Student Appeals to Supreme Court for Right to Wear ‘There Are Only Two Genders’ T-Shirt: Washington, As the U.S waged war in Vietnam 1960s, the Supreme Court said a Des Moines high school could not prevent students from wearing black armbands in support of a truce.
Student Appeals to Supreme Court for Right to Wear ‘There Are Only Two Genders’ T-Shirt:
There are multiple education experts, free speech advocates and 18 states that have filed friend-of-the-court-briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court that ask it to take the case of a student forbidden by his Massachusetts school from wearing two different T-shirts to school with the words “There are only two genders and there are genders on the front.
In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit affirmed the school`s decision, prompting Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys, who represent the student, to ask the high court to review the case and rule that Nichols Middle School in Middleborough violated the First Amendment when it stopped the student from wearing his shirts to school. because it spreads the partiality in the area and school.
But As schools fought decades later to discourage the use of illegal drugs in the 21st century with the message “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” Now, As the debate over transgender rights has come to the forefront in the culture wars,, a Massachusetts teenager wants the supreme court to say his middle school was wrong to prevent him from wearing a T-shirt, in all caps.
The student doesn’t lose their free speech rights the moment they walk into a school building,” said ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation David Cortman.
This case is not about the T-shirt only this case is about a public school telling a middle schooler that he is not allowed to express a view that differs from their own. The School actively promotes it is the view of gender through posters and ‘Pride’ events and encourages students to wear clothing with the message of 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 can not silence any speaker just because it disapproves of what they say. We appreciate the many states and organizations that have joined us in urging the Supreme Court to take this critical free speech case.”
The First Circuit Created a speech-hostile standard that contrary allows and permits the school to restrain even silent, passive displays of speech that cause no actual disruption,” the multistate brief led by the states of South Carolina and West Virginia explains ” It split from other circuits on issues like what facts a school must show and apply to justify a restriction on student speech, And id effectively sanctioned viewpoint discrimination in public schools.”
Student sent home after refusing to change shirt
The student said he wanted to express his view to counter one promoted by school officials, popular culture and other students that he believes is “ultimately false and harmful,” A teacher told the principal the shirt could potentially disrupt classes and could affect LGBTQ+ students.
Under the school dress code, clothing” must not state, imply or depict hate speech or imagery that targets groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual, orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation etc.
When the principal said the student could return to class unless he changed shirts, Liam opted to go home.
Shirt Claiming ‘Censorship’ also banned
protests and counterprotests outside the school followed as the controversy grew. When the school administration received threatening g messages, the police department assigned a police detail there for several days. Liam appeared before school officials she feared for her child`s safety. After being sent to the principal`s office, Liam took off that shirt, And then he and his parents sued.
Appeals court sides with school
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Apples sided with the school finding it was reasonable to conclude the messaging could be harmful. The student`s attorneys said that the decision eviscerates the Supreme Court” demanding evidentiary standard.
Conclusion
If the first Circuits broad expansion of Tinker s invasion of the rights of others exception is allowed to stand and stay here school administrators nationwide will wield it to censor unpopular or dissenting viewpoints.