Yesterday, federal judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, issued an controversial ruling in the student-free-speech case of “L.M. v. Town of Middleborough.”
In denying the student’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the judge found that a Middleborough, Massachusetts high school was likely within its rights to forbid the student from wearing a t-shirt saying “There Are Only Two Genders.”
Just Talwani consumed 17 pages to explain her ruling. The first six pages or so were a detailed, microscopic recitation of the entire incident, from start to finish, who said what to whom, who walked up which hallway, who was at the meeting, and so forth. It is not clear why any of those details were necessary, except that they showed the student was at all times clear in assertion of his rights, respectful, and non-confrontational.
Sounds like there was some good parenting somewhere in there.
It was clear which way things were going from the beginning of the order, which began by citing an affidavit from a school administrator that swore she knew several LGBTQ+ students who either attempted suicide or had suicidal thoughts. The judge did not consider whether any suicidal thoughts could be caused by banal t-shirt messages, or whether there might be a different underlying cause of both suicidal feelings as well as sexual confusion.
That reasoning is not logic. It’s the classic, emotionally manipulative false dichotomy: “Would you rather have a live son or a dead daughter?”
Ultimately the judge decided that the limited infringement of the student’s free speech rights at school —
she mentioned his unlimited social media rights outside school — was justified or outweighed by the benefits to protecting delicate LGBTQ+ students’ minds from encountering any type of information that challenged their fragile world view.
In other words, the judge did NOT say L.M. was altogether forbidden from saying “there are only two genders”; he just can’t say it at school because inclusion. In fairness, minor students only enjoy LIMITED constitutional rights. Schools act in loco parentis — they wield custodial parental rights — and parents obviously have right to squelch kids’ speech anytime they want, for any reason, and kids can’t complain to the courts. This dynamic was often painfully obvious on many a Childers family road trip.
All the same, the decision is bad precedent, because “inclusion” trumped the Constitution. Inclusion wasn’t even a thing more than ten minutes ago.
The courts saved us from the pandemic. Now, we have to save the courts — from wokeness. It’s going to be a long, difficult fight, so buckle up.
Finally, I have a suggestion for L.M., or for any other industrious, freedom-loving Nichols High School student who would like to further pressure the grievance system. Try this: wear to school a t-shirt with the following Bible verse printed on it:
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. — Gen. 1:27.
You could underline the words “male and female he created them,” or even paint them in rainbow colors or something. In other words, in a new lawsuit, force the judge to reason her way around BOTH the free speech right AND the right of religious liberty, and in doing so, be required to find that the first words of the Bible — one of this country’s foundational documents — are “hate speech.”
Hint: the Bible is not hate speech. As they say, God IS love.
Study: bivalent jab takers more likely to catch covid; more UFO distractions; Obama judge favors inclusion over Constitution; distracting covid origins disclosures imminent; DOE hack; more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Schools have ALWAYS claimed to be able to ' limit ' a students speech, to keep disruptions to a minimum ....., tee shirts with vulgar language or other offensive messages ... now a days that is limiting speech from the right that offends progressives, not the general public