A federal judge in New Hampshire says two dads who oppose allowing transgender athletes to play high school sports won’t be allowed to wear pink wristbands marked “XX” to games while their lawsuit against the school district continues.

Kyle Fellers and Anthony Foote were banned from school grounds in Bow after wearing the wristbands to a soccer game in September that included a transgender girl on the opposing team. They later sued the school district, and while the no-trespass orders have since expired, they asked the judge to allow them to carry signs and wear the wristbands featuring the symbol for female chromosomes at school events while the case proceeds.

Both men testified at a hearing in November that they didn’t intend to harass or otherwise target transgender athlete Parker Tirrell, and their attorneys argued they did nothing more than silently express their support for reserving girls’ sports for those assigned female at birth.

But in denying their motion Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe said the parents’ “narrow, plausibly inoffensive” intentions weren’t as important as the wider context, and that adults attending a high school athletic event do not enjoy a First Amendment protected right to convey messages that demean, harass or harm students.

    • MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works
      5·
      22 hours ago

      From the article:

      Brian Cullen, an attorney for the school district, said Monday he was pleased with what he called a well-reasoned ruling that affirms that school districts can and should protect students from harassment from adults on school grounds. And he noted that the ruling doesn’t prevent the plaintiffs from expressing their views in other ways.

      “It simply prevents them from bringing their protest to the sidelines of a game being played by kids. That should not be a controversial limitation,” he said.

      • SparroHawc@lemm.ee
        6·
        20 hours ago

        From the linked article - yes, hate speech is protected, however harassment isn’t.

        The judge in OP’s case ruled that it was harassment, so the school was well within its rights to eject the parents.

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          4·
          16 hours ago

          Tell the person I replied to.

          Everyone misunderstands free speech protections. The judge in this case ruled that the parents didn’t have a right to free speech in this circumstance because, as you say, time and place matter. You’re at a school event on school grounds you’re not allowed to say things the school doesn’t let you say. The bar is lower. BUT their speech is definitely not illegal because their hate speech is protected generally.