Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/27/2025 11:20:52 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear an appeal from a Massachusetts middle school student who was forced to remove a T-shirt that claimed “there are only two genders.”
Two conservative justices — Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — dissented from the decision to not hear the case.
So long as the appeals court’s decision remains on the books, Alito wrote, “thousands of students will attend school without the full panoply of First Amendment rights. That alone is worth this court’s attention.”
The student, Liam Morrison, wore the shirt to Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, in 2023 to “share his view that gender and sex are identical.” School administrators asked him to remove it and, when he declined, sent him home for the day. Weeks later, he wore the same shirt but covered the words “only two” with a piece of tape on which he wrote “censored.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Chickens.........................
>>In their written response to the Supreme Court, school officials noted they are aware of transgender and gender-nonconforming students “who had experienced serious mental health struggles, including suicidal ideation, related to their treatment by other students based on their gender identities” and that those struggles could impact the students’ ability to learn.
One person’s mental illness should not invalidate another person’s basic human rights.
"I'm not a biologist, (just a little something I learned from Ketanji Brown Jackson)."
Freedom of speech is an illusion. Government can take it away from you at any time. So the first amendment has been invalidated.
If not, this is VERY disappointing.
You have the right to Free Speech
As long as you’re not dumb enough to actually try it.
-The Clash
I thought is was already established law that minors do NOT have full First Amendment rights.
Know your rights!
These are your rights.
Great picks, Donald.
Abolish government schools, and we won’t have this problem. Private schools can allow full freedom of speech, or limited freedom of speech, or no freedom of speech ... and parents (who are paying the bills) get to decide where THEIR children are educated.
Government schools are at the root of most social and political problems in this Great Republic.
The ELITES are still in power and bask in their arrogance. It’s another reason we need to seek divine intervention. Yet so few around here believe in the power of prayer.
Apparently, the ‘Ghostly Trio’, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Miss Amy have been cowed into silence and compliance with The Wise Latina, the Non-Biologist and other usual suspects.
Just think of all the firey hoops and riggamarole Trump went through to get Kavanaugh appointed. That stupid campaign of blatant ‘Rape’ lies.
Mitch McConnell watches, silently gloating from his home office.
It’s like this.
The school would allow a student to wear a shirt that says. “There are many genders”.
....but they will not allow a student to wear a shirt that says, “There are only two genders”. That’s viewpoint/political speech discrimination, the highest level of free speech.
Someone should tell Roberts that free speech is “just a tax”.
CNN - No thanks for me. But if you want to support the enemy, then go for it.
They rape (and eat?) children on Epstein Island,
and maybe Malta?, but WILL NOT PROTECT AMERICAN CHILDREN.
Disgusting.
How is this a federal issue?
Looks bad
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/court-takes-up-new-york-mans-bid-for-compassionate-release/
Thomas also joined a dissent from the denial of review (along with his own brief dissent) filed by Justice Samuel Alito in the case of a middle schooler who was barred from wearing a t-shirt reading “There Are Only Two Genders.”
The student at the center of the case, known here only as L.M. because he is under 18, came to school in 2023 wearing the shirt. When an assistant principal told him that he would need to remove the shirt to remain at school, L.M.’s father picked him up and took him home. The school superintendent later explained in an email to L.M.’s father that the school had been enforcing its dress code, which (among other things) prohibits clothing with “hate speech or imagery” targeting groups based on their sexual identity and gender orientation.
The school district’s defense of the dress code and the decision to bar L.M. from wearing the shirt sparked media coverage, protesters and counter-protesters near the school property, and a variety of “hateful” and “threatening” messages to the school or its staff.
About six weeks after he originally wore the shirt to school, L.M. came to school again wearing the shirt – this time with the words “Only Two” covered in a piece of tape with the word “Censored” on it. When the school told him that he was not allowed to wear the shirt, L.M. opted to remove it and return to class.
L.M. then went to federal court, alleging that by prohibiting him from wearing the t-shirt (both with and without the tape on it) the school district violated his First Amendment right to free speech.
A federal appeals court in Boston ruled that the school did not violate L.M.’s First Amendment rights. In 1969, it explained, the Supreme Court upheld the right of public-school students to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. But at the same time, the court made clear that it was sensitive to the “special characteristics of the school environment,” and it indicated that school officials can restrict student speech that “materially and substantially” interferes with discipline in the school.
In L.M.’s case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit concluded that the school district acted reasonably in concluding that his t-shirt would be interpreted as demeaning to transgender and non-binary students at the middle school, and that it would therefore have a “materially disruptive” effect on the learning environment at the school.
Alito indicated that he would have granted L.M.’s petition for review. First, he wrote, the justices “should affirm the bedrock principle that a school may not engage in viewpoint discrimination when it regulates student speech.” He accused the court of appeals of “cherry-picking which First Amendment principles it thought worthy of allowing through the schoolhouse gates.”
Second, Alito continued, the justices should have taken up L.M.’s case to “determine whether the First Circuit properly understood” the court’s longstanding rule “regarding the suppression of student speech on the ground that it presents a risk of material disruption.” Although the standard is supposed to be “demanding,” Alito stressed, “the First Circuit fashioned a rule that is anything but.”
One person’s mental illness should not invalidate another person’s basic human rights.
Indeed shrinks are in business for a reason those who experience serious mental health struggles need to make appointments asap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.