Lunatics Have Taken Over No. 1

Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Middle School Student Who Wore ‘Only Two Genders’ T-Shirt

So far it’s affirmed that the title of this post is correct regarding

  • The school
  • The district
  • The local court
  • Some on the First Circuit Court of Appeals

There is still hope that the infestation has gone no higher.


  1. The judges are clearly worried about the exception to the First Amendment’s protections of both political and religious expression – “fighting words”, where words “by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 1942). Since the statement in question is indisputably true, that eliminates any injury (truth is the ultimate defense against any slander or libel claims, and there is clearly no physical harm committed by printed words on a piece of cloth), so the concern would be of “immediate breach of the peace”. (Yeah, I know about the numerous cases since then that have made it utterly clear, such as R.A.V. v the City of Saint Paul in 1992, where the government was explicitly told that they could not censor viewpoints simply because they or others might disagree. I mean, it’s not like the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land or anything, am I right?)
    But that old question of “Who? Whom?” kicks in… by who, and upon whom? Are these justices claiming that they are secretly protecting the student from his own actions, because speaking truth to gullible idiots is likely to cause a violent backlash? Or, dare we whisper it, another LBGTIAWTF school shooting against Christians in general? (Remember, their most horrific of violence is protected speech, our factually true speech is nothing but the rankest of genocides.)

    1. Relying solely on Tinker’s “invasion of the rights of others” limitation, and thus not Tinker’s “material disruption” limitation, the District Court denied the student’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On that same basis, the District Court granted the defendants final judgment on all the student’s claims, which challenged both the dress code’s specific applications and two portions of the dress code on their face. We affirm the District Court’s rulings, albeit on somewhat different grounds.[emphasis added]

      What the court did not do was employ the arguments intrinsic to Tinker. They simply relied on the fact that the prior case made allusions to others’ rights, legitimate rights. Here they used new rights invented to extrinsically employ Tinker to support their granting such rights to lunatics.

Comments have been disabled.