Dems Opposing Gender Ideology Sue Illinois Over Law Banning Use of ‘Democrat’ Without Approval
Illinois Democratic official orders gender ideology critics to ask his party for permission to use the term “Democrats,” prompting a lawsuit.
Democrats who oppose gender ideology are suing the state of Illinois for blocking their ability to fundraise without the permission of Democratic Party officials.
The organization Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender (DIAG) is filing a lawsuit against Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias. His office is responsible for enforcing a unique law that prohibits nonprofits in the state from using “democrat” or “republican” in their names unless party bosses approve their use.
Giannoulias (pictured) is a Democrat.
“Illinois is the only state in which DIAG attempted to register as a charitable organization and was required to get permission from a political party due to its name,” the lawsuit states. The group is being represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
DIAG’s lawsuit argues that its agenda is directly at odds with the approach of the Democratic Party when it comes to so-called “gender-affirming care” and the treatment of gender-confused minors. The dissident group opposes drugs and surgeries for minors. It also wants to keep males out of female sports.
The group does not want to ask someone else for “permission” to speak.
“DIAG objects to needing to seek permission from a private actor before exercising its First Amendment rights,” the lawsuit states.
The biological reality activists also say they have been harmed by the state’s refusal to approve their application – multiple Illinois residents have expressed interest in donating online, but the group has had to deny their requests for now.
It is the “freedom to speak out” and challenge the status quo, particularly in the Democratic Party, that drives the group. Therefore, asking for permission would undermine the organization’s goals, a DIAG leader said.
“The Illinois Democratic Party doesn’t get to decide whether we can call ourselves ‘Democrats,'” DIAG Board Secretary Jenny Poyer Ackerman stated in a news release.
“DIAG was founded on our belief in open inquiry, challenging ideological conformity, and above all, the freedom to speak out,” Ackerman said. “Backing down would go against everything we believe in.”
Requesting permission from a political party to speak freely also undermines the First Amendment.
“Illinois can’t get around the First Amendment by outsourcing censorship to party bosses,” FIRE attorney Daniel Zahn stated. “No American — Republican, Democrat, or independent — should have to bend the knee before a political party to participate in the political system.”
On rare occasions, leading Democrats have spoken out against transgender ideology, and in particular, its effects on minors. However, they have usually retreated or equivocated.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, told the late Charlie Kirk there was an issue of “fairness” in men competing against women. However, he refused to stop a male high school athlete from competing in female track and field in the state.
Last year, Newsom also said he wants “to see trans kids.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Use RICO to permanently abolish the Satanic Democrat crime cabal
Sounds to me like a reasonable law, that perhaps all states ought to have, or should even just be a federal law, to protect the parties’ trademark in their names.
And that’s precisely the problem. If you’re opposing the Democrats’ policy, why should you be allowed to do it in the party’s name? Isn’t that misleading your donors?
No one’s stopping you from speaking freely; just don’t do it in a party’s name if the party doesn’t agree.
Could I start raising money claiming to be “Legal Insurrectionists for abolishing ICE”, without even asking Prof J’s permission?! I assume the LIF has a trademark registration, so I could not do that. This law seems to me rather like the federal laws giving permanent protection to certain trademarks, e.g. “Olympic”, “Red Cross”, or “Boy Scouts”.
but then you would be lying. You are not a part of that organization. Reading their articles and posting comments doesn’t make you a ‘Legal Insurrectionist’.
These people are in fact Democrat party members so therefore Democrats.
This seems like writing the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy into law or perhaps the ‘No True Democrat’ is valid
Can they be ejected them from the party? If they could I doubt the Dems want to do that because it would make it much too clear what the party is about.
Is there a mechanism to eject members from a political party? If not maybe that is the law they need.
In what way are these people “members” of the Democrat Party? Do they pay membership fees? No, because there’s no such thing. So what makes them “members”, with the right to use the name against the party’s wishes?
Indeed, even if I were a dues-paying member of the LIF (assuming it has such a thing), I still wouldn’t be allowed to use its name without its permission, to promote a cause that it opposes.
It seems to me that many people treat “Democrat” and “Republican” rather like the way Democrats treat “male” and “female”. You are one if you say you are, only you can know which one (if any) you are on any given day, and no one must dare question your declaration on the matter, even if it contradicts the declaration you made yesterday.
There are no established criteria for belonging to a political party. For practical purposes, if you register as a democrat, you’re a democrat. If you register as a republican, you’re a republican.
There is, of course, a correct way to handle the situation, so they won’t do it. That way is for any group that wants to call itself, say, democrat, has to allow space for the actual party to say “we agree with this” or “we “don’t.” But they can’t legally prevent them from calling themselves democrats, republicans, handmaids, greens, libertarians, or anything else.
Seems to me by their own principals that these people are dems “because they say they are.”
Also gender ideology is one leg in a very leggy political party. Seems silly to cut off that leg because it moves a little differently
D&R is political speech. The government cannot regulate it.
“Requesting permission from a political party to speak freely also undermines the First Amendment.”
^that
It is an interesting opinion Millhouse, however:
If I say ‘The Democrats’ in an internet post or newspaper article, whether I agree with them or not, am I liable to be sued for using a trademark without permission? Or if I say ‘Democratic party member Iam Clueless says the sun rises in the west and sets in the east’ are you saying that the state Democratic party can sue me for trademark infraction?
I dislike the Pittsburgh Steelers, does that mean in Illinois I can’t say the Steelers are terrible because the name is trademarked?
Even better, when the Mayor of Chicago says “All Republicans are Nazis” does that mean the Republican party can sue for trademark infringement?
Good luck trying to sell your opinion to a judge.
Your examples are out of phase with the issue. These are people claiming to to be Democrats not criticizing them from outside the party.
You are already entitled to criticize brands and trademarked things using their name essentially. They would have to sue you for defamation and show you hurt their brand by lying.
You certainly can’t say “I am a Pittsburgh Steeler and we are terrible” using their trademarks etc. since that would be lying about who you are.
This is more subtle. These people are in fact Democrats who disagree with the party platform/leadership about a stance the Democrat party has taken. The question here is do they get to use a name that they are in fact part of if the larger portion of the party disagrees.
If not then it seems like they should be ejected from the party by that larger group.
And I ask, if they disagree with the party on a fundamental issue then in what way are they members of the party? Shouldn’t the party get a say in whether someone can even be a member, if they publicly disagree with what the party considers a core issue? Can one claim to be a Republican while campaigning for Kamala Harris for president?! Or while promoting Critical Theory and Marxism?
But note that this law only protects these brand names when they are used to raise money from the public. So it exists to protect potential donors, who might not understand that the “Republicans” they’re giving money to are not only not the actual Republican Party, but are working against that party.
“ And I ask, if they disagree with the party on a fundamental issue then in what way are they members of the party?”
See my answer to you above.
And…humans and all other species either procreate or die out. Does that mean that women who have abortions aren’t human? That would seem to be a logical consequence of your line of reasoning. Likewise, gIven the degree of disagreement in 1787, were the Founders not Americans? They didn’t agree on much besides wanting to be independent from England.
Within each political party there is much disagreement today. Which group isn’t part of the party?
The disqualifier option needs to be part of any such communication, especially if asking for money is involved.
Martin,
I believe that your post is a distinction without a difference to my post. However, thanks for your reply.
You seem to misunderstand. The party isn’t saying people can’t say “Democrat” when referring to the party or party members. The party is saying that an organization can’t affiliate itself (through its representations, including its name) without the party’s permission (even when the affiliation is a fact). I can see the point. An organization using the party name while promoting an agenda that the party officially opposes can damage the party.
Look at it this way. The NFL owns its name and its games and their broadcasts. It can prevent a charity from using its name even when there is no conflict and the use of the name would cause the NFL no damage, because it has a right to defend its trademark and to control what organizations the public will believe are affiliated with the league. But it cannot stop sportscasters and others from referring to the league by name.
It would be the Nazis who would sue and claim that the Rs are not the real Nazis.
Running for office as a Democrat or Republican does not require the blessing of the DNC or RNC. You have only meet state ballot requirements. You can also fundraise without their permission.
The only thing the parties can do to try to stop you is trademark infringement (i.e., permission to use the elephant or donkey).
This law will not stand.
Who says this is or should be the case? Just because this is (mostly) currently the law, even in Illinois, is not an argument that it should be that way, let alone that the constitution requires it to be that way.
This Illinois law imposes only one restriction: the parties can stop you from doing: Using their name to raise money from the public. Why do you think that is wrong?
Ah.
No mask at all. Democratting like the Democrat you are.
Democrats don’t own the word or the concept. Nor do Republicans.
And LI does not own the term ‘legal insurrection’
And disagreeing with a policy does not mean the whole platform is rejected.
But that’s not a current Democrat position. Current Democrats, like you, are collectivists, and orthodoxy in all precepts it the only acceptable thing.
So the idea of banishing and legally muzzling people is your natural response.
Democrat.
By the way, wasn’t there something about leaving…….?
Legal Insurrection likely has the right to enforce a copyright in the name. (And, no, copyrightable material need not be registered with the Copyright Office. A creator of copyrightable material owns the copyright as the material is created. There are benefits to copyrighting material, but it is not necessary in order to assert or defend a copyright.)
Trademark, not copyright. And trademarks do have to be registered, but there are statutory exceptions for certain marks, such as “Olympic”, “Red Cross”, and “Boy Scouts”, which are automatically protected, and are protected even when there’s no risk of confusion.
And Azathoth the lying liar lies some more. I am not a Democrat, I have never been a Democrat, and it would be fraudulent for me to make money by representing myself as a Democrat. Much as it would be for you to make money by representing yourself as a human being.
Yes, LIF does own the name “Legal Insurrection”, and if anyone else were to use it in a way that infringes the trademark you can be sure LIF would sue them. Why shouldn’t the Democrat and Republican parties get the same protection, let alone the very minimal protection that Illinois gives them (or rather, gives the public, since trademarks are intended to protect the consumer, not the trademark holder)?
LIF, LEGAL INSURRECTION FOUNDATION owns Legal Insurrection FOUNDATION. All three words, put together.
They DO NOT own ‘legal insurrection’ or ‘legal insurrectionists’.
And, as you need to be reminded, you and Fuzzy jumped on me for decrying registering as Democrat and revealed yourselves.
You said you were a registered democrat because that was the only way to have a voice in the politics of your area.
And I have made a point of reiterating it ever since. For both of you.
Fuzzy said she’d been one for the same reason until she moved. Purportedly she registered as a Republican after she moved but who can say? She was very much in the same demoralization category as you.
You, of course, have not ‘re’ registered. You are still in the same place voting the same way. For Mamdani? Who can say? Certainly you did not vote for Sliwa as a Republican would when faced with a choice between extreme evil, extreme evil and a Republican.
And I do not represent myself as a human being
You’re a great example, Milhouse. You’re a registered Democrat.
Do you think you should be sued for telling someone, “I’m a NY Democrat who voted for Trump” without first getting someone else’s permission?
Of course not. Milhouse would be asserting his affiliation with the party (whether truly or falsely), but that’s not the same as implying the party approves of his vote for Trump. That’s not at all like using a party’s name in an organization when the use suggests an affiliation (that does not exist) between the organization and the party.
That’s exactly my point. “Registered as a Democrat” is not the same thing as being a Democrat. All it means is that one has chosen to vote in Democrat primaries rather than Republican ones. There’s no representation that one actually supports the party or its principles in any way, or identifies with it, or has any affiliation with it at all. There’s no need to pay a membership fee, or to pledge allegiance, or anything.
It’s a complete joke. I don’t think the parties should put up with it, but they created the system, so they must think it’s in their interest, and who am I to say otherwise? But if I were running a party I would not allow people to have a say in my party’s candidate selection without making a demonstrable commitment to the party.
“Registered as a Democrat” is not the same thing as being a Democrat”
That’s a distinction peculiar to New York and perhaps a few other blue hellholes. Most of actual America would consider it either perfidy or insanity.
See?
No mask AT ALL.
What does it mean to BE a Democrat? This–
one has chosen to vote in Democrat primaries rather than Republican ones
And that, Milhouse is you. You have chosen to fight alongside the enemy.
Own it, leftist.
“The group does not want to ask someone else for “permission” to speak.”
Sounds Iranian.
How much more Orwellian can the (D) party get?
We’ll soon learn.
A lot more. As we are seeing while their leadership becomes more and more Marxist/Stalinist.
Cut out the dead wood and label them according to their behavior, which when viewed objectively reveals they are communist.
This law is crucial to maintain one-party rule in Illinois. Democrat socialists cannot win in open primaries or with splitter candidates (which were designed to prevent ‘outsiders’ from ruining things). Since judges in IL got to be where they are by the blessing of The Party, the chance of this suit succeeding is zero.
I agree with Milhouse – I don’t think that this is illegal nor should it be. The point of having members in any organization is to identify who is part of that organization – and who is NOT. Can some guy in a cornfield in Iowa declare that his team of farm-boys and chickens is part of the Nation League and claim that his team is the REAL New York Yankees? Should he be able to?
And think about being able to officially exclude RINOS from the Republican party. That would be a good thing, right? So many declare that they speak on behalf of a major part of the party, when they do not.
Another point: this forces parties to take a much clearer stand on positions. For example we know have zero doubt where the Illinois Democratic stands on the subject of allowing cross-dresser in women’s locker rooms.
However the farm boys are just spouting off. Nothing in their declaration or reality has any affiliation to that group of people.
But if you register as a democrat to vote, you are obviously in some way an official democrat. As an elected republican committee member for my county, I have certain by-laws that restrict some of my actions within the committee – but not outside (even tho at times I think they would like to). It does seem like a free speech issue. But I recognize this is Illinois, the cake-taker for corruption
“Just spouting off” doesn’t mean the Yankees wouldn’t be within their legal rights to stop the farm boys from using the team’s name. A trade name is defensible against unauthorized use. I’ve italicized that word because some here are conflating use with mention. Anyone can say (mention) “NFL,” but nobody without authorization can claim or imply affiliation with the NFL without the NFL’s permission. “Use” means the employment of a trade name for gain or advantage (even just using a name to get attention), not mere mention. The Democrats in the instant case are attempting to use their party’s name to give their organization an advantage by creating the impression that there exists an official affiliation between the organization and the party when there is no such affiliation. The members of the organization have an official affiliation with the party, but the organization has a message that is not endorsed by the party. The party has a right to not be affiliated with an organization that has a message the party does not endorse.
Arguments against this law suggest private organizations have a right to create implied associations with other private organizations even when no such association exists. Start an organization with a name that implies NFL endorsement when no such endorsement exists and see how fast the “cease and desist” letter arrives.
Sigh, my kinkdom for an edit function!
There are some good and well-tested WP plugins that allow registered users to edit their comments for some short time. I don’t know why LI’s webmaster doesn’t install one of these.
dems dont pro lifers in the party speak and they dont allow any pro self defense with weapons to speak and if you are white move to the back of the line etc etc
free advice to you dems
just start saying you are not part of the blmplo wing of the dem party but you play one at the voting ballot and want money
In a perfect world, this would be impetus to forge your own path and create a new party.
Unfortunately this society is addicted to the idiotic monotonous nature of red light blue light so I guess this is a legitimate legal issue for those addicted to this system
So there is no tolerance for discourse and debate within the ‘democratic’ party, zero deviation from the official party line, a political party in a representative democracy? Someone’s lost the plot.
Seems the laws are on the side of the party itself to regulate themselves but that the states law itself may not be legal. But my answer to these Democrats is that your party has left you in the dust and does not want to hear differing opinions. Leave the Democrat party or grow your movement so big they can’t refuse to hear you. In truth most Democrats I know actually oppose the LGBTQ direction their party has taken.
I side with DIAG. I may not be registered with the Democratic Party, but I believe in rule by the many (all citizens having voting rights), government as an agreement between people and leadership, and enforcement of the Bill of Rights. This makes me a democrat (or a republican–lower-case deliberate) by definition. Maybe the DIAG capitalizes bcause they fir the general definition and also because of the grammatical convention of capitalizing the first letter of all words in an acronym.
Byt the way, I don’t hold with the “We’re a republic, not a democracy” thing. Democracy comes from the Greek for rule by the people; republic comes from the Latin for a thing of the people. Language, friends, language.
This is a very interesting topic and the comments equally so. My local county GOP has a similar dilemma. We have thrown about the idea of requiring candidates who want to run for office on the GOP ticket to sign some type of agreement with the party platform, the assumption being they agree with it, that’s why they chose to run on it. The premise is, when voting on legislative issues they will support the GOP position. And this has come about because so many Republicans are RINOs; their votes do not represent the position of the party they chose, effectively opposing their constituents. Some of the angles in the comments above align with our party’s attempt to hold candidates to the campaign promises they made based on the party’s platform they chose. The outcome of this suit might give some teeth to our efforts. Keep up the discussion. I always learn something from LI’s regular commenters 🙂