TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @yoder_esq
@yoder_esq - Mike Yoder
THREAD: LGBTQ kids get to speak freely yet straight kids get silenced in schools Here’s some helpful case law for parents to fight back against the censorship: “[S]tudents do not shed Free Speech rights at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 508 (1969); (1/10)
@yoder_esq - Mike Yoder
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), states “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” (2/10)
@yoder_esq - Mike Yoder
Discrimination on the basis of “sex” extends beyond just male and female. In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court held that Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of . . . sex” covers discrimination based on gender, but also includes gender identity and sexual orientation. 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1740–43 (2020) (3/10)
@yoder_esq - Mike Yoder
While Bostock was a Title VII (employment) case, the reasoning behind expanding the definition of “sex” has been applied to other federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) (4/10)
@yoder_esq - Mike Yoder
Title IX protects everyone who interacts with a school from discrimination, including parents and guardians, students, employees, and applicants (5/10)
@yoder_esq - Mike Yoder
The government cannot “prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943) (6/10)
@yoder_esq - Mike Yoder
In order to restrict speech “on the basis of invading another’s rights”, the school must show: the restricted speech targeted a specific student and invaded that student’s rights and (2) a causal link between the restricted speech and “bullying” incident must exist (7/10)
@yoder_esq - Mike Yoder
Speech that merely offends someone is not enough to justify a restriction, and the government may not prohibit expression simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable (8/10)
@yoder_esq - Mike Yoder
“In the realm of private speech or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker over another, [and] public schools likewise “may not silence the expression of selected viewpoints.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. at 828, 835 (1995) (9/10)
@yoder_esq - Mike Yoder
“A school That permits advocacy of the rights of homosexual students cannot be allowed to stifle criticism of homosexuality.” Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. No. 204, 636 F.3d 874, 876 (7th Cir. 2011) (10/10)
@yoder_esq - Mike Yoder
BREAKING: Video of Supreme Court of Italy legal counsel testifying under oath about interference in 2020 election Transcript below👇🏼 / (1/6) https://t.co/vUl7WGjJSB