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

[nobody's_hero]

I think if he'd made his case on common-sense grounds rather than religious beliefs he'd have done better.

You got a dick and balls? = Guy
Got a coochie? = Gal

Let's not over complicate matters. I think calling him by his surname was a reasonable compromise. The fact that the identity-confused person pushed it back on him shows that the goal is to force others to see your version of reality.

A random comment I once read on a youtube video summed it up nicely:


"I miss normal gay people."

[Grandmastersexsay]

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.....

And an employer can compell someone to say something. If they don't like it, they can quit. It obviously isn't a slippery slope case, because this is how it has been done for hundreds of years. Most employers won't make you publicly praise Hillary. Some have. People were free to quit those jobs too.

You are another one who has no idea what the first amendment protects.

[Grandmastersexsay]

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?

I think your logic will be lost on anyone who didn't realize this already.

[tod evans]

And an employer can compell someone to say something. If they don't like it, they can quit. It obviously isn't a slippery slope case, because this is how it has been done for hundreds of years. Most employers won't make you publicly praise Hillary. Some have. People were free to quit those jobs too.

You are another one who has no idea what the first amendment protects.

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.

And an employer can compell someone to say something. If they don't like it, they can quit. It obviously isn't a slippery slope case, because this is how it has been done for hundreds of years. Most employers won't make you publicly praise Hillary. Some have. People were free to quit those jobs too.

You are another one who has no idea what the first amendment protects.

I understand reading is difficult so I went ahead and cut out my previous post where I agreed that trying this issue under the first amendment wasn't wise..

Instead of addressing the issue of compelled speech you tried to direct my post to your argument about the first amendment. The issue of a government funded entity compelling speech that recognizes a false narrative should be addressed on its merits not on constitutional grounds.

Furthermore it should be tried in state court in front of a jury.

[Grandmastersexsay]

I understand reading is difficult so I went ahead and cut out my previous post where I agreed that trying this issue under the first amendment wasn't wise..

Instead of addressing the issue of compelled speech you tried to direct my post to your argument about the first amendment. The issue of a government funded entity compelling speech that recognizes a false narrative should be addressed on its merits not on constitutional grounds.

Furthermore it should be tried in state court in front of a jury.

No one is going to read your past posts to give context to your last one.

As for your argument, it certainly isn't a first amendment issue, but it also isn't a court matter. A state college, whether owned by the state or not, is still an employer with rights. The courts have no business deciding on the internal policies of an organisation if no laws are being violated. This is a bureaucratic issue. If you don't like their policies, that needs to be changed through the legislature, as they are ultimately responsible for the beuracrats they delegated responsibility to.

[tod evans]

No one is going to read your past posts to give context to your last one.

As for your argument, it certainly isn't a first amendment issue, but it also isn't a court matter. A state college, whether owned by the state or not, is still an employer with rights. The courts have no business deciding on the internal policies of an organisation if no laws are being violated. This is a bureaucratic issue. If you don't like their policies, that needs to be changed through the legislature, as they are ultimately responsible for the beuracrats they delegated responsibility to.

I'm not versed in Ohio law, and I assume you're not either...

Most states have laws protecting against hostile or toxic workplace behavior and I'm pretty certain a jury in most states would find this type of compelled speech both hostile and toxic.

Try and tone it down a bit jr. the more you type the more your ignorance shines.


[edit]

After mere minutes of research it appears as though the supreme court has heard a similar case on which the OP bases their filing. In this instance the lower court judge has ruled contrary to standing law.

See Wooley v. Maynard


[edit again]

Here's a well written breif that shoots your theory of law right out of the water. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...licy%20BOM.pdf

If reading is problematic start at page 20.

[bv3]

I think your logic will be lost on anyone who didn't realize this already.

Oh? And an employer that mandates his/her/Xerilcious's employees call an African-American co-worker a "******" and "boy"? I suppose such an employee would similarly be denied their First Amendment right to refer to the African American co-worker as man or by their given name.

[Sonny Tufts]

Most states have laws protecting against hostile or toxic workplace behavior and I'm pretty certain a jury in most states would find this type of compelled speech both hostile and toxic.

On the other hand, they might side with the student and find that the professor's refusal to use the student's choice of terms of address created a hostile and toxic environment for the student, possibly opening up the university to liability.

Beware of generalizations. The government compels speech in many situations. Members of the military must salute (a type of symbolic speech) a superior officer and refer to him/her as "sir"/"ma'am". People called as a witness or as a prospective juror must answer questions, barring a claim of self-incrimination. Even refusing to answer a census question can be a crime (see 17 USC §221).

[tod evans]

On the other hand, they might side with the student and find that the professor's refusal to use the student's choice of terms of address created a hostile and toxic environment for the student, possibly opening up the university to liability.

Beware of generalizations. The government compels speech in many situations. Members of the military must salute (a type of symbolic speech) a superior officer and refer to him/her as "sir"/"ma'am". People called as a witness or as a prospective juror must answer questions, barring a claim of self-incrimination. Even refusing to answer a census question can be a crime (see 17 USC §221).

Did you peruse the PDF I linked to?

If nothing else it's an interesting view of the issue.

[Sonny Tufts]

Did you peruse the PDF I linked to?

If nothing else it's an interesting view of the issue.

I read the brief. The issue in the case is whether discrimination on the basis of gender identity is covered by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination on the basis of "sex". Two other cases that wwere consolidated on appeal deal with whether seual orientation is covered by the statute. The issue isn't one of compelled speech or First Amendment rights; rather, it's simply one of determining the applicability of a statute. The circuit courts of appeal have split on the issue of sexual orientation, so SCOTUS needs to decide the matter.

I don't understand why the organization that filed the brief concentrated on compelled speech, other than it wanted to present a horror-story-filled slippery-slope argument that has no real bearing on the case that's before the Court. The brief is really addressing the policy of including gender identity in the statute, not whether a reasonable interpretation of the language compels such a conclusion. Personally, I don't think it does; it's inconceivable to me that the Congress in 1964 had transgendered people in mind.

Interestingly, Justice Goresuch expressed some sympathy with the plaintiff's arguments. See https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/supr...ion-cases.html

I think the Court will punt the issue back to Congress and hold that the existing statutory language doesn't cover gender identity. But I could be wrong; I never thought Roberts would be the swing vote on the validity of Obamacare.

[Grandmastersexsay]

I'm not versed in Ohio law, and I assume you're not either...

Most states have laws protecting against hostile or toxic workplace behavior and I'm pretty certain a jury in most states would find this type of compelled speech both hostile and toxic.

Try and tone it down a bit jr. the more you type the more your ignorance shines.


[edit]

After mere minutes of research it appears as though the supreme court has heard a similar case on which the OP bases their filing. In this instance the lower court judge has ruled contrary to standing law.

See Wooley v. Maynard


[edit again]

Here's a well written breif that shoots your theory of law right out of the water. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...licy%20BOM.pdf

If reading is problematic start at page 20.

No jury in their right mind would consider this type of compelled speech as promoting a hostile work environment. People might and should think this compelled speech is absurd and laughable, but certainly not promoting hostility. There are no laws protecting someone's right to "misgender" someone. I put that in quotes because calling someone with a penis a girl is a more appropriate usage of misgendering, but you get the point. There are no religious grounds, that I am aware of, to protect such beliefs. Any judge or jury will come to the same conclusion as this judge did. Fighting this through the courts is a waste of time and money.

The only way this should be fought is through the legislature. There needs to be a concerted effort to break the liberal stronghold on all levels of education.

[nobody's_hero]

The only way this should be fought is through the legislature. There needs to be a concerted effort to break the liberal stronghold on all levels of education.

Is that honestly ever likely to happen though? You can't really blame people for wanting to take shortcuts through the courts when their only option to protect minority opinion is um, to obtain a majority.

[eleganz]

Thats stupid, must be one of the libtard SJW judges.

I'm going to nullify this finding by misgendering everybody.



and Whaddayano.......

Appointed by the very rapey Bill Clinton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Dlott

Im assuming there will be appeals now that the court of appears should now be majority republican...

[Swordsmyth]

Is that honestly ever likely to happen though? You can't really blame people for wanting to take shortcuts through the courts when their only option to protect minority opinion is um, to obtain a majority.

He's twisting himself in knots to let the government enforce an agenda.
A certain agenda.

[tod evans]

No jury in their right mind would consider this type of compelled speech as promoting a hostile work environment. .

Compelled speech by it's very nature is hostile without considering it's effect of the workplace.

There needs to be a concerted effort to break the liberal stronghold on all levels of education.

I'll agree with you there but this has no bearing on the matter at hand.