A Federal judge in Massachusetts rules that a shirt that reads “there are only two genders” is not protected speech and “invades the rights of others” by targeting a “protected class.” (pdf alert) What this ruling contends is that some people have more rights than others, that trannies and other deviant individuals have more rights than others. There would be no action taken against a student wearing a shirt that reads “there is no god,” or one that says “I support trans rights because I am not an idiot.”

I agree with the line of thought that a school should prohibit any activity or speech that interferes with the main mission of the school: education. The maintenance of effective control over the classroom is necessary for the learning environment that is needed for students to learn. Anyone who has tried to teach anyone (child or adult) knows that the classroom needs to be conducive to learning. Distractions like political discussions interfere with that and need to be controlled.

The problem with the situation that we read about here is that action is only being taken against one disruption while the school actively supports other disruptions by having gay pride parties and discussions. The shirt that I pictured above would be allowed because it supports the tranny/leftist agenda. It’s not the dress code itself that Morrison spoke out against, but the illegitimate, arbitrary, and unequal way school personnel enforced it against him for his disfavored political views. The same school that prohibits a shirt reading “there are only two genders” freely hung pride flags and diversity posters throughout the school, so they aren’t opposed to the disruption, they are just trying to make sure that all disruptions are of one end of the political spectrum. The school even takes a day off for the holidays of Juneteenth, Indigenous People’s Day, and MLK day, and spends the month of June celebrating pride month, but no holiday for President’s day. It’s clear that the school district is run by hard core leftists.

That is how they are grooming the children of their town- by repeatedly exposing them to leftist messaging while denying those students from seeing an opposing viewpoint. That is the definition of restricting free speech and this decision will hopefully be appealed and struck down.

Should there be no recourse in the legislature or the courts, people may well begin to take action on their own.


Nolan Parker · June 18, 2023 at 7:38 am

so they aren’t opposed to the disruption, they are just trying to make sure that all disruptions are of one end of the political spectrum.

And they are The Best at the fine art of Hypocrisy. The skill level they have in being able to lie with a straight face is astonishing.

June J · June 18, 2023 at 10:06 am

“Judge” appointed by Obummer in his quest to radically transform America.

Don in Oregpon · June 18, 2023 at 10:22 am

Speech loses its protected status only when it involves making a credible threat of physical violence in the presence of a possible victim. This is called menacing.

Matthew · June 18, 2023 at 11:28 am

Sure, in a school or workplace, those who should be in control, (the administration, or the employer) absolutely should be the ones to spell out what is allowed or not allowed up to and including speech, in any form. The notion expressed by some that “I don’t leave my first amendment at the door” is naive at best but always just plain wrong. You most certainly do not have a first amendment right to free speech in those environments.

But this case wasn’t about whether or not the rules were violated or fairly applied or even the rules themselves. This is about the term “hate speech” and its application as a matter of law.

In the case of a private employer, or private school, there is no need for any rule to have any basis is law or social norms, rules may be completely arbitrary, utterly unfair or even ridiculous. Like, you’re not to use the word fudge on Tuesdays unless you also have red hair, it does not matter, and it should not matter to any court, as long as the rule is specifically spelled out. Don’t like the rule? Bye.

In the case of a public school, even though things are a little different, no rule, whether very specified or in this case, vaguely subjective, should ever require a rambling opinion about the rights of anyone to not be subjected to stuff they disagree with or don’t like, and certainly no bullshit about suicide rates or other nonsense trips completely into the weeds. The court got off on the completely wrong foot the moment it allowed the argument to head in that direction. The issue the court seems to have taken up here is one that is definitely not the role of any court in this country, to define the term “hate speech” for everyone forever and I believe that the overreach was intentional.

The school administration does not care about any offended group, individuals within those groups, this student, that shirt, their rules or whether they are fairly applied and neither did the judge. Their mission is purely political, and this court was happy not only to oblige but to assist them in the hijacking of this case to make an ideological statement that they have no business making. This was about power.

Unknownsailor · June 19, 2023 at 11:20 pm

In you still have your kids in a public school, at this point, you deserve to have them indoctrinated into hating you.

Home school or die.

Comments are closed.