Supreme Court rejects student's challenge to 'two genders' T-shirt ban

[22lcidw]

A middle school student in Massachusetts was told he could not wear the T-shirt based on the school's dress code, which forbids hate speech.

'The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a Massachusetts student's challenge to his middle school's prohibition on him wearing a T-shirt bearing the slogan "There are only two genders." ... The case arose from student Liam Morrison's dispute with Nichols Middle School in Middleborough.

Lawyers for Morrison at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group, say students were "bombarded" with messages promoting the view "that sex and gender are self-defined, limitless, and unmoored from biology."

Morrison believes that view is "false and harmful" and responded in March 2023 when he was in seventh grade by wearing the T-shirt. After he was told to remove it, he later wore another shirt that said "There are [censored] genders." ... Morrison was not punished for wearing the shirts, although he was told he could not wear them in class and was sent home when he refused to remove the first one.’

Supreme Court rejects student's challenge to 'two genders' T-shirt ban

A middle school student in Massachusetts was told he could not wear the T-shirt based on the school's dress code, which forbids hate speech.

www.nbcnews.com

Another example of the fascist right indoctrinating young people into the conservative culture of intolerance, bigotry, and hate.

It also comes as no surprise that the Christian right comes to the defense of conservative hate speech.

And before those on the fascist right start whining and lying about ‘free speech’ being ‘violated,’ hate speech has long not been entitled to First Amendment protections, particularly students in public schools engaging in hate speech.

A few decades ago, there are people on these boards who had a crumb in what they consider to be social justice. Today the same people are sharing the loaf with others and are in many ways getting more than their fair share. Running concurrently with it whether it is fair or not is that the nation is in decline.

 

[BackAgain]

Wasn’t there a case a long time ago about some kid who wore a t-shirt with the word “fuck” on it?

My memory is hazy, so I could be mistaken. But I thought that the Supes there ruled that it was “freedom of speech?”

Although not the “f” word case, the case “Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)” is closely on point. There, the Court held that what may be permitted for adults doesn’t automatically mean that students in a school setting get the same. Benefit

“ Under the First Amendment, the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, but it does not follow that the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school. It is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions.”

Id. (From a head note.)

 

[WEATHER53]

Good point, if two genders isn't allowed then Pride crap shouldn't be either

But of course pride shit will be allowed because it caters to Feelings.

 

[martybegan]

Wasn’t there a case a long time ago about some kid who wore a t-shirt with the word “fuck” on it?

My memory is hazy, so I could be mistaken. But I thought that the Supes there ruled that it was “freedom of speech?”

Although not the “f” word case, the case “Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)” is closely on point. There, the Court held that what may be permitted for adults doesn’t automatically mean that students in a school setting get the same. Benefit

“ Under the First Amendment, the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, but it does not follow that the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school. It is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions.”

Id. (From a head note.)

The issue is the unequal application of standards on what is allowed and not allowed.

The left's views are protected, the right's views are not.

 

[WEATHER53]

Reality is not hate speech.

Feelings long ago overtook facts and frankly thinkers like me have allowed it to.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

But of course pride shit will be allowed because it caters to Feelings.

One of our daughters call them the Alphabet Gangsters

 

[martybegan]

One of our daughters call them the Alphabet Gangsters

I am a fan of the term "skittle hair people"

 

[WEATHER53]

The issue is the unequal application of standards on what is allowed and not allowed.

The left's views are protected, the right's views are not.

Lefts feelings are allowed while factual results cannot be presented lest a feeling get ruffled

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I am a fan of the term "skittle hair people"

They're fckn annoying. I don't care if you pack fudge or kitty lick but don't expect me to condone it

 

[BackAgain]

The issue is the unequal application of standards on what is allowed and not allowed.

The left's views are protected, the right's views are not.

It’s even more complicated.

If the school had taken issue with some prog student wearing a t-shirt that insisted that “there are dozens of genders,” you can be sure that the SCOTUS would have bent over backwards to (a) accept the case and (b) then hold that it constituted a violation of freedom of speech.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

How many genders are there?

one. Gender exists on a continuum

 

[martybegan]

It’s even more complicated.

If the school had taken issue with some prog student wearing a t-shirt that insisted that “there are dozens of genders,” you can be sure that the SCOTUS would have bent over backwards to (a) accept the case and (b) then hold that it constituted a violation of freedom of speech.

It's almost to the point that someone should sue a school district claiming LGBT+ advocacy has all the trappings of a religion, and have it removed like the other religions.

Hell the IRS determined Scientology counts as a Religion, and that's based on some sci-fi author's B level novels.

 

[80zephyr]

one. Gender exists on a continuum

Wow.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Wait can the Supreme Court define what a woman is now?

They have to, democrats don't seem to be able to.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I am a fan of the term "skittle hair people"

I take offense to that because I love skittles.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

one. Gender exists on a continuum

What a dope

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

SCOTUS is consistent in its ruling holding with American law.

The school board is correct: no hate speech.

 

[martybegan]

SCOTUS is consistent in its ruling holding with American law.

The school board is correct: no hate speech.

Saying there is only two genders isn't hate speech.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Saying there is only two genders isn't hate speech.

Argue it was SCOTUS, not me.

But, between us, you are wrong, and too often mad as a hatter.

 

[martybegan]

Argue it was SCOTUS, not me.

But, between us, you are wrong, and too often mad as a hatter.

They didn't take the case, so they said nothing on the merits.

The left thinks any idea they don't like being presented is hate speech.

Sorry, but no one has the right to impose their delusions on others.