You might recall that we covered the federal court proceedings of Liam Morrison, who was forced to spend a day at home after wearing a T-shirt that said “There are Only Two Genders” to the Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, and then forced to change his shirt when he came back wearing a T-shirt that said “There are Only CENSORED Genders.”It was clear that the school didn’t like his point of view on gender issues, given that they regularly promoted “Pride Month” and encouraged students to wear clothing SUPPORTING the LGBTQ+ community, so Liam, with the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), sued the school in federal court.Unfortunately, Liam lost, as Professor Jacobson reported: School “There Are Only Two Genders” T-Shirt Ban Upheld By MA Federal Court:
The fiercest cultural battle is being fought by gender identity activists, and as a Massachusetts federal court decision that was just handed down shows, the courts—or at least that judge—are ready to sacrifice free speech in school for the comfort of the gender-identity cultural and political power…This seems like it should be a slam dunk for the student. The First Amendment does not stop at the school door, though schools do have some leeway to prevent disruption of the educational process. That’s a loophole that a federal judge just drove a truck through to uphold the censorship of a completely common and traditional opinion unpopular with school officials and gender identity activists on the grounds that it made some students feel unsafe and at at risk…Marina Medvin called it a “Bonkers ruling.” It’s worse than that, it’s extremely dangerous to our First Amendment free speech rights based on the same hocus pocus that results in safe spaces on campuses because “words are violence.”Expression of a viewpoint that until a few years ago was the norm—there are two genders—is now banned. And you can’t even mock the ban by putting “Censored” over the censored words. That is banned, too. Hopefully this absurd ruling will be overturned on appeal.
Unfortunately, that was not be: First Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds School ‘There are Only Two Genders’ Shirt Ban:
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…You…knew the case would go downhill because [U.S. Circuit Judge David] 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!* * * *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.
I’d say we are pretty much already there.
Here is a good recap of the case:
Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has now declined to review this disturbing ruling, despite strident dissents by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
From Fox News: Supreme Court declines to review free speech case involving student who wore ‘only two genders’ shirt:
The Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving a Massachusetts student who was banned from school for wearing a shirt criticizing the transgender movement on Tuesday.
The student, Liam Morrison, brought the case through his father and stepmother, Christopher and Susan Morrison. The plaintiffs argue Nichols Middle School violated his free speech rights when it banned him from wearing two T-shirts to school with the words “There are only two genders” and “There are [censored] genders” on the front.
Liam was sent home both times after he refused to change shirts. The school argued the shirts made his classmates feel unsafe, and a federal court agreed, saying the message was demeaning for transgender students…The decision comes nearly a year after the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Liam and his parents in June 2024, finding that the school was justified in asking him to remove the shirt and sending him home when he refused.Morrison, who was in seventh grade at the time, was sent home with his father in May 2023 after he refused to take off the shirt, according to court documents. He later wore the same shirt with the words “only two” covered with a piece of tape on which “censored” was written. The school also told him to take this shirt off.In a 2023 interview with Fox News Digital, Liam stressed that his T-shirt was not directed toward anyone, specifically people who are “lesbian or gay or transgender or anything like that.””I’m just voicing my opinion about a statement that I believe to be true,” he said at the time. “And I feel like some people may think that I’m imposing hate speech, even though it’s not directed towards anyone.”The Morrison family was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Massachusetts Family Institute.
ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation David Cortman had the following to say:
We’re disappointed the Supreme Court chose not to hear this critical free speech case. As Justice Alito recognized: ‘The case presents an issue of great importance for our Nation’s youth.’ Students don’t lose their free speech rights the moment they walk into a school building. Schools can’t suppress students’ views they disagree with. Here, the school actively promotes its view about gender through posters and ‘Pride’ events, and it encourages students to wear clothing with messages on the same topic—so long as that clothing expresses the school’s preferred views on the subject. Our legal system is built on the truth that the government cannot silence any speaker just because it disapproves of what they say. Alliance Defending Freedom will continue to defend the rights of students to speak freely on important issues of the day without government censorship.
The denial by SCOTUS is revealing, for two reasons, those being the dissents by Justices Thomas and Alito.
First, Justice Thomas notes that years ago the Court ruled that some restrictions on speech by students are allowable, but that Justice Thomas totally disagrees with that idea:
In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969), this Court held that public school officials may not restrict a student’s freedom of speech unless his behavior “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” Id., at 513. I have previously explained why Tinker’s holding is “without basis in the Constitution” and should be “dispense[d] with . . . altogether.” [emphasis added]
Rather than allowing speech for students unless it would cause “material disruption” to the school, Justice Thomas, based on historical analysis and the doctrine of in loco parentis, would overrule Tinker and give schools more leeway in disciplining students for speech the school found improper. [Note: this is an update to the original post, which incorrectly stated that Justice Thomas would support more, not less, student free speech in school. Thanks to loyal reader Milhouse for setting me straight].
Anyway, since Tinker is the law of the land, Justice Thomas then joins Justice Alito, who explains why he would have reviewed the case:
The First Circuit held that the school did not violate L. M.’s free-speech rights. It held that the general prohibition against viewpoint-based censorship does not apply to public schools. And it employed a vague, permissive, and jargon-laden rule that departed from the standard this Court adopted in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969).The First Circuit’s decision calls out for our review.I would grant the petition for two reasons.First, we should reaffirm the bedrock principle that a school may not engage in viewpoint discrimination when it regulates student speech. Tinker itself made that clear. See 393 U. S., at 511 (“Clearly, the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion . . . is not constitutionally permissible”). Curiously, however, the First Circuit declined to follow Tinker in this regard, instead cherry-picking which First Amendment principles it thought worthy of allowing through the schoolhouse gates. By limiting the application of our viewpoint-discrimination cases, the decision below robs a great many students of that core First Amendment protection.Second, we should also grant review to determine whether the First Circuit properly understood the rule adopted in Tinker regarding the suppression of student speech on the ground that it presents a risk of material disruption. We have described this standard as “demanding.” Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L., 594 U. S. 180, 193 (2021). But the First Circuit fashioned a rule that is anything but. The lower courts are divided on how to apply Tinker’s “material disruption” standard in a context like this one, and the decision below underscores the pressing need for clarification.
Justice Alito then explains free speech, which the First Circuit seems to have forgotten:
“[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 95 (1972). Otherwise, the government could purge entire topics from the public discourse.
Sounds like that is already happening.
Anyway, Justice Alito continues:
And as our cases recognize, these freedom-of-speech harms become “all the more blatant” when the government “targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject.” Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 829 (1995).Nor is there a carveout from this principle for controversial, offensive, or disfavored views. For example, we recently held unconstitutional a statute prohibiting the registration of “immoral or scandalous” trademarks, explaining that “a law disfavoring ‘ideas that offend’” is “the ‘essence of viewpoint discrimination.’”* * * *Unsurprisingly, the viewpoint-neutrality rule also applies to student speech. Students do not relinquish their First Amendment rights at school, see Tinker, 393 U. S., at 506, and by extension, a school cannot censor a student’s speech merely because it is controversial…The court below erred, and badly so: the rule that view point-based restrictions on speech are almost never allowed is not a new principle proclaimed only in “recent decisions” like Matal or Iancu. 103 F. 4th, at 883, n. 9. To the contrary, viewpoint neutrality has long been seen as going to “the very heart of the First Amendment.” [citations omitted]* * * *The First Circuit was wrong to expel this bedrock constitutional safeguard from our schools…One final point deserves comment. The First Circuit repeatedly emphasized that L. M.’s speech occurred in a middle school where children ranged in age from 10 to 14 years old—a point respondents echo in their brief in opposition. That should not make a difference…Ifa school sees fit to instruct students of a certain age on a social issue like LGBTQ+ rights or gender identity, then the school must tolerate dissenting student speech on those issues. If anything, viewpoint discrimination in the lower grades is more objectionable because young children are more impressionable and thus more susceptible to indoctrination.“The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is no where more vital than in the community of American schools.” Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 487 (1960). So long as the First Circuit’s opinion is on the books, thousands of students will attend school without the full panoply of First Amendment rights. That alone is worth this Court’s attention. The problem, however, runs deeper: as this case makes clear, some lower courts are confused on how to manage the tension between students’ rights and schools’ obligations. Our Nation’s students, teachers, and administrators deserve clarity on this critically important question. Because the Court has instead decided to let the confusion linger, I respectfully dissent.[emphasis added]
All I can say is…God bless Justice Alito. Hopefully somehow this injustice will one day be rectified.
In closing, I attach one X post that makes some great points (see below for a summary):
Liam’s story is clear evidence that it’s too early to declare victory in the fight against gender ideology. As long as there are schools in America where students are encouraged to express one view of this topic—“gender is a spectrum”—but forbidden from expressing a different view—“There Are Only Two Genders”—we haven’t won yet…Remember: because gender ideology is based on a lie, it relies on censorship to survive. That means its advocates won’t give up this territory easily. Our basic right to tell the truth is at stake, and we can’t be complacent in defending it.But it also means the truth is on our side—and that’s good news. Because truth has a way of triumphing over lies in the long run. We just have to keep speaking it.And that’s why Liam’s stand at school wasn’t ultimately a loss. At just 12 years old, he showed us what the courage of truth-telling looks like. This is the way forward to protect free speech for everyone. This is how we win.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY