Judge: A Shirt that says "there are only two genders" is NOT protected speech

So in Florida where Project 1776 is forced to be taught per HB 7, is that not indoctrination as well in public schools?

 

You are, once again, reading things that are not there. The reason that KKK talking points could be prohibited in a school dress code, would be due to their hostility towards the rights of others.

 

As I have pointed out in a different link, free speech is more complex than you might think. And the Supreme Court has given great deference to schools, public and private, in which how to handle the student's expressions that are not disruptive in nature.

So, how much would you feel welcome if you were with a group of people at school because you had to in which you were not treated well by staff and students? My guess, not welcomed at all, would you?

 

... and not in any way similar to the issue at hand.

The school wants to discriminate against the kid in question because he wore a t-shirt with a constitutionally protected message it disagrees with.
This violates the constitution, as per the jurisprudence I cited,copied, and pasted.

 

You cannot cite/copy/paste USSC jurisprudence to that effect.
And even if you can, you cannot demonstrate that said ruling applies to the shirt, and the discrimination, in question.

You, simply and plainly, support state discrimination against points of view you do not agree with.

 

Actually, it is.

The kid is not being discriminated against, at least not in the Civil Lawsuit that he filed. He has stated his first amendment rights were violated but even stated the school policy on what should and should not be worn in said lawsuit.

As for the judge, all the judge ruled was that no injunction should be in place because nothing has been proven or disproven. And all you are doing is citing the buzzwords thinking that will give you a leg up in the debate. It won't.

Read the lawsuit. Read the 100 plus statements that the lawsuit makes as facts into the lawsuit. Two of which is the school policy, and how they approached him, told him to go to the office, and asked the shirt to be removed, while he complied.

 

Sorry, I couldn't figure out what you're trying to say here.. Clearly challenging...

 

I think you missed some things here. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is appropriate if there is a fire. Courts have had to recognize this in the past, and yet you missed it? Chuck Schumer yells "fear the whirlwind" and someone shows up at a SCOTUS judge's house trying to kill him... And you will still insist Chuck was free to say what he did.

 

It is hard to come up with an exact analogy for this. The best that comes to mind, at the moment, would be a shirt that said that "there was no civilization in America, before Europeans came here." This would be an "assault" upon the identity of any Native Americans. This way of thinking should be allowed in a classroom debate, but not as an ongoing provocation, walking through the halls of a school.

 

I don't really understand the question. Can you give it more context please?

 

again, I agree with you on that point. of course, in public areas, such a shirt is subject to first amendment protection. One of the most interesting cases involved my college-and a student by the name of IIRC Dick (seriously). The school advertised a GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Awareness Day) and Mr. Dick parodied it with BAD (Bestiality Awareness Day). He was hit with 2 years of probation but fought back with a star studded support team that included-again IIRC Buckley, Dershowitz and the famous Yale professor C Van Woodward (who's free speech protocols used to be the bible for civil libertarians). Dick won, the university ate crow

 

Here is a link to the above incident
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ch-case/99c6efe6-3628-4b18-8ce0-4de82d6cfaa9/

 

I fail to see your association here between the two. There are, biologically only two options. Male/Female. Of course there are mutations, but it at least is a true statement. The shirt you described would not be a true statement, even if modern archeology won't accept the idea of advanced cultures in the western hemisphere before 1500 AD. But hey, you can try to conflate the two, but I doubt you are successful here.

And specifically, what "provacation" is being produced here? And to whom? A mythical student who didn't complain? The law requires you be able to address your accuser. Are you suggesting that the school can just "assume" there might be one? If not, the school is the complainant, and they haven't suffered a harm from the shirt. I would also suggest that the school's harm is to their ego, not anything substantive.

Again, the SCOTUS case of record on this doesn't support the decision of the federal court. The federal court seems to feel they can legislate their own agenda, and of course, that isn't the case.

 

Which means that that there is not biologically only two options.

 

If a liberal disagrees with you then, by definition, you are committing violence against them. It's in the Constitution.

 

You bet it does. When I was first teaching, the high school principal went on a one-man crusade against halter tops worn without bras. He wanted us to march offenders down to the office. One male colleague summed it up for the male staff: "Fat chance I'm going to take a girl to the office for that." Things went downhill quickly after that. Next day, damn near every female student was wearing a halter top without a bra. Nobody went home and the crusade was O-V-E-R. There are all kinds of statements. The power of the breast.

We ignored logos and focused on messages of any kind.

We're not going to get rid of the US flag and state flags, but everything else was nixed.

 

Oh. c'mon.

 

I fear you have not paid close enough attention. Where folks who are XXY occur, those aren't the same category of folks who have the psychological dysphoria. I suppose you assumed no one would notice... Biologically, successful reproduction is going to produce XX XY almost 100% of the time. As a statement of fact, then, two genders are the only option.

I suggest you go reread Tinker. You might learn something from it.

 

@yardmeat

Do you think that this shirt is any different than putting flags on the wall of a school?

 

IOW, you actually know the truth: Government Schools = Government Indoctrination.

Your opposition to government indoctrination is clearly very subjective.

 

Yes. One is specifically meant to support kids and the other is specifically meant to antagonize.

 

No one's being forced to read the shirt. And besides what the shirt says is not wrong.
With the rare exception of the rare true hermaphrodite

 

Nope first off there is nothing in them that even mentions gay. So it can't be don't say gay.

 

Putting flags or rainbows on a wall might be considered antagonistic towards certain religious groups.

 

Except that makes no sense. Just because someone might be offended by what you are saying does not make it "antagonistic" to say it.

I'll try to explain it more simply. Let's say one person is wearing a cross necklace and another person is wearing a shirt that says "Non-Christians will burn in hell for eternity." Both engaging in Christian speech. One is being antagonistic, though, and the other is not, even if some people might be offended by the cross necklace. It isn't about some people maybe finding offense. It's about deliberately seeking offense.

Similarly, a rainbow flag isn't antagonistic. Some people may be offended by it, but the purpose isn't to seek offense. A rainbow flag that says "**** Christians" is antagonistic because it DOES purposefully seek offense. This should be a simple concept.