman, and their raising of children to continue the civilization. There simply is not room for making family structure OPTIONAL or EXPERIMENTAL This is why Obergefell was myopic (too centered on individual rights and not on collective societal responsibility).
There are just certain things not to be experimented with…family structure and reproduction/childrearing is one of them. I wish more conservatives could see this.
*. Pb, it became muddled when western civilization was changed by including other family structures. Islam has multiple wives for instance as atheism may also. The same sex marriage began using birthing persons and donor banks in response. Welfare replaced the finance of family and gave the finance to the village.
Someone took a stab or two in an attempt to preserve western civilization as it crumbled. It still exists actually in some well hidden districts.
When states passed laws outlawing polygamy, it wan’t just a response to Brigham Young’s religious sect. It was also done with awareness of Moslem practices not desired to be transplanted into the U.S. There is a possibility of a comeback for the nuclear family of husband and wife and children. The first step is going through the govt. policy handbook, and adjusting the misplaced priorities. Next is evolving corporate culture to take on family-based childraising as a sub-mission-statement of the corporation, or at least not something to thwart or interfere with via HR policies. Many corporations are well along with this adjustment, but you need “all in” to even the competitive playing field.
What rights are LGBTQ denied? Please enlighten us as I believe they have every right every other American has.
The left loons are getting out of control
____________________________
Transgender Virginia teacher posts rainbow ‘gun’ pointed at person’s head, demands pronouns be ‘put back in the email’
In case you think I’m lying https://www.thecollegefix.com/transgender-virginia-teacher-posts-rainbow-gun-pointed-at-persons-head-demands-pronouns-be-put-back-in-the-email/
“In case you think I’m lying”
I navigated to your link, then looked up Danville on the map because I had forgotten where it is located in Virginia. I was hoping to find that it was in or near the DC suburban cluster that has been a hotbed of lib/woke activity for decades. Sadly, it is on the NC border at about mid-state, where US 29 crosses the border. While that is not known as a truly conservative stronghold, neither has it traditionally been de facto deep blue, either. In light of what happened in the recent Virginia off-year elections, that does not bode well for the state. I have off-grid property in another, extremely rural, part of the state, near the WV border, that has always been pretty conservative, albeit it is near to old coal mines (most were in WV), and the resulting union influence has resulted a few areas that have typically voted Dem in the past. But even those folks have never been very comfortable with politics that seek to gut the Bill of Rights. One of the reasons for owning that property was for it to serve as a safe, defensible haven should national politics and society go totally to $h1t. I need to keep a close eye on developments in the state, it might be time to rethink that strategy.
I was in Virginia back in the 1970. (US Army) Nice place at the time.
Dustoff: I looked up the link you provided (thanks) and the defense that it was intended as “comedic commentary” is far removed from the actual (rather violent) image. Yikes.
Parts of it still are. We are in the Western Central part of the state about 15 – 20 miles E of the WV border. The county we are in is solid Republican, the county just S of us has typically voted Dem (again, I think it’s primarily due the very strong influence of miners’ unions in the past) but I talk to those people fairly often, and I can pretty well guarantee that they aren’t down with the woke BS going on now. However, people move in and out of locations, generations die out, and attitudes about such things are subject to change, both for the better, and for the worse. I’m having some difficulty identifying many verifiable changes for the better recently…
The Rainbow banner and rhetoric in human context is albinophobic, transhumane. It’s notable that politically congruent (“=”) are socially distancing homos from sims in the trans spectrum following progressive principles wielded with liberal license under the Pro-Choice religion. Another Diversity bloc under the class-disordered umbrella.
Are the progressives demanding Spanish speakers remove all those Os and As at the end of words amiga and amigo or las and los? Greek must be a banned language as inanimate objects are given a gender using Os and As at the ends of words. 🤔
Taunting and mockery are tools of upholding societal norms. A battle to defend heteronormative socio-sexual development paths for youth has been ongoing for 10 years. The 2015 Obergefell decision kicked off the next goalpost-moving onslaught — for transsexualism. The majority became rightly alarmed when it became a social fad, drew in adult enablers, and involved irreversable surgeries and hormone treatments.
Resistance against this faddish perversion grew in response. The battle over pronouns gets to the core of how norms are defended by the majority. We are winning this battle slowly but surely. It’s our responsibility collectively as civilized adults.
Transgenderism, where gender refers to sex-correlated attributes (e.g. sexual orientation), and trans indicates a state or process of divergence. Homos are believed to transition through environmental corruption following conception, likely after 6 weeks when the higher order nervous system is developing. Ironically, when abortion of a ‘burden” is still a viable Choice in progressive sects under liberal license. Transphobia, perhaps.
Not so informed. There are truly biological ambiguities such as intersex and Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (1:5000 births). These are not choices. They are immutables. And yes, under the influence of gene expression and its timing during development, there is a range of masculinity-femininty within male and female populations. It’s been that way forever, but with hormone disruptors now leaking into food and water chains, we could be seeing more divergence from heteronormative behavior.
In a completely different category are teens who previously accepted their birth gender, but now want to change it, confuse it, or negate it. That is social contagion, and should not be indulged by responsible adults.
As a government institution characterized by mandatory attendance, public schools are required to protect the safety of pupils and students. That obligation may, in extreme circumstances, may cause administrators and activist parents to confuse a fear of potential violence with a reasonable fear of imminent violence. That distinction defines the line between constitutional and unconstitutional limits on erstwhile- or ordinarily-free speech.
One would hope that private institutions would hew to the same logic — just out of respect for the USA’s constitutional heritage of free speech. But still others might devoutly pray that they would not.
What nonsense. This guy thinks he’s the Messiah.
That the school district advances this blatant violation of Constitutional Rights based on a need to “prevent disruptions” in school settings is ABSURD. School administrations aid and abet disruptions all day long, every day. See “restorative justice” ; this policy fosters and encourages disruption, plain and simple.
“The school district may not skew this debate by forcing one side to change the way it conveys its message or by compelling it to express a different view.” Wow, sometimes when the simple truth is stated so succinctly, when you look at standing naked stripped of all the misleading verbiage, with the realization that both sides must agree to it’s essence if being absolutely honesty … it takes my breath away. Both sides absolutely know what game is here.
When someone claims ownership of pronouns, it strikes me as odd. How can one person claim ownership of something that belongs exclusively to someone else, their choice of words?
A boy is a boy. same with a girl.
The left wants to muddy the waters on that.
This is the problem, they created.
The left did the same when they replaced baby with the technical term-of-art “fetus” to facilitate planned parenthood to perform human rites for lives deemed unworthy of life for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress, sequester the “burden” of evidence in sanctuary states. There are diverse, Diverse precedents for a wicked solution to a hard problem. Mutilation of boys and girls in the trans spectrum, too, most of whom are either confused or dissatisfied when passing through puberty, a minority who are undiagnosed homos, and the rest are homo with an unresolved hetero kink that some interests believe can be brayed away through simulation, dysfunction, and a lifetime maintenance service contract.
“. . . something that belongs exclusively to someone else, their choice of words?”
Try that with the word “fire.” Then put your hand in what you call “water” (via your “choice of words”).
Let me know how that works out.
Mrs. Jonathan, I think the court may be right.
Girls such as yourself cannot possibly be affected, but maybe if all your students copied this form of address it might be almost as annoying as having all your fellow faculty members talking about you getting your panties in a twist or ask if your opinions are just “that time of the month”. Now, mis-gendering isn’t any worse than misspelling – so if all the students in your school converted to calling you Yawnathin Turkey?
Clearly not respectful, maybe bordering on harassment?
Nope, just good fun at your expense. First amendment and free speech and exchange of important ideas. The ability to bully must not be stifled.
That is the sort of behavior that should be part of school instruction, instruction that treating people kindly should be encouraged and treating them like crap should be discouraged.
But that doesn’t fuel the rage machine that the billionaires pay for.
And so here we are, Juanathoon Churley. Just because it’s about gender doesn’t mean this isn’t about name calling.
A girl is female sex, feminine gender, a her, a she. A boy is not. Why insult the girl? Why insult the boy? Homos and sins are both trans.
Sins “=” sims
What is a girl?
A primary experience every infant absorbs well before the word “girl” is attached to it. These primary experiences do not need dictionary definitions, as do complex words like attorney or escrow. Therefore, your question is a linguistic parlor trick. “You know one when you see one” is the correct answer.
“What is a girl?”
A human gestated and born with two “X” and zero “Y” chromosomes. Surely you aren’t so ignorant and stupid as not to know that? Well, maybe you are.
“What is a girl?”
A girl is a human gestated and born with two “XX” and zero “Y” chromosomes. Surely you aren’t so ignorant and stupid as not to know that? Or, maybe you are…
Lay off the boozes
“China was going to hit us with rare-earth. Now, everybody says, “Oh, what does that mean?” Magnets. If China refused to give magnets, ’cause they have a monopoly on magnets ’cause they’re allowed to happen over a 32-year period, there wouldn’t be a car made in the entire world. There wouldn’t be a radio. There wouldn’t be a television. There wouldn’t be internet. There wouldn’t be anything because magnets are such a part.
Now, nobody knows what magnets are. And not overly sophisticated, but to build magnet system would take two years. So if I weren’t able to say to China, “Look, if you’re gonna do that to us, we’re gonna charge you a 158% tariff.” It was 100% on top of 58%. And China called up immediately and, “Listen, we will make peace.” And we made peace. We made a great deal. We made an unbelievable deal. China’s paying tariffs to the United States. Not the United States paying tariffs to China, which has always been the way it was. Nobody can believe these deals.” DJT
So the President of the United States doesn’t think anybody know what magnets are? Dumb sh-t.
What Trump probably heard was that no one knows how magnetic fields work – there are people who know how to generate them, how to measure them, how to make use of them, how to make magnets that are very long lasting or just are temporary (like electromagnets). But at a fundamental level no one can point to why, for example, one can not have a North magnetic pole without being joined to a South magnetic pole. In electricity there is a positive proton and the negative electron but, with magnets, the components are never found separately and there seems to be no explanation for why. Are there mathematical equations to explain it? Sure, but what explains the equations?
As usual, that is translated in his noodle-cup brains to make statements as he made.
There is, in fact, a very famous interview with Richard Feynman where the Nobel Prize winning physicist made that argument, in terms of what analogy could be made to other ordinary circumstances.
Good Lord how can you continue to spew your ignorance here day after day? Have you no shame?
When Trump says “Nobody knows (fill in the blank)”, he is admitting he doesn’t know it — while defending his overinflated ego which demands he never be compared diminutively to someone else who knows more than him.
Get some professional help.
So one would expect loneliness to be a multiplier when it comes to internet trolling, which is itself correlated with Dark Tetrad personality traits1 of Machiavellianism, psychopathy, everyday sadism, and narcissism. The Dark Tetrad is different from the Dark Triad in that in addition to narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, it also includes a direct measure of sadism. Sadism is when people get pleasure and gratification, especially with a sexual charge, from the pain, suffering, or humiliation of others. – psychologytoday
Yes, pedophilia, sadomasochism, incest, homosexuality, etc are sexual orientations. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #LoveWins? #HateLovesAbortion
Tariffs are penalties applied to producers and distributors who profit through labor, environmental, and monetary arbitrage schemes. People don’t realize the problems with Green deals. They are also not novel.
Tarriffs are taxes, All taxes have negative impacts – Tarriffs are among the lest negative.
EVERYONE profits by providing others with what they want or need.
And we want that.
“lest negative.”
Never fail to disappoint with the errors, John.
ATS – Rare Earth’s are relevant to high strength magnets as well as many other things.
None of which are irreplaceable. Cars will continu to be made. Radios will continue to be made
That does not mean that the impact will be negligable, just not catastrophic.
Further holding the world hostage is stupid – Rare Earths are actually NOT rare. They are found all over.
They are a by product of many mining operations – but many western countries have cut back mining because the left has interfered.
Arkansas has some of the largest abundance of Rare earths in the world – but as I noted earlier – they can be found all over.
The relevant issue is how quickly can other sources be made available. In the US baring major changes in regulation and they courts – not any time soon.
But places like South amercan can replace Chinese Rare Earths in a reasonable time frame.
Most of the things you mentioned as dependent on Rare Earths existed before we started using Rare Earths.
You do not need rare earths to make magnets – ou need them to make stronger magnets.
“Now, nobody knows what magnets are. ”
They don’t ? I guess you failed elementary school science. It is quite easy to make a magnet from iron or steel by rubbing it against stainless steel. There are many other ways, but that is applicable to most anyone.
“but to build magnet system would take two years”
We do not have to build a “magnet system” – we have many choices – use the weaker magnets that we can create easily without rare earths.
Or use Rare earths mined elsewhere than China – Efforts to mine and refine rare earths outside of China – even int he US are already underway.
Some will be available outside of China relatively soon – others will take longer.
“So the President of the United States doesn’t think anybody know what magnets are? Dumb sh-t.”
You seem to be clueless about magnets.
“Now, nobody knows what magnets are. ”
That was a quote of Trump. Almost all of what you criticized was from a speech Trump gave.
“but to build magnet system would take two years” was what Trump actually said.
What does that have to do with the issue of pronouns and free speech. You are just here to troll and no one cares about your stupid opinions.
Stick to the subject or look like an idiot.
“So the President of the United States doesn’t think anybody know what magnets are? Dumb sh-t.”
Anyone reading your ignorant, poorly reasoned, and semi-literate diatribe would most likely think that you have a colossal amount of nerve calling anyone else by that pejorative.
What an amazing distraction all this created chaos has been. We have witnessed the biggest failures of our government beginning with Obama. We have the heads of the deep state cabal and a slew of DOJ lawyers mired in a seditious conspiracy up to their necks to overthrow Trump. Given what has been made public and having witnessed the events I would highly suspect that the 2020 election was in fact stolen. My prayers are that justice will be served, wherever it leads.
Using vague grievance-words like “stolen” in regards to the 2020 election is pointless, because it doesn’t suggest anything actionable to make future elections more fair and honest.
A neutral post-analysis found approximately 500 illegally-cast ballots, or an average of 10 per state. These were surviving spouses voting their deceased partner’s wishes, voting a former tenant’s ballot, or voting twice after moving to a new state. One organized attempt to steal 8000 ballots to rig the mayoral election of Hawthorne CA was caught early in its tracks by election officials. Bottom line, there was no other massive cheating effort, just 500 violations that couldn’t possibly alter the outcome.
The skullduggery took place in the pre-election infospace. Joe Biden, Antony Blinken and Mike Morrell (ex-CIA) with assistance from major media and tech platforms duped a significant portion of the electorate about Hunter Biden’s laptop being a Russian ploy to smear Biden to sway the election toward Trump. This political whopper helped Biden win, and was only exposed as an infowarfare campaign using ex-CIA PsyOps knowhow after the Inauguration. It demonstrates how a false narrative only need have “legs” temporarily to attain its impact. It shows how aloof from reality Justice Brandeis was in arguing that the antidote to bad information is good information….timing is everything in psychological warfare.
Knowing exactly how Biden & Co. mickeyed the election via use of a clever Public Fraud, the question we should be asking is “How to stop that chicanery in its tracks next time it’s tried by a candidate?” The best answer: to expand civil lawsuits based on defamation to cover Public Frauds waged for political advantage, and radically speed up the discovery process (subpoenas, compelled depositions) to a few days. Also, name media who knowingly spread the whopper in the same lawsuit. This will make dishonest players think twice about cheating in the infospace to win election.
Election interference on a grand scale. Unlimited propaganda besmirching Trump with known falsehoods. Ballot harvesting, mai in ballots, accepting ballots after deadlines, changing election laws without legislation. It was a stolen election, death by a thousand cuts. I don’t care how you want to coin it, stolen, rigged, fraudulent, all quite fitting.
Requiring specific pronouns is compelled speech – that goes way beyond Tinker.
This should not have even been a close call.
You MAY NOT compell someone to speak in a particular way – I am not aware of any first amendment case EVER whether in school or elsewhere where the supreme court allowed COMPELLED speech.
And the dissent is full of schiff – while we give schools SOME latitude to infringe on the rights of minors,
The standard for punishing speech as conduct is high and cannot be anticipatory.
I don’t think that analysis is quite right. The school wasn’t compelling the students to say specific things; they were free to say nothing. What it did was ban them from referring to their classmates using pronouns they knew would hurt those classmates. I don’t see how you can easily distinguish it from banning students from calling each other names — even names that appear on their birth certificates.
Suppose it became known in class that the kid who introduced himself as “Josh” is actually Jehosaphat, and the class bullies immediately starts calling him Josie-fat, or even “Jehosa-FAT”. Especially if the kid is actually on the chubby side. Surely the teacher can ban that, and punish the bullies for calling him that.
Let alone racial or ethnic slurs, even obscure ones that don’t often get called out, but that trigger some particular child and leave him in tears. Again, surely the school can stop that.
So how do you distinguish those obvious cases from this one? Surely part of a school’s job is to educate children in how to behave in polite society, e.g. the workplace, so they ought to learn that although we all know Rob is a boy, he wants to be addressed as if he were a girl, so we should refer to him as “her”, purely out of politeness.
M, I think the distinction is between normal speech and taunting. As someone whose name easily became a mocking tool I get that (and managed to survive it without school intervention). But that’s different than a kid saying “he said that 2 + 2 = 4” and having the individual claim that referring to him as a him is the equivalent of mockery.
It’s only different because it didn’t get applied to you. One time making an incorrect guess is a mistake. Repeating it 100 times a day because it bothers someone is bullying.
No speech that offends you is not bullying.
Or more accurately it is NOT something that you can ban.
Bullying is violence – real violence – and that you can punish.
That is just wrong. You’re misusing the word “bullying”, just as you object to people misusing pronouns. Verbal bullying is bullying whether you like it or not, just as a boy is a boy whether he likes it or not. And deliberately calling him a boy for the purpose of hurting him is bullying.
“I think the distinction is between normal speech and taunting. As someone whose name easily became a mocking tool I get that (and managed to survive it without school intervention)”
You think correctly. If your public school experience was anything like mine, you will also recollect that many kids wish to taunt anyone who significantly differs from the median, AND that they will find some way to do exactly that, whether it involves a pronoun, a proper name (almost all of which can be altered to be chanted in a demeaning manner) or some other random attribute of the taunted.
Critical Diversity Theory requires us to judge and label people in blocs. Thus the use of the technical term-of-art “fetus” to facilitate aborting lives deemed unworthy of life with Diverse precedents. Simulants with misogynistic and misandristic pride, too, who share the transgender spectrum with homosexuals. Couple “=” couplet. Baby “=” burden. Jew “=” deplorable… and so on and so forth.
There isn’t a “critical diversity theory.” There is a Masters and Doctorate level college study called Critical Race Theory, in which laws and regulations designed to have an adverse effect on minorities are studied for their origin and their, often, continuing effects. It is intended to look at laws and regulations that separate people into blocks.
The majority of abortions happen before the development of the fetus stage; as the embryo or blastocyst. Miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. The fetal stage starts are around 9 weeks. Abortions after that become increasingly rare and are most often done because the fetus has died and the abortion is to remove the dead fetus so it doesn’t rot and kill the bearer. More rarely the development has gone so wrong that there is no chance for survival, such as failing to develop lungs or a digestive tract and continuing the pregnancy won’t improve the chances of successful birth, but it does increase the risk of all the typical risks of pregnancy.
Milhouse: Yes, it might be the polite thing to address the male who thinks he is female as “she”and “her.” But there is something wrong with government telling us what words we must use when we speak to a trans person. Such a trans person can believe whatever they want about themself, but do others have to participate in that person’s fantasy under penalty of government laws?
We are talking about speech in the classroom, where the government absolutely does have the right to enforce polite speech and behavior. In the classroom the Tinkers’ armbands cannot be banned, but Cohen’s jacket can. Even in the classroom the government can’t make students espouse an opinion they disagree with, but it probably can ban them from expressing opinions that are inherently offensive or disruptive, such as racist opinions that will offend other students.
Ok. Politeness trumps truth. Is that because truth doesn’t exist or each person has a specialized truth?
Politeness matters. It’s a burden but there are many burdens in life. Taunting rudeness is unacceptable and it’s done as cruelty.
Pitiful
It is SETTLED LAW that a school may restrict a student’s freedom of speech by banning offensive, obscene, or disruptive speech. Cohen’s jacket must be allowed in a courthouse but not in a schoolhouse.
“It is SETTLED LAW that a school may restrict a student’s freedom of speech by banning offensive, obscene, or disruptive speech. ”
Then you will be able to cite the case.
Cohen’s jacket can be banned from school – because it is obscene, and disruptive. Speech can NOT be banned at school because some take offense.
This is “settled law” – settled against you.
Please find any supreme court case where restrictions on “offensive” – but not obscene or disruptive speech were allowed.
Cohen’s jacket is the perfect example of your error. Like schools – courts CAN ban from the courtroom speech that is disruptive.
“F#$K the draft” is not disruptive. It is merely offensive.
When you allow speech that is offensive to ban – you have effectively allowed ALL speech to be banned.
This case was a slam dunk against the district from the start.
Cohen’s jacket is the perfect example of your error. Like schools – courts CAN ban from the courtroom speech that is disruptive.
“F#$K the draft” is not disruptive. It is merely offensive.
And yet it can be banned from schools, but not courthouses. Because offensive is enough to ban at school, as it is in the workplace. Deliberately taunting a classmate is inherently disruptive, whether it’s by calling him names, or slurs, or the “wrong” (i.e. objectively correct) pronouns. It’s the intent to hurt that matters, not the objective meaning of the words used.
“We are talking about speech in the classroom”
No we are talking about a public – AKA government classroom.
The first amendment is about GOVERNMENT control of speech – and that includes Government schools.
“where the government absolutely does have the right to enforce polite speech”
Nope.
“and behavior.”
Conduct is different. You left wing nuts constantly get confused.
You pretend speech is violence – it is not.
That your feelings are facts and your emotions create a duty to dictate the behaviour of others.
Tinker was not about armbands vs. Jackets – it was about speech that does not disrupt the classroom.
Nor did tinker create a standard for disruption that was maleable into anything you want.
“In the classroom the Tinkers’ armbands cannot be banned, but Cohen’s jacket can.”
No – speech can not be banned PERIOD, Disruptive conduct can.
“Even in the classroom the government can’t make students espouse an opinion they disagree with, but it probably can ban them from expressing opinions that are inherently offensive or disruptive, such as racist opinions that will offend other students.”
Again NOPE. Government in its role in schools can in many instances bar the expression of opinions – ALL opinions.
But if it allows ANY opinions it must allow ALL opinions. ‘
The most protected form of speech is speech that offends others – it is the only speech that needs protection.
You are litterally 180 degrees wrong.
Govenrment may not – even in schools engage in content based censorship.
There can be rules about when you can speak. But when expression is allowed, expression that offends some can not be censored.
John, first of all watch whom you’re calling a leftist!
And on this matter you’re simply wrong. Both the Tinkers’ armbands and Cohen’s jacket were speech. That’s why Cohen won his case. But the courts have explicitly ruled that Cohen’s jacket is protected in a courthouse but not in a schoolhouse. Had he been one of the Tinkers’ friends, and had worn his jacket at one of the schools where they wore their armbands, he would have lost his case even as they won theirs. At issue was not the message his jacket expressed but how it expressed it.
Is that a white lie or a lie? A person can remain silent. A child cannot be impolite. A child cannot lie nor can a child be subjected to liars.
Is it a lie if I know you’re a man but I am compelled to address you as she? I cannot be compelled to lie politely nor impolitely. I can only remain silent and distressed and confused.
^^^ college students say they do not speak. They keep their thoughts to themselves. Only 17% said they felt free speech was acceptable. I the above offering as an example.
I’m reminded of little BB who drew a picture age 7? All lives matter child if anyone remembers her. She was punished by no drawing and no recesses.
As an adult I can address people politely without surrendering truth. Can children? They cannot.
It’s taunting cruelty you’re after? The child in the crosswalk everyday shouting insults looking for a fight? The rule is: if you haven’t something good to say say nothing at all.
Self censorship? Don’t ever give a taunter a second chance. Believe them the 1st time.
What on earth are you talking about? Do YOU have any idea?!
John Say seems like he may have been and continues to be one of the bullies. As is a common occurrence in conservatism and liberalism – if the walk on the Earth hurts his feet, then cover the Earth in leather. The liberals suggest wearing shoes. He wants the world to conform to his view of it, no matter how incorrect or hurtful it is to others.
You have your analogy inverted.
It is libertarians that say if something bothers you – that is your problems – wear shoes.
It is those on the left that think what bothers them entitles them to make rules for all and use FORCE to impose them.
Conservatism is not an ideology, it is the simple factual observation that norms and laws established over hundreds, and thousands of years even if less than perfect are more likely to work that anything you dream up to replace them.
Nearly all new ideas FAILthat is why we explore new ideas in the free market – where if your new idea is successful YOU benefit, and if it fails YOU pay the price.
When govenrment decides to change the law or norms that have been around forever it is EVERYONE who loses when that change fails – as most change does.
Turley is a liberal – no one posting here on the left is liberal – they are all illiberal.
If your choice is forced silence or only speaking as commanded – that is classic first amendment compelled speech.
Schools are entitled to SOME regulation of speech in class to preserve order.
They are NOT entitled to regulate speech specifically for the purpose of avoiding hurt feelings.
I was called names in school – that is life.
I was also beat up – that is called bullying.
Schools are required to prevent actual bullying.
Hurt feelings are not their business.
” I don’t see how you can easily distinguish it from banning students from calling each other names — even names that appear on their birth certificates.”
Distinguishing it is easy – but also unnecessary.
Are you really trying to argue for a 1984 type of dystopia ?
Schools are not the language police.
The entire point of Tinker was that a schools can enforce order in a classroom – but it can not restrict speech absent a serious threat to order.
No Hurt feelings are not a disruption to order.
I would note that when your feelings are hurt – YOU are the one who has chose to allow your feelings to be hurt.
That is your problem
Look arround the comment section here – there are people calling others all kinds of names.
Has the world come to an end ?
Aside from a few thin skinned crybabies – is anyone actually harmed by it ? No.
For the most part calling other people names – especially names that are false – harms the person calling others names. Not the person being called names.
Gain control of your own emotions.
“Suppose it became known in class that the kid who introduced himself as “Josh” is actually Jehosaphat, and the class bullies immediately starts calling him Josie-fat, or even “Jehosa-FAT”. Especially if the kid is actually on the chubby side. Surely the teacher can ban that, and punish the bullies for calling him that.”
How hard did you have to work to come up with that ?
Regardless, can you call a student who is indian – indian ? White – White ?
The standard is disrupting class – NOT hurt feelings. to the extent that anything is objective – we can identify conduct that disrupts class.
If you spend your time banning speech that MIGHT cause some discomfort to someone – no one will ever be able to speak.
I find calling people with XY chromosomes she “hurtful” – does my hurt feeling justify compelling people to speak as I wish ?
You can not justify restrictions or Compulsion on speech by hurt feelings.
You are trying to pretend that emotions are even the tiniest bit objective – they are not.
“Let alone racial or ethnic slurs, even obscure ones that don’t often get called out, but that trigger some particular child and leave him in tears. Again, surely the school can stop that.”
Actual slurs are about more than feelings.
You keep reverting to feelings. If that is your argument – you lose.
Most everyone has feelings, all you are doing is picking approved feelings vs. disapproved ones.
You say that a child is “triggered” – that is their problem – it is obvious in the very words YOU chose.
If you can be triggered, you can be not triggered, Regardless Triggered is something that happens in YOU – not others.
If you are going to try to justify censorship – or worse by emotional responses – you are going to make a mess.
“So how do you distinguish those obvious cases from this one?”
Mostly – I do not – your emotions are your problem.
To the extent the schools has any responsibility regardingchildren and emotions – it is to help them gain control over their emotions – to NOT be triggered by them.
“Surely part of a school’s job is to educate children in how to behave in polite society”
Nope. You do not get massively expand the curriculum of a school to suit YOUR idea of what society needs.
I would further note society today is extremely impolite.
Listen to our our politicians, our music, our entertainment, the speech of ordinary people.
We are not the least polite today.
Regardless, you want to control speech is school – you can do that trivially – get rid of govenrment schools.
The first amendment is a bar to Government regulation of speech.
Private schools can have whatever rules they wish regarding speech.
They are answerable to parents. Not govenrment, not society.
YOU have some ability to establish the rules for the private school YOUR children go to.
YOU do not have any control of otehr schools.
And that is how it should be.
“so they ought to learn that although we all know Rob is a boy, he wants to be addressed as if he were a girl, so we should refer to him as “her”, purely out of politeness.”
They ought to learn to be coerced into some other idiots idea of what they can and can not say ?
Politeness is a choice, it can not be a rule – or it is no longer politeness, it is FORCE.
I do not care much one way or another about adolescent fetishes.
I do nto care if you want to be called he or she.
I care greatly when you decide that controling the speech of others is a right to be imposed by FORCE.
John, Tinker is an important case but it doesn’t go nearly as far as you think it does. The courts have been clear that while a school may not ban the Tinkers’ armbands, it certainly MAY ban Cohen’s jacket. Cohen’s jacket is protected speech in a courthouse, but not in a schoolhouse.
It is absolutely a teachers JOB to prevent students from bullying each other, and your claim that bullying consists only of physical violence is just absolutely false. Verbal bullying is also bullying, and schools have the right and the duty to prevent it on school grounds.
In the workplace you are expected to respect each other’s feelings, and if you deliberately refer to one of your coworkers as “she” when you know very well that she wants to be referred to as “he”, there is surely no employer who will not fire you for it. Even government employers are entitled to do so, notwithstanding the first amendment, because they’re acting in their role of employer rather than government. And it’s part of schools’ job to prepare students for working in that sort of environment.
None of which changes the fact that a she is still a she no matter how you refer to her. Respecting her feelings doesn’t change the reality. And if it becomes relevant to tell the actual truth, e.g. she has a medical emergency and you have to tell the doctor that she is in fact female, then her feelings have to take a back seat.
Milhouse
purely out of politeness.
**********************
We are talking about the left. They have zero understanding of being polite. Hate is all they love.
We’ve really gotten into the weeds when someone speaking the truth is punished for speaking “incorrectly”.
Just goes to prove some people (and they are generally in one party) are either dumber than rocks or delusional.
In the classroom students are routinely punished for speaking offensively. As the courts have affirmed, in the classroom the Tinkers’ armbands must be permitted, but Cohen’s jacket may be banned.
Why wasn’t Larry Flynt punished?
Have a fab week one and all. Remember the veterans.
Because he wasn’t in the classroom! There is not a school in the USA that allows Hustler to be circulated in class.
Correct – we bar adult content from schools.
John
we bar adult content from schools.
______________________________
Yet the left is doing all they can to put smut in our schools.
And you have been wrong about that from the moment you started spraying that stupidity.
The standard that allows SOME regulation of speech in schools is DISRUPTIVE – not offensive.
You keep ranting about Cohen’s jacket and Tinker’s armband – but you are clueless as to why they are different.
In BOTH the case of Cohen and Tinker SCOTUS decided AGAINST the govenrment and for free speech.
Indeed it did, but it said the standard for the two are different. The Tinkers’ armbands must be allowed even in school, whereas Cohen’s jacket, which must be allowed in a courthouse, need not be allowed in a schoolhouse. Because schools are for children, not adults, and part of their job is to police vulgarity by the children.
No one is compelling speech. Harassing other students is getting a disciplinary response.
Children are in school to learn how to deal with other people and part of that is using the names and pronouns the other people want to use in relation to them. Also, learning how to spell words and check the work before submitting it – clearly a lesson you never learned.
Treat people kindly. It’s a very simple concept.
When you require people to use certain words or not speak at all – that is compelled speech.
Requiring others to use the words of YOUR choice is harassment.
“Children are in school to learn how to deal with other people”
Nope.
” and part of that is using the names and pronouns the other people want to use in relation to them.”
Nope and even worse – teaching proper english IS a legitimate task for schools.
He refers to a biological male.
Her refers to a biological female.
Teaching something different is a FAILURE on the part of schools.
There is no circumstance elsewhere in this country where you are REQUIRED to speak in the way someone else demands.
And that is especially true of govenrment.
I is even worse when you are teaching children to lie.
If your feelings are hurt by reality – that is YOUR problem
If you respond by seeking to FORCE others to lie – that is a moral ethical and constitutional violation of epic proportions.
” Also, learning how to spell words and check the work before submitting it – clearly a lesson you never learned.”
I have as little interest in spelling Nazi’s as gender Nazi’s.
I have been published MANY times. I have no problems with spelling.
I do not waste my time on it HERE with idiots like you.
“Treat people kindly. It’s a very simple concept.”
It is a concept. It is positive morality – really bad positive morality.
It is NOT the law.
Further it is NOT kind to lie to people, or to lie about them.
You are free to beleive you are a fish if that is what you want.
You are not free to require others to echo your delusion.
What about the religious objection?