On October 8th, a federal judge in New Hampshire denied parents and grandparents of a high school girl soccer player the right to wear wristbands that had “XX” on them while they attended the girl’s game(s). The pink wristbands, with double Xes on them, demarked the chromosomes of females – like their daughter. They had attended a game against an opposing school, which fielded a male student who claimed to be a girl.
The AP reported:
Judge Steven McAuliffe said the notion of whether parents should be allowed to passively protest transgender players at student sports events was legally nuanced and complex, and he wanted to hear more detailed arguments presented by both the parents and the school district at the next hearing, which is likely to be held in late November.
Read related:
Concerned NH Parent Banned From School Grounds for Protesting Boy on Girls' Sports Team
No, in fact, it isn’t “nuanced” in the slightest. Parents and grandparents and for that matter, anyone, including third-party spectators attending a soccer match while wearing wristbands that have "XX" on them, are without doubt, allowed, and wearing them is an exercise in 1st Amendment rights.
On September 17th, the parents (and a grandparent) of a player attended a soccer match in which the daughter was playing in a match against a school that fielded a boy, on a girl’s team. Although the AP and opposing school insist that the boy is a girl, he is not. He is a he. The parents, rightfully, considered that an affront to women’s sports and fairness. They came “armed” with pink wristbands emblazoned with doubles Xes. What then occurred is, apparently up for debate, but I honestly do not believe anything the school officials claim. Parents and the grandparents were confronted by school officials. They were told to remove the wristbands. The parents refused.
The lawsuit said school officials and a local police officer confronted the parents during the game, telling them to remove the wristbands or leave. The plaintiffs refused, citing their First Amendment rights, then said they were threatened with arrest for trespassing.
The game’s referee threatened to forfeit the game for the team with the boy. The parents didn’t want their daughter’s team to forfeit because school officials and an officious jerk of a cop, so they removed the wristbands. But after the game, the district’s thugs (aka: school officials) with the cop in tow, handed the parents “No Trespass Orders,” banning them from school grounds.
The comments by the judge indicate that he was kicking the can down the highway, and, apparently, doesn’t have the slightest understanding of his job and, apparently, hasn’t read caselaw.
In 1969, students protested the Vietnam War by wearing armbands (sound familiar?) during school. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community Sch. Dist., the Court laid out the baseline for determining if and when protests “cross the line.” If the protest is reasonably foreseen to “cause substantial disruption,” then the school can restrict the speech. "Substantial" is kind of important. Just having your "feels" hurt or your sensibilities bruised isn't enough.
In a case called Bethel School District, a school can restrict “sexually explicit, indecent, or lewd speech" because the school has a legitimate pedagogic reason. XX isn't "sexual."
In Morse v. Frederick, - aka: "The Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case - the court said a school could restrict speech that advocated drug use. Students wore shirts with that message. I think the court missed the mark badly on that one, and missed what seemed to be humor/parody.
In any event, school officials in the XX wristband case were clearly wrong and undoubtedly violated the parents' Constitutionally protected speech. Officials have no right to demand spectators remove pink wristbands with two Xes on them. Sorry, not sorry. Boys upset because we don't agree with their delusion isn't a protected right - silently protesting that delusion is. Even if this trial court gets it wrong, again, the parents will win on appeal.
The parents are right. The district is dead wrong. The district will end up paying for its woke “privilege” of being dead wrong.
What is incredibly galling is that this judge ruled that the parents could watch games (clearly believing that they were not disruptive), but banned the wristbands.
By the way, the AP cut off comments on that article. Cowards are gonna cower.
