283

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 20 points 1 week ago

I don't agree with their message at all, but it sounds like they were being fairly passive in their expression of that message, and if it really was just wristbands... were they really causing harm here?

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 64 points 1 week ago

Sometimes I wonder how America voted in a fascist government and then I read comments like this. This is the same as wearing a white hood to a game with a black student. It is a direct threat against the student. It doesn't matter how passive they make the threat.

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 12 points 1 week ago

This is the same as wearing a white hood to a game with a black student.

Oh come on. I respect your opinion but this is a completely ridiculous comparison. It's the equivalent of wearing an "All Lives Matter" wristband, maybe.

[-] Fondots@lemmy.world 46 points 1 week ago

An all lives matter wristband is just a white hood without the dry cleaning bill.

[-] nulluser@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago

they asked the judge to allow them to carry signs and wear the wristbands

Not just wrist bands. They were seeking legal approval to escalate the harassment.

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 week ago

Which is a form of reactionary bigotry.

[-] Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago

If a group of parents coordinated wearing "All Lives Matter (but Black Lives Matter Less)" wristbands to protest inclusion of a black athlete, sure.

[-] NotForYourStereo@lemmy.world 61 points 1 week ago

Yes. Bigotry going unchecked is harmful.

Next question.

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 45 points 1 week ago

Just because they were polite with their bigotry does not make it less harmful, also asking whether polite bigotry caused harm is normalizing said bigotry.

[-] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 32 points 1 week ago

So subtle bigotry is ok? What is the purpose of wearing a uniform visual identifier for a cause? It's for people to see it. They were spreading hate against a child and refused to stop when asked by the school authorities.

That's pretty sick and twisted.

[-] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 week ago

The judge thought so ...

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.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago

Yup. Hate speech is not protected speech.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago
[-] SparroHawc@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week 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.works 2 points 1 week ago

Right. Hate speech is protected.

[-] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago
[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week 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.

[-] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

[-] RedSeries 31 points 1 week ago

They were just wristbands with the express meaning of telling trans kids they aren't welcome. I mean, they're in high school, they won't care! The adults should be allowed to have a little transphobia, as a treat. /s

[-] nickhammes@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

It sounds like they sent emails to the district and made some noise in online spaces that made their intentions clear. If it was just wearing wristbands as silent protest, we'd never have known, but they told the district via email, the general public online that they were going to do someone bigoted, and then they did a minor version of it.

Imagining the perspective of an administrator, they really should do something about that to protect their students. And it seems like they went with a temporary ban, which seems proportionate.

The fathers in question here were taking advantage of the paradox of tolerance. I, for one, support the fact that they were slapped down.

Let’s put it another way: how would you feel if they were wearing iron cross bracelets? Because that’s what this dog whistle is.

Yes, adult men protesting against a teenage girl causes harm. Full stop. No, nobody here needs to justify that position. You just need to imagine grown men wearing wristbands and holding signs, showing up at every school soccer game to protest against a teenage girl just living her life.

adults attending a high school athletic event do not enjoy a First Amendment protected right to convey messages that demean, harass or harm students.

[-] Fingolfinz@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

Shut up, asshat

[-] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

Is it OK for parents to show up wearing Nazi armbands when the team plays against a team with a large number of Jewish students on it?

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 2 points 1 week ago

Do you really not see a difference between the Holocaust and parents with the opinion that trans girls shouldn't be on the same sports teams as AFAB girls? Is this really where we're at here?

[-] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

People's passports are being revoked, the healthcare people need to keep breathing is being targeted for elimination, and it is the official policy of the sitting US president that being trans is by nature pedophilic, and that pedophiles deserve the death penalty.

Spare me your dismissive bullshit. If you think this is actually about sports, you are the dumbest motherfucker on the planet.

[-] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

YSK that one of the early groups targeted by the Third Reich and the Holocaust were LGBT people. They just never got that much attention, especially compared to the Jewish people.

[-] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

fairly passive in their expression

It was still harassing a student all the same.

So wristbands are okay… Because they’re just clothes, not marching in circles and chanting? How about if it’s t-shirts instead? After all, both are just clothes. How about if those shirts or wristbands have wording that calls the student a slur?

The student will undoubtedly find any kind of protest clothing offensive because they’re protesting her existence… So where do we draw the line on parents’ right to offend a student? Is it just slurs that aren’t allowed? Who decides what is and isn’t offensive? It obviously can’t be the person doing the protesting, because their entire goal is to offend the targeted student.

How about if it’s signs instead of clothing? The student will likely find any kind of signs demeaning, but are they okay because they’re just passively holding them? How about if those signs call the student a slur?

The issue with allowing protest (especially one that targets a specific student) is that someone has to decide where to draw the line. And every individual will have a different line in the sand… So if our goal is to protect the student, (and again, this protest is 100% without a doubt harassing a student) they need to go by the lowest threshold, not the highest.

this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
283 points (100.0% liked)

News

28929 readers
4142 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS