Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Daily Caller

Freedom Of Speech Versus Preferred Pronouns? It May Go To The Supreme Court

Published

7 minute read

 

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 policiesparental rightsreligious 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.

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

Daily Caller

Biden’s Dumb LNG Pause Has Rightfully Met Its End

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum held a joint appearance in south Louisiana Thursday to tout the restart of the growth of America’s liquefied natural gas(LNG) industry.

The event celebrated the kickoff of a planned $18 billion expansion of the existing Plaquemines Parrish LNG export facility operated by Venture Global. It also served to symbolize the end of what was frankly one of the dumbest policy actions ever invoked by executive order – then-President Joe Biden’s “pause” on permitting for new LNG export infrastructure.

Reversed by President Donald Trump on day 1 of his second term in office, Biden invoked the year-long pause in January 2024 on the flimsiest of pretenses, a preposterous claim by anti-natural gas activist researchers that US LNG emissions exceed those of coal-fired power plants. Worse, that claim was not made in findings of a peer-reviewed scientific study, but in an early “preview” of a study that fell apart on close inspection.

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!

The unpleasant task of defending this dumb policy action fell largely on the shoulders of Biden’s hapless Energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm, who assured the attendees of the annual CERAWeek conference in Houston in March 2024 that the “pause” would be “in the rearview mirror” when they met again in 2025. That prediction turned out to be accurate, but not due to any action taken by her or Biden. Instead, Granholm did her best to hype the Department of Energy’s(DOE) own study when it was released in November, making claims about its findings in a letter leaked to The New York Times the day before that turned out to not be accurate.

Even more concerning, Democrat nominee Kamala Harris consistently supported the pause and concerns increased throughout the campaign that, if elected, she would most likely move to turn the pause into permanent policy, thus ending America’s dominant position in the global LNG export business. But voters had different ideas, choosing instead to elect Trump for a second time in November, bringing his plans for American Energy Dominance along with him.

Burgum, who chairs Trump’s newly-created American Energy Dominance Council in which Wright also participates, told workers and executives assembled for Thursday’s event that, “One of our pathways to energy dominance is just unleashing the incredible resources that we have in this country: getting the red tape, getting the federal government off the back of the worker, off the back of companies.”

In an interview from the Venture Global site with Will Cain on Fox News, Wright, pointing to an LNG tanker behind him, said, In less than 24 hours it’ll be loaded and sailing back to Germany; 100,000 homes in Europe can be heated and supplied with gas for a full year just in that one tanker behind us. This is unleashing American energy to the benefit of Americans and to the benefit of our friends and allies abroad. This is the way to peace.”

And so, Biden’s absurd pause comes to a richly-deserved end. Again, this entire fake controversy had zero basis in fact or real science. That’s how close America came to losing what has been one of its major growth industries of the last decade.

It is almost unimaginable that this could have happened in the United States of America, with its supposed system of checks and balances. But, as Elon Musk’s DOGE operation is revealing on a daily basis, so much of Biden’s administration appears to have been built on a foundation of a complex web of scams and money laundering schemes, with his energy and climate policies playing a leading role. This LNG pause episode almost pales in comparison to some of the multi-billion-dollar grants handed out by both DOE and the EPA in the administration’s final months.

But it’s all in Granholm’s imagined rearview mirror now, as is Granholm herself. America’s LNG industry is back, poised for rapid expansion and ready to resume its place as the dominant player in the global market.

Elections do matter.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Business

US Treasury Secretary Says Tariffs Will Go Up For Any Leader Acting Like ‘Numbskull’ Justin Trudeau

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Harold Hutchison

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox Business host Larry Kudlow Thursday that world leaders emulating “a numbskull” like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau could see higher tariffs from the United States.

President Donald Trump announced Monday that new tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China would go into effect, citing “vast amounts of fentanyl” pouring into the United States. After noting Trudeau’s defiant response, which included retaliatory tariffs, Bessent, during the interview by Kudlow at the Economic Club of New York, urged world leaders to negotiate.

“As President Trump has said many times, ‘tariff’ is his favorite word. I would say the ‘reciprocal’ is probably his second favorite word. And I think we have to be open to the idea. If you want to be a numbskull like Justin Trudeau and say, ‘Oh, we’re going to do this,’ then it’s going to — tariffs are going to go up,” Bessent told Kudlow. “But if you want to sit back, have a discussion with the Commerce Department, USTR, they all have my phone number too. I am happy to have a discussion with our foreign counterparts, that says that, ‘Here’s what we think you are doing.’ And the tariffs are the actual easy part. Because we know India does this on U.S. motorcycles. Germany does this on — or EU does this on American cars. That’s a quantitative number.”

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!

WATCH:

Trump delayed the imposition of the tariffs on Mexico following a conversation with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, thanking her for her “hard work.” Bessent said tariffs were not the only barriers American products faced.

“But, also, what are non-tariff barriers? Apple cannot sell the new iPhone 16 because of local content laws in Indonesia. Are — are you manipulating your currency? Are you suppressing the value of that? Are you unfairly subsidizing select industries either via bank lending or suppressing labor markets?” Bessent asked.

Bessent also noted fines that the European Union was imposing or threatening to impose on American tech companies like AppleGoogle and X, formerly known as Twitter.

“Something that’s come to our attention recently, the EU is putting these gigantic fines on our U.S. tech companies, and that’s a form of — that’s a non-tariff barrier too,” Bessent told Kudlow. “So we’re going to look at that and then talk about what could happen on a reciprocal basis. It’s going to be — much of that will come out April 2. And we will then — it’s going to be path-dependent based on our trading partners and there will be a discussion. When Prime Minister Keir Starmer and team U.K. were in the White House on Thursday, we had a very good discussion about getting — going on all of this and more.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X