[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / biz / dir / jewess / pol / qsource / swfriend / torochan / yapers ]

/wtp/ - We, the People

In God We Trust

Name
Email
Subject
REC
STOP
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov
Max filesize is16 MB.
Max image dimensions are15000 x15000.
You may upload5 per post.


Board Rules

File: 9a5579017d7cf73⋯.png (934.05 KB,1024x768,4:3,ClipboardImage.png)

6a10b3 No.609

https://www.americasfuture.net/americas-future-legal-brief-champions-parental-rights/

>The brief was filed in support of petitioner’s application for a preliminary injunction to prevent implementation of school policies that purport to ban “discriminatory language,” but surreptitiously aim to censor the speech of students by forbidding the use of pronouns reflecting the biological sex of another student. As if that isn’t enough, the OOSD further oversteps their bounds by requiring the use of self-declared preferred pronoun(s) of other students on any given day.

>To be clear, OOSD’s actions amount to an unlawful and flagrant rejection of America’s parental rights jurisprudence cultivated by the Supreme Court for over a century, starting with a 1923 SCOTUS decision announcing, “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children…liberty protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to establish a home and bring up children and to control the education of their own.”

Read the Brief: https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AmericasFuture-Amicus-Brief-Parents-v-Eau-Claire-Filed-07082024-SCOTUS.pdf

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

6a10b3 No.615

File: 901fd003f17078f⋯.png (1.2 MB,1920x1080,16:9,ClipboardImage.png)

https://www.americasfuture.net/law-matters-episode-13/

<Introduction:

The episode begins with Alicia Kutzer welcoming listeners to "America's Future Law Matters," a podcast focused on key legal issues within America's judicial system. She introduces the guest, Attorney Bill Olson, known for his extensive experience in constitutional law and appellate advocacy. The discussion is heavily critical of the school's pronoun policy, viewing it as an infringement on free speech, parental rights, and religious freedom. The tone is one of concern about the direction of educational policy and its broader implications for American society.

<Main Discussion:

Case Overview: The discussion centers on a case involving the Olentangy Local School District in Ohio, where policies mandate students to use preferred pronouns of their peers, including transgender students, under threat of punishment for non-compliance. The case was brought by Parents Defending Education on behalf of anonymous students and parents against these school policies.

<First Amendment Issues:

Bill explains how the case touches on First Amendment rights, particularly freedom of speech. He outlines two ways the First Amendment can be violated: by censoring speech or by compelling speech. The school's policy does both by prohibiting the use of biologically accurate pronouns and compelling students to use preferred pronouns.

<Supreme Court Precedent:

Reference is made to the Tinker v. Des Moines case, which established that students do not lose their First Amendment rights at school unless their speech creates a 'substantial disruption'. The school's argument that using incorrect pronouns could hurt feelings does not meet this threshold, according to Bill.

<Arguments and Implications:

Bill criticizes the policy for its complexity and impracticality, noting the variety of pronouns students might need to use, potentially leading to confusion and fear of punishment among students. He also discusses how this case reflects a broader cultural and legal battle over transgender ideology, which he describes as having roots in ancient pagan practices, thus clashing with Christian beliefs about gender.

<Cultural and Legal Critique:

The podcast delves into how such policies might be part of a larger agenda, possibly aiming to undermine traditional American values, freedoms, and parental rights. There's a particular focus on how it might force individuals to adopt beliefs contrary to their own, essentially compelling religious or ideological conformity.

<Resistance and Pushback:

Both Alicia and Bill express optimism about the pushback against these policies, highlighting a growing resistance from parents and legal challenges that might lead to a return to more traditional norms regarding speech and gender identity in schools.

<Conclusion:

Alicia thanks Bill for his insights and encourages listeners to visit America's Future's website for more episodes. The episode ends with a call to action for support in defending constitutional rights against what they perceive as overreaching policies.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / biz / dir / jewess / pol / qsource / swfriend / torochan / yapers ]