Federal Court Finds That "Misgendering" Is Not First Amendment Protected Speech

[Origanalist]

An Ohio federal court has found that "misgendering" - refusal to participate in gender ideology - is not protected by the First Amendment and there are no religious exceptions.

The decision was made on the recommendation of Jewish Magistrate Judge Karen Litkovitz, and upheld by Judge Susan J. Dlott in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The complaint was filed in November 2018 by Shawnee State University philosophy professor Nicholas Meriweather. According to Meriweather, he was reprimanded by administrators at his publicly funded school after a man pretending to be a woman joined his class and began demanding to be referred to as "she" and "ms."

Meriweather refused to participate in the ideological exercise, but did not "misgender" the student either. Instead, he attempted to compromise and address the student only by his surname. In response the transgender student began threatening him and calling him names, finally enlisting administrators to punish him.

Meriweather took Shawnee State to court, stating that his religious beliefs forbade him from pretending men are women and that he had a First Amendment right to refuse the new arbitrary transgender cultural imposition. In a landmark ruling, Litkovitz and Dlott dismissed the case, stating that "His speech -- the manner by which he addressed a transgender student -- was not protected by the First Amendment."

The September 2019 recommendation report by Litkovitz asserts that a public employee's willingness to participate in gender ideology is not protected by laws and precedents intended to protect faculty speech, the assumption being that transgenderism is an immutable characteristic apparently granting the movements adepts to special Civil Rights act privileges that supersede individual personal conscience. According to Litkovitz's Orwellian logic, using a person's made up pronouns “cannot reasonably be construed as having conveyed any beliefs or stated any facts about gender identity.”

Litkovitz also found no evidence that religious discrimination played a role in compelling Meriweather to say things he doesn't believe.

more..https://national-justice.com/federal...otected-speech

[juleswin]

An Ohio federal court has found that "misgendering" - refusal to participate in gender ideology - is not protected by the First Amendment and there are no religious exceptions.

The decision was made on the recommendation of Jewish Magistrate Judge Karen Litkovitz, and upheld by Judge Susan J. Dlott in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The complaint was filed in November 2018 by Shawnee State University philosophy professor Nicholas Meriweather. According to Meriweather, he was reprimanded by administrators at his publicly funded school after a man pretending to be a woman joined his class and began demanding to be referred to as "she" and "ms."

Meriweather refused to participate in the ideological exercise, but did not "misgender" the student either. Instead, he attempted to compromise and address the student only by his surname. In response the transgender student began threatening him and calling him names, finally enlisting administrators to punish him.

Meriweather took Shawnee State to court, stating that his religious beliefs forbade him from pretending men are women and that he had a First Amendment right to refuse the new arbitrary transgender cultural imposition. In a landmark ruling, Litkovitz and Dlott dismissed the case, stating that "His speech -- the manner by which he addressed a transgender student -- was not protected by the First Amendment."

The September 2019 recommendation report by Litkovitz asserts that a public employee's willingness to participate in gender ideology is not protected by laws and precedents intended to protect faculty speech, the assumption being that transgenderism is an immutable characteristic apparently granting the movements adepts to special Civil Rights act privileges that supersede individual personal conscience. According to Litkovitz's Orwellian logic, using a person's made up pronouns “cannot reasonably be construed as having conveyed any beliefs or stated any facts about gender identity.”

Litkovitz also found no evidence that religious discrimination played a role in compelling Meriweather to say things he doesn't believe.

more..https://national-justice.com/federal...otected-speech

I wonder if David Cole would write an article about this story

[tod evans]

Okay my brain is shorting out here.....

What did these broads on the bench determine in plain English?

Does the staff have to call weirdo's odd names by rule of law or not?

[Origanalist]

Okay my brain is shorting out here.....

What did these broads on the bench determine in plain English?

Does the staff have to call weirdo's odd names by rule of law or not?

Understandable, yes.

[TheTexan]

Such a brave woman.

[tod evans]

Understandable, yes.

Good greif!

Look up Jordan Peterson's case up in the frozen nawth....

[PursuePeace]

uhh...wha...?

[jkr]

so no first amendment?

what are we paying these LEECHES for?

[jkr]

how can a government that i pay to protect my religion and speech force or compel me to participate in a delusional insane persons perverted fantasy under pain of...when i say it is against my religion?

is there not a question of "specific performance"
they just violated his rights, cal the aclu!


(((communist atheist)))

[Anti Federalist]

The Fagggot Mafia strikes again.

[Pauls' Revere]

According to Meriweather, he was reprimanded by administrators at his publicly funded school after a man pretending to be a woman joined his class and began demanding to be referred to as "she" and "ms."

What? over "pretending" to be a woman!

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

[Grandmastersexsay]

The title is not accurate. This isn't about someone being charged with a criminal offense for misgendering, which would obviously violate the first amendment. This is about an employer's rights. Even if you argue the employer is the federal government, an employer still has a right to require their employees to act in a certain manner within reason. Within reason typically means an employer can't make someone do something that their religion does not allow for, such as requiring employees to not wear anything covering their face, while their employees feel they need to wear a burka. I'm not aware of any religious doctrine requiring people to be gendered correctly, probably because even the crazies that start religions didn't think misgendering could ever become an issue. People used to be for employer's rights on here. Those rights are important and should be respected despite you not liking how those employers exercise those rights.

[juleswin]

The title is not accurate. This isn't about someone being charged with a criminal offense for misgendering, which would obviously violate the first amendment. This is about an employer's rights. Even if you argue the employer is the federal government, an employer still has a right to require their employees to act in a certain manner within reason. Within reason typically means an employer can't make someone do something that their religion does not allow for, such as requiring employees to not wear anything covering their face, while their employees feel they need to wear a burka. I'm not aware of any religious doctrine requiring people to be gendered correctly, probably because even the crazies that start religions didn't think misgendering could ever become an issue. People used to be for employer's rights on here. Those rights are important and should be respected despite you not liking how those employers exercise those rights.

Thanks for actually reading the beyond the headlines and explaining the meaning of the ruling which is something I was too lazy to do. In a forum where everyone seems to be cool about the mods banning people for good reason, one would think that these sort of ruling would be popular. Hopefully now that you have explained the ruling, more people will come out in support of this.

Btw, zippy was banned when he did not break the TOS agreement and the mods will not talk about it. Its their right to be biased and show double standards but I will still like them to explain themselves. They might even ban me for challenging them but that still should not be illegal.

[tod evans]

Thanks for actually reading the beyond the headlines and explaining the meaning of the ruling which is something I was too lazy to do. In a forum where everyone seems to be cool about the mods banning people for good reason, one would think that these sort of ruling would be popular. Hopefully now that you have explained the ruling, more people will come out in support of this.

Btw, zippy was banned when he did not break the TOS agreement and the mods will not talk about it. Its their right to be biased and show double standards but I will still like them to explain themselves. They might even ban me for challenging them but that still should not be illegal.

So compelled speech is okay with you?

Does it matter who is compelling said speech?

Who gets these privileges and who bestows them using what criteria?

[juleswin]

So compelled speech is okay with you?

In the workplace, discussion forums, in my house etc etc then its a yes. Do you think a public school teacher should not be fired if he said for example "white people are shyte" in the school(assuming he/she is not tenured)

Does it matter who is compelling said speech?

It matters what the setting is. The issue here is that the workplace can make demands of their workers when it comes to speech. The NFL essentially fired Colin K for refusing to stand for the national anthem and I am OK with it. It is their right to kick him out if he cannot follow their reasonable demands to stand during the anthem

Who gets these privileges and who bestows them using what criteria?

The take away point is that your workplace can make demands of speech from you and you can either take it or split. Maybe you have other agreements with your boss but don't stand behind the first amendment cos it won't help you.

Like I said this forum has been banning people for no reason and none of those people banned have the right to sue the Josh and the other owners for violating their first amendment rights. Its sucks, it wrong but we cannot use the court system to resolve this problem like the guy in the OP tried to do

[Grandmastersexsay]

So compelled speech is okay with you?

Does it matter who is compelling said speech?

Who gets these privileges and who bestows them using what criteria?

Speech compelled by an employer is fine. If someone doesn't like it, they can quit.

[Grandmastersexsay]

Btw, zippy was banned when he did not break the TOS agreement and the mods will not talk about it. Its their right to be biased and show double standards but I will still like them to explain themselves. They might even ban me for challenging them but that still should not be illegal.

Zippy was a troll. He should have been banned a long time ago. The problem wasn't what he would post, but the intent. His posts were similar to someone posting fur coat reviews on a PETA forum. No one has a right to post on here. The owners are free to steer discussion in any direction they see fit.

This is a better place now. Without him, maybe it can get back to talking about the nuances of issues like employer's rights vs first amendment rights, instead of Orange Man bad vs Orange Man good.

[juleswin]

Zippy was a troll. He should have been banned a long time ago. The problem wasn't what he would post, but the intent. His posts were similar to someone posting fur coat reviews on a PETA forum. No one has a right to post on here. The owners are free to steer discussion in any direction they see fit.

This is a better place now. Without him, maybe it can get back to talking about the nuances of issues like employer's rights vs first amendment rights, instead of Orange Man bad vs Orange Man good.

The count is still around, do we ban him too? He is just like zippy, there are people who have openly and unironically back Bernie(and even Trump seeing as both are non liberty candidates) do we banned them too? And speaking of straight up trolling, TheTexan who has done nothing but troll this site and he is still not banned. Why draw the line with zippy? its the double standard that annoys me. If you gonna clean up the site, why not ban all the people who support non liberty candidate/ideology and the trolls. Don't just ban one or two and pretend that everything is alright.

[tod evans]

In the workplace, discussion forums, in my house etc etc then its a yes. Do you think a public school teacher should not be fired if he said for example "white people are shyte" in the school(assuming he/she is not tenured)

Compelled apparently doesn't mean what you think it does.

Being 'compelled' to use certain words over others in order to express an idea is what is at question. If your school teacher opined her opinion using other verbiage would her opinion be less odorous?

Would you have your teacher 'compelled' to express another opinion using certain words?

It matters what the setting is. The issue here is that the workplace can make demands of their workers when it comes to speech. The NFL essentially fired Colin K for refusing to stand for the national anthem and I am OK with it. It is their right to kick him out if he cannot follow their reasonable demands to stand during the anthem

Again 'compelling speech' is different than punishing one for offensive actions, one is forcing one to utter something they disagree with where the other is punishing for poor behavior.

The take away point is that your workplace can make demands of speech from you and you can either take it or split. Maybe you have other agreements with your boss but don't stand behind the first amendment cos it won't help you.

Something tells me that requiring a Muslim to recite homage to a pen of swine before work would reach the threshold of a violation of some law but probably not the constitutional issue of "free speech". Trying this issue under the guise of free speech was, in my opinion, the wrong avenue.

Like I said this forum has been banning people for no reason and none of those people banned have the right to sue the Josh and the other owners for violating their first amendment rights. Its sucks, it wrong but we cannot use the court system to resolve this problem like the guy in the OP tried to do

Likewise banning people isn't a free speech issue either, You're free to express any opinion you like and you're free to be held accountable for those opinions......But....You are absolutely NOT compelled to express any opinions using explicit verbiage. The guy in the OP was being compelled to speak words and phrases he disagreed with by a government funded institution.

[Working Poor]

The Fagggot Mafia strikes again.

LOL

[ATruepatriot]

Thanks for actually reading the beyond the headlines and explaining the meaning of the ruling which is something I was too lazy to do. In a forum where everyone seems to be cool about the mods banning people for good reason, one would think that these sort of ruling would be popular. Hopefully now that you have explained the ruling, more people will come out in support of this.

Btw, zippy was banned when he did not break the TOS agreement and the mods will not talk about it. Its their right to be biased and show double standards but I will still like them to explain themselves. They might even ban me for challenging them but that still should not be illegal.

You are mistaken. It has not been biased at all, it has been both indiscriminate and sporadic. All it takes is one sour note at the wrong time and you will be expelled from the orchestra no matter what instrument you play, no matter what score you are reading. Most recent loss was from the string section on the right of the orchestra.

[sparebulb]

[QUOTE=juleswin;6930157] And speaking of straight up trolling, TheTexan who has done nothing but troll this site and he is still not banned. Why draw the line with zippy?/QUOTE]

The Texican is a national treasure.

Would you want to ban John Wayne?

[Origanalist]

The title is not accurate. This isn't about someone being charged with a criminal offense for misgendering, which would obviously violate the first amendment. This is about an employer's rights. Even if you argue the employer is the federal government, an employer still has a right to require their employees to act in a certain manner within reason. Within reason typically means an employer can't make someone do something that their religion does not allow for, such as requiring employees to not wear anything covering their face, while their employees feel they need to wear a burka. I'm not aware of any religious doctrine requiring people to be gendered correctly, probably because even the crazies that start religions didn't think misgendering could ever become an issue. People used to be for employer's rights on here. Those rights are important and should be respected despite you not liking how those employers exercise those rights.

However you look at it, it is a government funded institution that demands that their employees refer to a man as a woman if he so demands. So our courts have stepped into insanity. What will it lead to? People being charged with a hate crime for not calling him her? It's really not much of a leap.

[Grandmastersexsay]

However you look at it, it is a government funded institution that demands that their employees refer to a man as a woman if he so demands. So our courts have stepped into insanity. What will it lead to? People being charged with a hate crime for not calling him her? It's really not much of a leap.

An employer not wanting an employee to voice a political opinion while on the job is far different than the government outlawing someone voicing that opinion. It doesn't matter if the employer receives government funds or even if the employer is the federal government. This isn't a matter of free speech. This is a case where the courts were being used to try to change the internal policy of a business. This was an attempt to legislate through the judiciary.

I don't like their policy, but I hate legislating through the bench even more. This should be obvious to everyone here.

[Swordsmyth]

An employer not wanting an employee to voice a political opinion while on the job is far different than the government outlawing someone voicing that opinion. It doesn't matter if the employer receives government funds or even if the employer is the federal government. This isn't a matter of free speech. This is a case where the courts were being used to try to change the internal policy of a business. This was an attempt to legislate through the judiciary.

I don't like their policy, but I hate legislating through the bench even more. This should be obvious to everyone here.

It is a case of the government dictating speech.
It is a first amendment issue.

[Grandmastersexsay]

It is a case of the government dictating speech.
It is a first amendment issue.

You obviously don't understand the first amendment. What law was broken to makes this a first amendment issue?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[tod evans]

An employer not wanting an employee to voice a political opinion while on the job is far different than the government outlawing someone voicing that opinion.

That's not what happened here.

At issue is compelled speech.

The government funded institution would compel their employee to speek words that the employee disagrees with.

Once the slippery slope of compelled speech is permitted what's next? Will you be expected to publically praise Hillary Clinton? Or worse.....

[Anti Globalist]

If I'm going to call a transgender woman a man, I'm going to call them a man.

[Sonny Tufts]

Let's take an extreme case. A government employee addresses his African-American co-workers as "ni**er" and "boy". The government (through its supervising employee) tells him to refer to them as "man" or by their given name. Does anyone think this guy has a First Amendment right to disobey his employer's directive?