283
Judge rules against dads who wore pink wristbands to protest trans high school athletes (apnews.com)
submitted 1 week ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/news@lemmy.world
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 53 points 6 days ago

Don't misunderstand, people. The key here isn't that it's hate speech. All kinds of unpopular views are protected by the First Amendment. This is why you can still see Trump supporters waving Nazi flags in parades. If it was just because it was deemed hate speech, well then we should all be worried because Trump's government is now saying that anyone who preaches hate against America is subject to deportation.

The key is that it happened at a school event. The FA doesn't apply to non-students at school events if students are the target of speech meant to harass or demean. If this had happened at a club soccer game as opposed to a school event they would have been protected.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago

I don't think that's right, fancy restaurants and other private establishments can enforce dress codes and things like that. Generally speaking, any private organization is allowed to exclude whoever they want from their events so long as they don't do so for a forbidden reason. Kicking someone out because you don't like their haircut is fine, but kicking someone out because (for example) they're Muslim is not.

[-] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yes, private organizations can set their own rules. That doesn't change the basis of this ruling.

If a private club league had their own rules that said (among other things) "We do not tolerate promoting views that exclude on the basis of sexual identity during league events," then the league would be within its rights to remove anyone violating that rule. Absent that, free speech applies. Especially for wearing something as vague as a pink bracelet.

Re: your example, there are many organizations that exclude on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. The Boy Scouts, for example, still require that members sign a Declaration of Religious Principle saying that they believe in some sort of higher power. This excludes atheists and agnostics. They also used to exclude homosexuals. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor back in the late 90s or early 00s that as a private organization they had the right to exclude whoever they wanted. They changed their stance on homosexuality voluntarily, but the SC ruling still applies. It is public institutions that cannot exclude, not private.

As far as this ruling goes, it's not about the message it's about the target and the fact that it was at a school function.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

Ah, I see what you're getting at and agree with what I think is your larger point, however all the first amendment nuances shake out this isn't a case about a trans athlete getting any kind of special protections, this is just an "individuals' free speech rights vs organizations' rights to assemble without disruption" case. If these guys were thrown out for waging Palestinian flags or whatever other kinds of protesting it would be the same basic legal issue.

[-] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 days ago

Public schools aren’t private institutions though, which is where things get so convoluted. The school is a government funded organization, and therefore has to do its best to avoid infringing on constitutional rights. However, courts have repeatedly ruled that schools have a higher obligation to protect the students in their care, even if it means restricting first amendment rights. So schools have a fairly high degree of discretion on what they do and don’t allow.

A more mild example is dress codes. Students could easily argue that a dress code violates their freedom of speech, as the way they dress is a form of speech. However, courts have ruled that dress codes are allowed, because the school has a duty to maintain an environment that is conducive to learning; even if it means restricting their students’ freedom of expression.

[-] lka1988@sh.itjust.works 16 points 6 days ago

Both men testified at a hearing in November that they didn’t intend to harass or otherwise target transgender athlete Parker Tirrell

And the fact that a trans athlete happened to be on the team didn't have anything to do with that decision? I smell bullshit, and I'm glad the judge saw through that single-ply excuse as well.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

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

This is poorly phrased. They do enjoy the First Amendment right to express dissent to the trans athlete's inclusion, even if it is demeaning. However, the state has the right to hold time, place, and manner restrictions on First Amendment protected conduct. School soccer games are not a traditional forum for protest, and schools have pretty wide ranging power to limit expression that counters the normal functioning of the school including sporting events, as well as the ability to restrict participation in and attendance of school sponsored events for misconduct. They can't be arrested for expressing themselves as they did, especially not for harassment. But they can be trespassed.

[-] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 days ago

It's legal to own pornography. It's not legal to show up to a middle school sporting event with a 3'x6' poster of a money shot, unfurl it, and hold it high for all to see.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

This is a false equivalence as it's equally illegal to distribute porn to children anyway, and to do the same thing on a public street during an otherwise legal protest. Public Indecency laws come into play then, which has nothing to do with what these guys were doing.

[-] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago

Thanks for clarifying. It makes sense now.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 10 points 6 days ago

This sounds like more than wristbands.

[-] mlg@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days 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

[-] Throbbing_banjo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 133 points 1 week ago

What fucking losers, holy shit

Maybe try, I dunno, just supporting your daughter and watching her play the game?

[-] skozzii@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 days ago

It must suck to live your life filled with that much hate every day.

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 70 points 1 week ago

I was so excited for a second because I assumed the wristbands were in support. This is such a loser thing for an adult to do though. I can’t imagine setting out in the morning to make a child feel less secure and accepted.

[-] 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?

[-] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 6 days ago

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.

[-] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 days 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 6 days 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 6 days 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 5 days 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 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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.

[-] 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.

[-] 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.

[-] 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.

[-] 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 6 days ago

Yup. Hate speech is not protected speech.

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

Right. Hate speech is protected.

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

Time place and manner.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 days 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 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago

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.

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

Shut up, asshat

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

News

28850 readers
3698 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
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
WrenFeathers@lemmy.world