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.

  • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    16 hours ago

    Yeah I remember the SCOTUS bong hits for jesus case where our failure of a chief justice asserted that students (and anyone not staff) do not get the protections of the constitution while in public school, a federally funded and owned system, because of the ol “screw you, that’s why” explanation of overturning an already established precedent because “muh drugs bad”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

    Also from the original case that the above case decided to ignore:

    The substantial disruption test is a criterion set forth by the United States Supreme Court, in the leading case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).[1] The test is used to determine whether an act by a U.S. public school official (State actor) has abridged a student’s constitutionally protected First Amendment rights of free speech.

    The test, as set forth in the Tinker opinion, asks the question: Did the speech or expression of the student “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,” or might it “reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities?” The case holds that to justify suppression of speech, school officials would need to show that the conduct in question would “materially and substantially interfere” with the operation of the school.

    Can’t wait for Roberts to use this case to undo the same FA protections for students bruh