Federal judge rules MA student’s ‘there are only two genders’ T-shirt ‘invades the rights of others,’ is NOT protected by free speech

On Friday, a federal judge in Massachusettes ruled a shirt that read “THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS” could be construed as bullying of a protected class and is not protected speech after a 12-year-old and his father filed suit against officials in the Middlesbrough Public School district for First and Fourteenth Amendment rights violations. 

Judge Indira Talwani said in the court ruling, the boy and his father had “not established a likelihood of success on the merits where he is unable to counter Defendants’ showing that enforcement of the Dress Code was undertaken to protect the invasion of the rights of other students to a safe and secure educational environment.” 

“School administrators were well within their discretion to conclude that the statement ‘THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS’ may communicate that only two gender identities–male and female–are valid, and any others are invalid or nonexistent,” the ruling continued, “and to conclude that students who identify differently, whether they do so openly or not, have a right to attend school without being confronted by messages attacking their identities.”

Trans and gender non-conforming students are considered a protected class under Massachusetts law, and while this shirt does not constitute the bullying of a single student, the ruling says that the school was justified because it could make “a group of potentially vulnerable students” not feel safe. 

Citing multiple precedents, the judge ruled that “A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, [ ] even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.” So there was no constitutional violation that occurred. 

In reaction to the ruling, defense attorney Marina Medvin wrote on Twitter, “As someone who grew up in the USSR getting her teeth drilled without novocaine the idea that today’s US kids complain and prohibit— with the help of judges— another kid from wearing a shirt stating a scientific fact b/c it hurts their feelings is just…”

Keep reading

Did You Know That Biden Is in the Midst of Three Lawsuits for Infringing on Free Speech?

Lawsuits and legal battles are everywhere lately.  Trump’s indictment for the mishandling of classified documents has been all over the news, but the Biden White House is also in the middle of a few lawsuits that may be of some interest to First Amendment enthusiasts.

Alex Berenson sues Twitter and Biden

Former New York Times journalist and popular novelist Alex Berenson sued Twitter in December 2021.  Berenson had retweeted Pfizer’s own data about the Covid jabs, but since he did not present the data in a flattering manner, he was booted off the site after being previously told by Twitter that they supported him in his Covid dissidence, as he explains in this interview with Clay and Buck.

Berenson filed his lawsuit in Northern California, and he won.  In July 2022, Alex Berenson was back on Twitter.

But some weird details emerged.  During the discovery phase of his lawsuit against Twitter, where the parties are given access to each other’s documents, Team Berenson got the chance to look over internal Twitter communications.  And Team Berenson found out that Twitter had been pressured by the White House and Pfizer board member Dr. Scott Gottlieb to kick him off.  So, on April 12, 2023, Alex Berenson filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration.

Berenson v. Biden is moving really slowly, and who knows how it’ll end up.  But the Twitter Files releases look only to strengthen his argument; Michael Shellenberger found more email chains about the internal Twitter arguments over whether or not to ban Berenson and turned the emails over to him to use in his lawsuit against the White House.  The more time goes by, the more it looks like Berenson was correct in suspecting that outside forces were at work in removing him from Twitter.

Alex Berenson was a highly respected writer before Covid, though after 2020 many in the medical field adopted a “stay in your lane” attitude toward anyone not practicing medicine and who didn’t buy into the official narrative.

Keep reading

Man Arrested for Citing Bible Verse While Protesting Pride Event — Charges Withdrawn After Video Evidence Emerges

A Christian preacher who was targeted by the law for reading from the Bible at an LGBT Pride event has been cleared of charges of disorderly conduct after a review of video evidence led prosecutors to conclude that said preacher had not behaved in violation of the law.

Evangelical preacher Damon Atkins was arrested on June 6th on allegations that he was “engaged in fighting” when he protested a pride event several days earlier in Reading, Pennysylvania.

“After a review of the incident which took place on June 3, 2023, in the 800 block of Washington Street in the City of Reading, the District Attorney’s Office has withdrawn the charges of disorderly conduct filed against Damon Atkins,” the DA’s Office said in a statement released on Wednesday.

“The charges were withdrawn after the District Attorney’s Office reviewed the videos of the incident along with applicable case law.”

Berks County Commissioner Christian Leinbach said in a statement to the Lancaster Patriot that Atkins’ arrest was unlawful and that further pursuing the case could expose the city of Reading and its law enforcement agencies to legal action.

Keep reading

Biden Censorship Lawyers Say Questioning Masks And Vaccines “Often Won’t Be” Protected By First Amendment

The judge presiding over the lawsuit filed by Missouri and Louisiana, alleging collusion between the federal government and social media companies to censor certain viewpoints, is said to have asked if the Biden administration has ever read George Orwell’s 1984.

The transcript of the hearing is not yet available. However, Missouri’s Attorney General Andrew Bailey shared some of the statements made by Judge Terry A. Doughty.

“The federal government had a hard time convincing a judge last week that it hasn’t been working with and coercing social media companies to censor free speech,” Bailey tweeted.

“The judge asked the feds if they had ever read George Orwell’s 1984, pointing out the similarities between the case and the book,” he added.

Bailey also tweeted that Doughty asked the federal government about their views on protected speech.

“He asked if an American citizen questioning the safety or efficacy of masks or a vaccine was protected under the First Amendment,” Bailey recalled. “The feds’ answer? ‘It COULD be,’ but often won’t be.”

Keep reading

The Satanic Temple Sues Over Right To Give ‘Invocation’ at City Council Meetings

The Chicago City Council, like many other legislative bodies, typically opens meetings with an “invocation”—essentially, a prayer or moment of reflection. Clergy from a wide range of religious backgrounds have given these invocations, and a Satanist minister wants to join their ranks. But the city has refused to let him—and refused to explain the decision. Now, this minister has filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the city.

The Satanic Temple is a nontheistic religion that, as noted by the lawsuit, is “federally recognized as a church and a religious public charity.” Contrary to popular belief, members of the group don’t actually worship Satan. Instead, they follow a series of seven “Tenets” focused on broad ideas of compassion, rationalism, and freedom.

The Satanic Temple has often tested religious-freedom policies and challenged anti-abortion laws on religious-freedom grounds. Just this month, the group experienced a significant legal victory after it won its lawsuit against a school district that attempted to block the formation of an “After School Satan Club.” It also celebrated when in 2015 a large Ten Commandments monument was removed from the Oklahoma state Capitol following a protest by the group and a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.*

This most recent lawsuit, filed on Wednesday, marks at least the third time The Satanic Temple has sued after being blocked from giving an invocation or prayer before a legislative body. Adam Vavrick, the ordained minister in the religion, unsuccessfully sought to perform an invocation at a Chicago city council meeting. According to the suit, Vavrick began his efforts in January 2020, when he spoke to Chauncy Rice, the then-chief of public engagement for the Office of the City Clerk, who told Vavrick “that he would be happy to schedule him to provide an invocation after ‘standard vetting procedures.”

“For the next several months, Minister Adam followed up with Mr. Rice approximately once a month to inquire about the status of his request to provide an invocation,” writes the complaint. “These emails went unanswered.” The same outcome occurred when Vavrick attempted to schedule an invocation with Rice’s successor.

Keep reading

St. Petersburg Uhuru members speak for first time since indictment

It’s a matter of free speech, says Omali Yeshitela, the longtime leader of the St. Petersburg-based Uhuru Movement and founder of the African People’s Socialist Party.

Yeshitela was indicted by a federal grand jury in Tampa last month and accused of working with Russian nationals to sow discord in the United States, spread pro-Russian propaganda and influence elections, along with two other members of the Uhuru Movement, Penny Joanne Hess and Jesse Nevel.

On Wednesday, the three Uhuru members spoke to the press for the first time since their indictment.

“I believe in free speech,” Yeshitela said at the news conference. “If I didn’t believe in free speech, I would never have said anything because they kill Black people for talking in this country.”

Yeshitela founded the African People’s Socialist Party in 1972. The Uhuru Movement is the party’s activist branch, started in the 1990s. The group supports reparations for Black people and has protested racism, colonialism and capitalism for decades. Hess and Nevel are the chairpersons of groups for white allies under the leadership of the African People’s Socialist Party and the Uhuru Movement, respectively.

Keep reading

Sen. Rand Paul Warns RESTRICT Act Would Allow Feds to Nullify First Amendment

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has been a major critic of the RESTRICT Act, which has been sold to Congress and the public as a ban on TikTok.

He warned that it would authorize the federal government to censor any online communications it deems subversive and would nullify the First Amendment.

The popular social media app, which is controlled by a Chinese company with ties to the Chinese Communist Party, has more than 150 million monthly users in the United States alone and is used mainly by people under 30.

The app has been controversial for years, as concerns over security have led to several statewide bans of the app on government devices.

Legislation Faces More Opposition

Former President Donald Trump failed in his attempt to ban TikTok in the United States during his presidency, but momentum has been building ever since.

In April, President Joe Biden demanded that TikTok’s owners divest their stakes in the company or face a nationwide ban.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) co-sponsored the RESTRICT Act, which now has the support of over 20 senators, to give the Commerce Department the power to impose restrictions—up to and including outright bans—on TikTok and other technologies that may pose a national security risk.

It would mainly apply to foreign apps and software from countries deemed hostile to the United States, like China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba.

The legislation also empowers the Secretary of Commerce to unilaterally add any other country to the list.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said the House would draw up a bill to address the Chinese app, but the timeline is unclear.

On May 5, Paul published a column on conservative news website Townhall, warning that the bill “bestows an astonishing amount of power to the Executive branch in a manner that the Chinese Communist Party would approve of.”

Keep reading

Federal Judge Orders School District To Allow After-School Satan Club

A federal judge on Monday ordered that a Pennsylvania school district must allow The Satanic Temple (TST) to use school property for its clubs, according to the ruling.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit against Saucon Valley School District (SVSD) after it allegedly denied an application from TST to host its “After School Satan Club,” despite having accepted the request earlier. A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a preliminary injunction Monday, requiring the district to allow the club while the lawsuit continues, according to the ruling.

“When confronted with a challenge to free speech, the government’s first instinct must be to forward expression rather than quash it,” the ruling read. “Here, although The Satanic Temple, Inc.’s objectors may challenge the sanctity of this controversially named organization, the sanctity of the First Amendment’s protections must prevail. Indeed, it is the First Amendment that enumerates our freedoms to practice religion and express our viewpoints on religion and all the topics we consider sacred.”

Keep reading

THE WAR ON FREE SPEECH IS REALLY A WAR ON THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE THE GOVERNMENT

Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.”— Justice William O. Douglas

Absolutely, there is a war on free speech.

To be more accurate, however, the war on free speech is really a war on the right to criticize the government.

Although the right to speak out against government wrongdoing is the quintessential freedom, every day in this country, those who dare to speak their truth to the powers-that-be find themselves censored, silenced or fired.

Indeed, those who run the government don’t take kindly to individuals who speak truth to power.

In fact, the government has become increasingly intolerant of speech that challenges its power, reveals its corruption, exposes its lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

This is nothing new, nor is it unique to any particular presidential administration.

Keep reading

Speak Your Truth: Don’t Let the Government Criminalize Free Speech

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”—George Washington

What the police state wants is a silent, compliant, oblivious citizenry.

What the First Amendment affirms is an engaged citizenry that speaks truth to power using whatever peaceful means are available to us.

Speaking one’s truth doesn’t have to be the same for each person, and that truth doesn’t have to be palatable or pleasant or even factual.

We can be loud.

We can be obnoxious.

We can be politically incorrect.

We can be conspiratorial or mean or offensive.

We can be all these things because the First Amendment takes a broad, classically liberal approach to the free speech rights of the citizenry: in a nutshell, the government may not encroach or limit the citizenry’s right to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and protest.

This is why the First Amendment is so critical.

It gives the citizenry the right to speak freely, protest peacefully, expose government wrongdoing, and criticize the government without fear of retaliation, arrest or incarceration.

Nowhere in the First Amendment does it permit the government to limit speech in order to avoid causing offense, hurting someone’s feelings, safeguarding government secrets, protecting government officials, discouraging bullying, penalizing hateful ideas and actions, eliminating terrorism, combatting prejudice and intolerance, and the like.

When expressive activity crosses the line into violence, free speech protections end.

Keep reading