You are correct, and as @LeonKowalski pointed out in posting the opinion, it was not in front of students, and the careful consideration of the where and when played a role in the decision.
2 Likes
So you’re saying MAGA hat wearers actually have a brain? I wouldn’t have thought them to be at risk.
1 Like
Seriously? Courts at all US levels and jurisdictions have upheld school and school employees’ authority to limit student speech. Notably, w.r.t. your latest post, regardless of whether a disruption was caused in fact. Potential for disruption is all it takes.
So still, law that is applied capriciously and inconsistently.
2 Likes
The plaintiff here wasn’t at Chuck E Cheese. They were at work. It was not an “outside” function. Students are held to the school’s standard whether in the classroom, at recess, or at school-sponsored activities.
5 Likes
Doesn’t democracy MEAN being sensitive to bigots and assholes, too! /s
6 Likes
Especially them, or else they might get annoyed and be forced to get even more asshollish and bigotish! /s
4 Likes
There’s tons of don’t say gay bills around the country and a national one filed.
Additionally- there are laws passed preventing trans kids from expressing and having their lives recognized in schools. To the extent of having charged parents with child abuse for supporting their kids.
That all sounds expressive.
10 Likes
lodging a complaint isn’t always the best measure.
the presence of a person wearing a hat associated with racism, misogyny, and the violent overthrow of the american government can be quite jarring. and not everyone will feel safe complaining.
when multiple people bring the issue up - and 5 out of 60 is actually quite a high number - it’s worth addressing. especially in the setting where this took place: diversity training. addressing white supremacy is exactly the point of diversity training
the expression of intrinsic and protected identity: rainbow flags, blm or other black pride, religious symbols, headscarves, etc. are not the same as political speech. ( especially not the kind of speech that implies violence )
so yes, the judge tried to draw a line. but i definitely feel they connected the dots wrong
10 Likes
Why is that relevant?
5 Likes
The rights of employees on the job - especially government employees- are not as expansive as they are outside of work.
Government employees in many jurisdictions are even prohibited from engaging in some political activities outside of work.
11 Likes
And many students have been punished for speech on social media platforms conducted completely outside of school.
This guy was being an asshole, wanted to upset people, succeeded in upsetting at a minimum 8.3% of the people present, and though a fight did not break out or anything was intending to be disruptive.
There are many limits on appropriate behavior and dress in work environments and honestly this was inappropriate to do at a sensitivity training, so fuck this guy
ETA: also the speech in this case appears to be “this training is stupid and I don’t agree with it”. So fucking quit if you don’t like your job or the requirements thereof.
And, of course, finally this “She said she couldn’t force Dodge not to wear the hat but asked him to “use better judgment” in the future.” This is not even about free speech it’s about wanting to be immune to criticism and doing whatever that he wants without consequence
10 Likes
What is your understanding of government employees?
7 Likes
Meh. They could have said “an instructor of a company contracted by the district to provide training courses”, and been even more clear on the underlying facts.
5 Likes
To be fair it wasn’t clear that you had any clear criticism of what qualifies as government employment.
6 Likes
This analysis is detached from reality. A student going to school in Michigan, for a concrete example (my cousin’s son), cannot attend school or school-sponsored activities while wearing a BLM t-shirt. They have been told to change clothes or be sent home. Schools simply presume that it is disruptive.
In contrast, the the case from the original post that the 9th Circuit ruled upon, the school district (a.k.a. Government) employee attended a work event with a hat that was, in fact, disruptive. How do we know it was disruptive? Several paricipants complained formally about it. The instructor complained about it, indicating that it affected their ability to teach the in-service.
So, in reality, this ruling is inconsistent and capricious. It shows how the law is applied unevenly and unfairly.
8 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
