Daily Caller
Freedom Of Speech Versus Preferred Pronouns? It May Go To The Supreme Court
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Frank Ricci
In the United States, where freedom of speech is not just a privilege but rather the cornerstone of our constitutional democracy, our First Amendment rights are at stake in Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education.
In July, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that an Ohio school district could enact a code of conduct requiring students to refer to one another based on self-defined gender identity –– i.e., mandating the use of “preferred pronouns.” The ruling effectively compels speech from school-aged children that may contradict deeply held beliefs about biological sex. The Olentangy Local School District’s policy must be struck down.
Thankfully, not all bad decisions stick. Two weeks ago, the Sixth Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc, a signal that a majority of the circuit’s judges may wish to reconsider the panel’s earlier July ruling. Regardless of the outcome, the loser is likely to file for review before the Supreme Court in the 2026 Term.
The stakes are high as the Sixth Circuit prepares to rule on a case that tees up yet another hot-button debate about pronoun policies, parental rights, religious liberty, and free speech in public schools.
This case is about more than policy. It encompasses the very essence of what it means to be free in thought and expression, particularly in our educational institutions.
The Olentangy Local School District has enacted rules seeking to dictate how students refer to one another based on self-defined gender identity, effectively compelling speech that may contradict deeply held beliefs about biological sex.
This is more than administrative overreach; it is an assault on students’ First Amendment rights to express their views on sex and gender without fear of coercion or reprisal.
That is why Yankee Institute has joined an amicus brief filed by Advancing American Freedom (AAF) to challenge this unconstitutional intrusion on free speech.
Those imposing such policies often argue that they create a psychologically “safe” environment for all students. But perceived “safety” for some should not come at the expense of freedom for all. The policy at issue does not limit itself to the constitutionally permissible goal of preventing harassment; instead, it imposes a new linguistic (and social) orthodoxy to which students must conform or else be punished.
As George Orwell warned, those who can control language can manipulate thought. The left understands this principle well, as demonstrated in Orwell’s novel “1984,” where Newspeak was enforced to narrow the population’s range of thought.
Such manipulation is not the role of public schools. Schools are supposed to be forums for debate, not indoctrination centers where only one viewpoint is tolerated. Unfortunately, all too often, they have become ground zero for identity politics, with teachers’ unions imposing their ideological agendas rather than providing the real skills our children need.
When a district like Olentangy decides to punish students for expressing beliefs about the immutability of sex, viewpoint discrimination is clearly at play. This is antithetical to the principles laid out by the Supreme Court in cases like Tinker v. Des Moines, where it affirmed that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
What is more, the policy’s enforcement could lead to a chilling effect on speech, where students would self-censor rather than risk punishment for using language that aligns with their personal beliefs.
This is not just about pronouns; it is about the broader implications for educating youth on tolerance, diversity and the respectful expression of differing opinions.
Olentangy’s policy fails to meet the stringent requirements set forth by the Supreme Court’s precedent on content-based restrictions. The evidence cited by the school district to justify these restrictions — newspaper stories, law review articles and therapist quotes — lacks the substantial proof of disruption necessary to override First Amendment protections.
As seen in Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L., discomfort or upset among students, without more, does not constitute the “substantial disorder” needed to justify speech restrictions.
If school administrators are handed the power to regulate speech, we are teaching our children — and society at large — that we value conformity over individual conscience. This case isn’t about protecting a minority from perceived offense; it is about safeguarding the rights of all students to freedom of speech and conscience, even (or especially!) when it is unpopular or contravenes current cultural trends.
It is time to remind our schools that they exist to maintain the spirit of free inquiry, not to enforce a singular, forced narrative on identity. Let’s ensure that American schools remain places where students can debate, learn and grow into informed citizens who cherish liberty over compelled conformity.
As Emily Dickenson stated: “Truth is such a rare thing, it is delightful to tell it.”
For the sake of our nation’s future, we must protect each individual’s freedom to speak truth as he or she sees it.
Frank Ricci is a Fellow at Yankee Institute and was the lead plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case Ricci v Destefano. He retired as a Battalion Chief in New Haven CT. He has testified before Congress and is the author of the book, Command Presence.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Bob Ehrlich
Less than twelve months ago, the Democrat Party’s progressive wing was in firm control of the good ol’ USA.
The cover-up of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline was in full throttle, with only periodic breaks of truth peeking out from behind the White House’s iron curtain. The four criminal cases cooked up to derail Trump’s re-election were proceeding apace, albeit with a degree of cringe, owing to the essential weaknesses and selectivity of the prosecutions.
To boot: Trump had been hit hard with a $430,000,000 civil judgment in New York. But civil cases were only about money. The thought of breaking and jailing DJT was the accelerant for the “Stop Trump” chorus.
Around the country, DEI reigned supreme in corporate C-Suites. Migrants continued to pour over the border. The DOJ’s speech control ops were operational and (mostly) under the radar.
And, with few exceptions, the gender-bending initiative that has placed biological men in women’s athletic contests (and women’s locker rooms) had successfully shamed most (but thankfully not all) female athletes into silence.
And then the whole progressivism gig suddenly spiraled out of control.
A brutal performance at the first (and only) Biden face-to-face with Mr. Trump ended the mental acuity charade. A vice president with the lowest approval numbers in vice presidential polling history was hastily installed by Democrat elders, to the consternation of many party faithful.
The two state prosecutions began to sputter from both ethical issues (Georgia) and perceived political bias (New York). The extent of the (forced) cooperation between Biden’s agencies and social media platforms (focused on fading pro-Trump narratives) was exposed.
And then Harris chose the uber progressive Tim Walz to be her running mate, rather than the attractive high polling, swing state Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro — one of many strategic blunders committed by her campaign.
Nov. 5, 2024 was of course the inflection point — now followed by daily headlines reflecting the remarkable economic-cultural-and foreign policy 180s taking place at blinding speed.
On immigration, daily raids now take down the “worst of the worst” criminal aliens from our streets, to protests from hard left politicians, Hollywood actors, and media wokesters.
On the economy, a renewal of Trump’s original tax cuts and the return of “drill baby, drill” plus no new taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits will feed supply side fans while the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) focuses on fraud, waste, abuse, and redundancy to increase efficiency and achieve savings for a broken, debt-ridden federal budget.
On culture, the counter-revolution is rolling.
Not a day goes by without some large corporation announcing a pull back on DEI and/or ESG. Now Mark Zuckerberg and META are fully invested in the restoration of free speech on social media, even down to parroting X’s “Community Notes” rather than censoring edgy or controversial speech.
To boot: One cannot watch a college or NFL football game without players (winners and losers) openly professing their faith out loud and proud. Geez, even the woke NFL is newly enthused about patriotism and the people in uniform that protect us from the bad guys.
And then there are the devastating California wildfires at once horrific, and instructive. Horrific for familiar reasons: loss of life; loss of homes; loss of communities. An unmitigated disaster of historic proportions.
But also instructive as Americans (again) gain an up-close look into the failure of a woke left coast leadership that prioritizes progressive values over preparedness, and sound water and forestry practices.
Twelve short months later, America is back to two genders…“Stay in Mexico”… a southern border …”1776”… parent power …“maximum pressure” … presidential press conferences …the lab leak theory … even Diet Coke and “YMCA.” Don’t blink.
Bob Ehrlich is a former governor of Maryland, member of Congress and state legislator. He is the author of five books on American politics and opinion pieces that have appeared in America’s leading newspapers and periodicals. He and his wife, Kendel, can be seen and heard on their weekly podcast, “Bottom Line with Bob & Kendel Ehrlich.”
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Hailey Gomez
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reportedly offered payouts to its entire workforce Tuesday, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The CIA has apparently become the first intelligence agency to offer its employees a way out, as they were reportedly offered a bid to quit their jobs in exchange for roughly eight months of pay and benefits, the outlet reported. Trump administration officials told the outlet that the move is a signal to help those who oppose President Donald Trump’s agenda find other work.
In addition to the offer, the WSJ reported that an aide to CIA Director John Ratcliffe said the agency is freezing its hiring for job seekers with conditional offers, with some expected to be rescinded if the agents don’t have the background necessary for the agency’s new direction.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers. Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!
“Director Ratcliffe is moving swiftly to ensure the CIA workforce is responsive to the Administration’s national security priorities. These moves are part of a holistic strategy to infuse the Agency with renewed energy, provide opportunities for rising leaders to emerge, and better position the CIA to deliver on its mission,” a CIA spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Ratcliffe was confirmed as the CIA’s new leader on Jan. 23, after the Senate approved him in a 74-25 vote. In his opening remarks during his confirmation process, Ratcliffe said he would adhere to the CIA’s core mission and focus on threats from the Chinese Communist Party.
“We will collect intelligence — especially human intelligence — in every corner of the globe, no matter how dark or difficult,” Ratcliffe said in his testimony. “We will produce insightful, objective, all-source analysis, never allowing political or personal biases to cloud our judgement or infect our products. We will conduct covert action at the direction of the president, going places no one else can go and doing things no one else can do.”
The move from the CIA comes a week after the U.S. Office of Personnel Management released an email on Jan. 28, showing that millions of federal employees were offered deferred compensation through Sept. 30, provided they submit their resignation notices by Feb. 6.
“If you choose to remain in your current position, we thank you for your renewed focus on serving the American people to the best of your abilities and look forward to working together as part of an improved federal workforce,” the email said. “At this time, we cannot give you full assurance regarding the certainty of your position or agency but should your position be eliminated you will be treated with dignity and will be afforded the protections in place for such positions.”
List of items Canadians will pay 25% tariffs on includes US made orange juice, wine, beer, and clothing
Trump declares national emergency at northern border
Trudeau Promises ‘Fentanyl Czar’ and US-Canada Organized Crime Strike Force To Avert U.S. Tariffs
The Great Exodus from the Net Zero Banking Alliance has arrived
-
Business2 days agoTrump’s dismantling of USAID is his biggest blow against the Deep State yet
-
Crime2 days agoMurder of US Border Patrol agent linked to bizarre ‘antifascist trans terror cult’
-
COVID-191 day agoCanadian judge orders Purolator to compensate employees fired for refusing COVID shot
-
Business15 hours ago90% of Ukraine news outlets get funding from USAID: new report
-
Business1 day agoUSPS suspends inbound packages from China, Hong Kong
-
Business2 days agoMusk vs. The Swamp: Will He and Trump Make Real Cuts?
-
Business21 hours agoCanada should match or eclipse Trump’s red-tape cutting plan
-
International1 day agoTrump withdraws US from UN Human Rights Council, orders review of funding for other UN bodies