The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld a middle school ban of the “There are Only Two Genders” t-shirt because words are violence!
The First Circuit is as leftist as the Ninth Circuit. It has all Obama and Biden nominees.
In March 2023, the Nicholas Middle School in Middleborough, MA, told seventh-grade student Liam Morrison to change his “There are Only Two Genders” t-shirt or leave school.
Morrison wore it again, but put masking tape over “two genders” and wrote “CENSORED.” This time he agreed to wear a different shirt.
(This kid is AMAZING)
Morrison, with the help of his parents and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit against the school and city, claiming administrators violated his First Amendment.
The school argued the t-shirt “would cause disruption and invade other students’ rights.”
The United States District Court of Massachusetts ruled in the school and city’s favor.
Judge Indira Talwani wrote: “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, 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.”
Morrison and ADF filed an appeal to the First Circuit.
Judge David Barron, an Obama appointee, emphasized two parts of the school’s handbook:
You also knew the case would go downhill because Barron then wrote (emphasis mine), “In the Spring of 2023, L.M. was a seventh grader at NMS. He held the belief that there are only two biological sexes (male and female), that the word ‘gender’ is synonymous with ‘sex[,]’ and that because there are only two biological sexes, there are only two genders.”
Well, guess what! The world has equated the two now so, yeah, Morrison is correct! (Even though I would have put sexes instead of gender on the t-shirt. Not like the school would have cared.)
Anyway!
I noticed the First Circuit latching onto the times when Morrison admitted or did not dispute anything similar to the defense, using it as an excuse to say the school did not violate the First Amendment.
For example. At the District Court hearing, Morrison claimed the t-shirt does not demean “anyone’s gender identity.” He admitted the message is “purely ideological” of his beliefs. It does not criticize other points of view. The message is not hatred or bigoted nor does it target those with opposing views.
But then Morrison did not dispute that the shirt’s message “expresses the view that students with different ‘beliefs about the nature of [their] existence’ are wrong.”
Barron then wrote:
Consistent with that acknowledgement, the District Court determined the message is reasonably understood to be an assertion, however sincerely believed, that individuals who do not identify as either male or female have no gender with which they may identify, as male and female are their only options. As the District Court put it, the message “may communicate that only two gender identities — male and female — are valid, and any others are invalid or nonexistent.”We agree with the District Court and so cannot say the message, on its face, shows Middleborough acted unreasonably in concluding that the Shirt would be understood — in this middleschool setting in which the children range from ten-to-fourteen years old — to demean the identity of transgender and gendernonconforming NMS students.
“We also note that Middleborough interpreted the message in applying a dress code and thus in the context of assessing a particular means of expression that is neither fleeting nor admits of nuance,” added Barron. “As a result, Middleborough’s assessment of the message’s demeaning character does not necessarily reflect a categorical judgment that, whenever uttered, the message has such a character. So understood, we see no basis for substituting our judgment for Middleborough’s as to whether the Shirt demeaned the gender identities of other students at NMS.”
How about when Morrison taped the shirt?
“The Taped Shirt did cover “Only Two” with the word “CENSORED,” which raises a question as to whether it conveyed a less negative message than the Shirt,” wrote Barron. “But the Taped Shirt was the same shirt and thus, aside from the taping, looked the same.”
Morrison also brought up the term “hate speech.” His lawsuit is correct. Hate speech is not a legal term.
Of course, the First Circuit disagrees.
“The word ‘hate’ in ‘hate speech’ also indicates that the provision refers only to speech that provokes ‘such strong feelings that a serious possibility of disruption might be inferred,” noted Barron.
Um, okay.
Overall, though, the First Circuit leaves speech issues to school administrators:
We close by emphasizing a point that may be obvious but should not be overlooked. The question here is not whether the t-shirts should have been barred. The question is who should decide whether to bar them — educators or federal judges. Based on Tinker, the cases applying it, and the specific record here, we cannot say that in this instance the Constitution assigns the sensitive (and potentially consequential) judgment about what would make “an environment conducive to learning” at NMS to us rather than to the educators closest to the scene.
Cowards. Instead of actually doing their jobs, the Court defers it back to the school.
Our Founding Fathers instilled the First Amendment to protect all speech. At the time of writing the Constitution, all of them could be jailed for saying anything negative against the monarchy. Questioning the monarchy? Oh, boy. That would turn heads and could be used against you.
The way the courts are going, someone will make “hate speech” a legal term, but keep it vague on purpose. That way, people can strike down anyone with dissenting or politically incorrect views.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY