Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Censorship Industrial Complex

California judge: first grader too young for free speech rights, family appeals

Published

5 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

As you read this keep in mind, she’s 6.

The mother of a first grader punished for handing an “innocent” drawing with the phrases “black lives matter” and “any life” to a classmate of color is appealing to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after a lower court ruling  declared first-grade students are too young to be protected by the First Amendment. 

After a first grade lesson on Martin Luther King Jr. and Black Lives Matter, a student who felt bad for her classmate of color drew a picture for that classmate to allegedly help the classmate feel more included. The picture had the phrase “Black Lives Mater” (sic) above “any life,” with a picture below of four circles of different colors — which the author says represented her and three classmates holding hands. The student thanked the author for the drawing and took it home, after which the recipient’s mother reported the drawing to the school’s principal “to express concern that her daughter was being singled out for her race.” 

The school’s principal, Jesus Becerra, allegedly concluded that writing “any life” was “inconsistent with values taught in the school but acknowledged that [author’s] motives were ‘innocent.’” The recipient’s parents agreed the author innocently drew the picture and that they did not want the author punished, but Beccara allegedly declared the drawing “racist” and “inappropriate,” and submitted the first-grade author to punishment. 

Becerra forced the author to apologize to the recipient for the drawing — to which the recipient allegedly expressed confusion upon receiving, leading to more confusion from the author. He also banned the author, a student “who loved to draw,” from drawing and giving pictures to classmates, and teachers banned the author from recess for two weeks without telling her why. 

According to Transparent California, Becerra received total pay and benefits of $207,678.20 in 2022 as elementary school principal at Capistrano Unified School District. 

After the author’s mother found out about the punishment a year later, she requested an explanation and an apology from the school, escalating until filing a suit in federal court. The school district claimed Beccara was operating under qualified immunity against the author’s First Amendment and retaliation claims. A federal district court ruled on behalf of Beccara, finding that first grade students are not protected by the First Amendment.

“Giving great weight to the fact that the students involved were in first grade, the Court concludes that the Drawing is not protected by the First Amendment,” wrote the court, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling finding “schools may restrict speech that ‘might reasonably lead school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities’ or that collides ‘with the rights of other students to be secure and let alone.” 

The court also said the phrase “any life” was close to the phrase “All Lives Matter,” which it said is “an inclusive denotation but one that is widely perceived as racially insensitive and belittling when directed at people of color” in its justification for Beccerra’s actions. 

The case’s appeal claims Beccarra’s punishment of the author counts as retaliation for actions protected under the First Amendment, and that says first grader’s speech is protected under Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist, a United States Supreme Court ruling that says “First Amendment rights … are available to teachers and students,” who do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” 

The appeal from the Pacific Legal Foundation says the lower court incorrectly found the author’s speech fell under Tinker’s First Amendment exemptions for speech at school that infringes on another student’s right to be left alone with regards tobullying, or causes “substantial disruption.” 

The case now awaits a hearing and ruling from the Ninth Circuit, which should occur within a year.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Alberta bill would protect freedom of expression for doctors, nurses, other professionals

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

‘Peterson’s law,’ named for Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, was introduced by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

Alberta’s Conservative government introduced a new law that will set “clear expectations” for professional regulatory bodies to respect freedom of speech on social media and online for doctors, nurses, engineers, and other professionals.

The new law, named “Peterson’s law” after Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, who was canceled by his regulatory body, was introduced Thursday by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

“Professionals should never fear losing their license or career because of a social media post, an interview, or a personal opinion expressed on their own time,” Smith said in a press release sent to media and LifeSiteNews.

“Alberta’s government is restoring fairness and neutrality so regulators focus on competence and ethics, not policing beliefs. Every Albertan has the right to speak freely without ideological enforcement or intimidation, and this legislation makes that protection real.”

The law, known as Bill 13, the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, will “set clear expectations for professional regulatory bodies to ensure professionals’ right to free expression is protected.”

According to the government, the new law will “Limit professional regulatory bodies from disciplining professionals for expressive off-duty conduct, except in specific circumstances such as threats of physical violence or a criminal conviction.”

It will also restrict mandatory training “unrelated to competence or ethics, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion training.”

Bill 13, once it becomes law, which is all but guaranteed as Smith’s United Conservative Party (UCP) holds a majority, will also “create principles of neutrality that prohibit professional regulatory bodies from assigning value, blame or different treatment to individuals based on personally held views or political beliefs.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Peterson has been embattled with the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) after it  mandated he undergo social media “training” to keep his license following posts he made on X, formerly Twitter, criticizing Trudeau and LGBT activists.

Early this year, LifeSiteNews reported that the CPO had selected Peterson’s “re-education coach” for having publicly opposed the LGBT agenda.

The Alberta government directly referenced Peterson’s (who is from Alberta originally) plight with the CPO, noting “the disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Jordan Peterson by the College of Psychologists of Ontario, demonstrate how regulatory bodies can extend their reach into personal expression rather than professional competence.”

“Similar cases involving nurses, engineers and other professionals revealed a growing pattern: individuals facing investigations, penalties or compulsory ideological training for off-duty expressive conduct. These incidents became a catalyst, confirming the need for clear legislative boundaries that protect free expression while preserving professional standards.”

Alberta Minister of Justice and Attorney General Mickey Amery said regarding Bill 13 that the new law makes that protection of professionals “real and holds professional regulatory bodies to a clear standard.”

Last year, Peterson formally announced his departure from Canada in favor of moving to the United States, saying his birth nation has become a “totalitarian hell hole.” 

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Move over Soviet Russia: UK Police Make 10,000 Arrests Over “Offensive” Online Speech

Published on

logo

By

In a nation where 90 percent of crimes go unsolved, the real emergency seems to be someone being offensive online.

Let’s get something straight. If you’re reading this from inside the United Kingdom and you’ve ever committed the heinous act of sarcasm on the internet, better close the curtains. The police might be on their way. Armed, possibly. With body cams. And a warrant to seize your copy of The Complete Fawlty Towers, just in case.
Last year, British police arrested nearly 10,000 people for saying things online that someone, somewhere, decided were “offensive.”
According to data pried out of police forces by the Daily Mail, that’s around 26 people a day. And yes, some of those probably were saying awful things. But many were not. Many were simply annoying. And in the UK now, being annoying online is grounds for a knock at the door.
The arrests were made under laws like the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988, pieces of legislation drafted before TikTok existed, and when “going viral” still referred to the flu.
These laws were originally written to stop actual threats. Not to stop someone from tweeting something sarcastic about climate protesters.
But times have changed. Cumbria Constabulary, apparently keen to earn their badge in “Feelings Policing,” clocked in 217 arrests last year. That’s 42.5 arrests per 100,000 residents.
Meanwhile, Staffordshire managed only 21. What were they doing instead, catching burglars? How outdated.
Gwent Police weren’t far behind, either. The Welsh force made 204 arrests.
Toby Young of the Free Speech Union called the number “alarmingly high.” His assessment may be generous.
What’s truly Olympic-level absurd is the sheer inconsistency. If you’re a bit spicy with your language in Cumbria, you might be arrested before the kettle boils. In Staffordshire, you’d likely get nothing but a raised eyebrow and a politely worded leaflet.
David Spencer from Policy Exchange nailed it when he said, “The variance in approach by police forces suggests that how much freedom of speech we are allowed depends on where we live.”
A troubling sentence, because once you need a zipcode to know what jokes are legal, the country starts to resemble something more out of Kafka.
Polling suggests only 7 percent of people think online “hate speech” should be a police priority. Seven percent! Yet Britain’s police are allocating significant resources to patrol the pixelated badlands of X and Facebook while 90 percent of actual crimes went unsolved last year.
So, to recap: Your house gets burgled? Fill out a form and cross your fingers. Criticize the government’s foreign policy on Facebook? Patrol car, cuffs, and possible prison time.
It doesn’t help that the laws in question use terms like “grossly offensive” and “insulting” without defining them. As Lord Frost pointed out in the House of Lords: “’Grossly offensive’, ‘abusive’, ‘insulting’ and ‘false’ – says who?” Exactly. It’s like trying to enforce a speed limit based on whether the officer feels you were driving too smugly.
Here’s the cherry on the dystopian sundae: According to Free Speech Union’s Toby Young, Russia arrested 3,253 people last year for online speech. Britain arrested four times that. That’s embarrassing and the sort of international statistic that ought to appear in Amnesty International reports.
Continue Reading

Trending

X