Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed two amicus briefs defending students’ right to free speech at school.
“There is currently a movement by far-left progressives who, in an attempt to force their ideology onto Americans, are working to stamp out free speech. We’re not standing for it,” said Attorney General Bailey. “They’re censoring disfavored viewpoints on social media platforms, and now, they’re policing what our children can and cannot say at school. The First Amendment is not up for debate. Missouri will continue to lead the way in defense of Americans’ right to free speech.”
Working with Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Attorney General Bailey is supporting a group of students in an Ohio school district who are challenging an unconstitutional pronoun policy. The pronoun policy, which forces students to use the preferred pronouns of their fellow students and staff, applies to students even off campus and during out-of-school hours. Attorney General Bailey’s brief holds that the policy is unlawful because it compels speech and forces students to affirm beliefs they do not hold.
Filed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the brief argues, “The Policies unconstitutionally compel students to speak the Board’s views on gender. The Policies thus contravene a ‘fixed star in our constitutional constellation’: ‘no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.’”
The second amicus brief fights the unlawful restriction of students’ speech in a Massachusetts school. There, a student was barred from wearing a shirt that stated, “There are only two genders,” because the school claimed the shirt was “hate speech,” thereby a violation of the dress code. The student then wore a modified version of the shirt that stated, “There are only censored genders.” The school again said he violated the dress code and prohibited him from wearing the shirt.
Filed at the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the brief argues “Speech that is merely offensive to a listener is not enough to justify a restriction. After all, if ‘there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. And ‘much political and religious speech might be perceived as offensive to some.’”
In the Ohio amicus brief, Attorney General Bailey is joined by the attorneys general of Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina Texas, Utah, and Virginia on the amicus brief.
Original source can be found here.