
Censorship is no way to get people to respect transgender rights
There was good and bad news for transgender rights in the U.S. last week. The good news was that a transgender high school athlete won two events in a girls' state track meet. And the bad news was that the Supreme Court allowed a school to censor a student's expression of the belief that there are only two genders.
Suppressing ideas is never a good look in the U.S., whose Bill of Rights presupposes a freedom of speech that cannot be legislated away. And if we deny that freedom to anyone, then all of us — including transgender people — will lose.
Free speech was on full display at the California track-and-field championship in Clovis, Calif. Under a new rule promulgated by the state interscholastic federation, the girls who finished just behind transgender athlete AB Hernandez in the high jump and triple jump were elevated to share her medals.
That seemed just fine to Hernandez and also the other girls on the podium, who all exchanged high-fives and hugs. But it was not okay with protesters who gathered outside the stadium, chanting 'No boys in girls' sports.' Taylor Starling, a cross-country runner went on Fox News with her father to denounce 'guys that are taking away girls' awards, their medals, their spots.' Starling is part of a lawsuit alleging that she was demoted from her varsity track and field team when a transgender athlete took her spot. President Trump, meanwhile, threatened 'large scale fines' against California for allowing a 'Biological male' to compete the 'Girls State Finals.'
Hernandez's mother fired back, denouncing people 'in positions of power' for harassing her daughter. Hernandez also spoke up against her critics: 'I'm still a child, you're an adult, and for you to act like a child shows how you are as a person.' But as petty and small as it may be for Hernandez's detractors to malign her as a 'boy' or a 'male,' they have the right to say it — just as I have the right to call them out. That's called America.
Alas, that's also a memo that educators in Middleborough, Mass. seem to have missed. Earlier this spring, they sent home a seventh-grader for wearing a T-shirt declaring, 'There Are Only Two Genders' because 'other students had complained about the T-shirt and that it had 'made them upset.'' Then the student came back in a T-shirt that said, 'There are CENSORED Genders.' The school told him that wouldn't be allowed, either.
I'm sure the shirts did make some people upset, but I also imagine that some were upset by a student at the same school who wore a T-shirt that read, 'HE SHE THEY IT'S ALL OKAY.' Once we decide to censor upsetting speech, we won't be able to speak at all.
That's why the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker could wear a black armband to her Iowa middle school to protest America's war in Vietnam. Schools cannot suppress speech out of 'a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,' the court declared in Tinker v. Des Moines. The only justifiable reason for restricting speech was if it threatened 'material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline.'
Did the T-shirt saying there are only two genders pose that kind of danger? Of course not. But a federal trial judge ruled that the school could censor the student anyway, because he was threatening 'the rights of others' to attend school 'without being confronted by messages attacking their identities.'
So what would prevent a school from prohibiting the 'HE SHE THEY' shirt, on the grounds that it threatened the identities of devout Christians and Muslims? And couldn't a school also bar speech in support of AB Hernandez, whose critics might claim that their own gender identities were under fire?
In each case, the answer is yes. Nevertheless, an appeals court upheld the Massachusetts judge's decision. And last week, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on appeal.
In doing so, it turned its back on Tinker v. Des Moines and its ringing affirmation of freedom, which is fundamental to our shared identity as Americans.
'Any word spoken in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance,' the Tinker ruling acknowledged. 'But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom — this kind of openness — that is the basis of our national strength.'
In California, AB Hernandez demonstrated precisely that strength. But in Massachusetts, school officials closed off speech out of fear. That's a hazard to the freedom of everyone, no matter what they think about gender. And if you think otherwise, watch out. Someday soon, the censors may be coming for you.
Jonathan Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania and serves on the advisory board of the Albert Lepage Center for History in the Public Interest.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Argentina's high court upholds former President Kirchner's conviction
Argentina's Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (pictured in 2013) must serve her six-year prison sentence for a corruption conviction. File Photo by Stefano Spaziani/UPI | License Photo June 10 (UPI) -- Former Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner must serve her six-year prison sentence for a corruption conviction, the nation's Supreme Court of Justice ruled on Tuesday. The three-judge court unanimously upheld Kirchner's 2022 corruption conviction and ruled she is banned from holding public office. The conviction arises from how awards for 51 public works projects were issued in what became the "Vialidad" trial. Kirchner, 72, received due process, and the "rulings issued by the lower courts were based on extensive evidence assessed in accordance with the rules of sound judgment and the penal code enacted by Congress," the judges wrote in Tuesday's verdict. She had argued that the trial arose from political persecution because she is an influential leader of the opposition to current Argentine President Javier Milei and his government. Kirchner was Argentina's president from 2007 to 2015. She also was Argentina's vice president from 2019 to 2023. She is a popular leftist politician and recently announced she intended to run for a seat during the Sept. 7 Buenos Aires Province legislative elections. If she were to run and win, the victory would have given Kirchner immunity against imprisonment over the four-year term as a provincial lawmaker. The Supreme Court's decision against her makes it impossible for Kirchner to seek any public office. "The republic works," Milei said in a translated statement made during his visit to Israel. "All the corrupt journalists, accomplices of politicians, have been exposed in their operetta about the alleged pact of impunity," Milei said. The Federal Oral Court 2 in December 2022 found Kirchner guilty of corruption, sentenced her to prison and imposed a lifetime disqualification from holding public office due to "fraudulent administration to the detriment of the state." She was allowed to stay out of prison while the Supreme Court deliberated the case. Kirchner similarly was charged with fraud in 2016 and was convicted in February 2021, which made her Argentina's first vice president to be convicted of a crime while still in office. She was accused of and convicted of directing 51 public works contracts to a company owned by Kirchner's friend and business associate, Lazaro Baez. The scheme also directed $1 billion to Baez, who is serving a 12-year sentence for a money-laundering conviction in 2021 and was sentenced to another six years in prison for charges arising from the case that resulted inKirchner's conviction.


Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
ABC News correspondent out after post criticizing Stephen Miller
ABC News said it won't renew senior national correspondent Terry Moran, who was recently suspended after calling President Trump and top aide Stephen Miller"world-class" haters. Why it matters: The incident marks another flash point in the White House's fraught relationship with the press and quickly became a lightning rod for criticism from Trump administration officials. What they're saying:"We are at the end of our agreement with Terry Moran and based on his recent post – which was a clear violation of ABC News policies – we have made the decision to not renew," ABC News said in a statement to Axios. "At ABC News, we hold all of our reporters to the highest standards of objectivity, fairness and professionalism, and we remain committed to delivering straightforward, trusted journalism." Between the lines: Many newsrooms have guidelines that recommend news staff maintain a position of objectivity and discourage them from expressing opinions on social media platforms. Catch up quick: In a since-deleted post, Moran said Miller, who is White House deputy chief of staff for policy, "richly endowed with the capacity for hatred." Miller called Moran's post a "full public meltdown" and argued it showed how "privileged anchors and reporters narrating and gatekeeping our society have been radicals adopting a journalist's pose." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described Moran's rhetoric as "unacceptable and unhinged" on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures," saying " I think this speaks to the distrust that the American public have in the legacy media." Zoom out: The Trump administration has targeted traditional media companies in the form of regulatory scrutiny, reduced access or legal battles over funding.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Georgia Supreme Court rejects changes sought by Trump-aligned board ahead of 2024 election
Members of Georgia's State Election Board sit during a Sept. 23 meeting at the Georgia state capitol in Atlanta. Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder (file photo) The Georgia Supreme Court has permanently blocked four rules the State Election Board approved last fall, concluding Tuesday that members of the board exceeded their authority in attempting to implement rules that went beyond the scope of Georgia's election laws. A total of seven rules were approved by the Republican-led board ahead of the 2024 general election, with supporters claiming that the changes were necessary to ensure accuracy and restore public confidence in Georgia's election integrity. If enacted, the rules would have ordered poll workers to hand count all ballots cast on election day, made it easier for local election officials to delay certifying election results and required family members and caregivers to present a photo ID when dropping off absentee ballots on behalf of another voter, among other changes. Election officials and voting rights groups opposed the rules, arguing that last-minute changes could sow confusion and doubt into the election process, and that implementing the new rules would violate Georgia's election laws. Last October, the Georgia Republican Party and Republican National Committee filed an emergency motion urging the state Supreme Court to reinstate the rules ahead of the general election, but the court declined to expedite their appeal. In a 96-page opinion, Chief Justice Nels Peterson upheld most of the Fulton County Superior Court's ruling, declaring that the State Election Board 'can pass rules to implement and enforce the Election Code, but it cannot go beyond, change, or contradict' existing Georgia law. The October ruling from Judge Thomas A. Cox Jr. argued that the seven rules were 'illegal, unconstitutional and void,' and that the State Election Board had exceeded its authority by passing them. However, in a slight reversal of the lower court ruling, the state Supreme Court allowed a rule mandating video surveillance of ballot drop boxes to take effect, finding that the rule was consistent with current election laws. Two other rules that would have expanded mandatory poll-watching areas and required election workers to publicly post daily totals of early and absentee voters were sent back to the Fulton County Superior Court for further consideration. The State Election Board is tasked with writing rules to ensure that elections run smoothly and hearing complaints about alleged violations. The three most conservative members of the Republican-led board — Janice Johnston, former state Sen. Rick Jeffares and Janelle King — made national headlines last fall after approving seven election rules in spite of Attorney General Chris Carr's warnings that the changes likely would not stand up in court. Then-presidential candidate Donald Trump also praised King, Jeffares and Johnston during a campaign rally in Atlanta for supporting changes to election certification rules, calling them 'pit bulls' for 'victory.' State Election Board Chairman John Fervier did not respond to a request for comment on the Supreme Court's ruling. The ACLU of Georgia, which helped represent the plaintiffs, applauded Tuesday's ruling. 'This is a resounding affirmation of voters' rights,' said Theresa Lee, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Voting Rights Project. 'The court recognized what we've argued all along — that this rule was unlawful and entirely unnecessary. Today's decision safeguards not just the letter of Georgia election law, but the democratic principle that every vote must be counted accurately and without interference.' Eternal Vigilance Action, a conservative election advocacy organization that sued the State Election Board over the rule changes, also celebrated the ruling. 'This ruling makes clear: the legislative power belongs to the General Assembly, not executive agencies operating without proper constraints,' Eternal Vigilance Action founder and former Republican state Rep. Scot Turner said in a statement. As new election laws passed in 2024 begin to take effect, including a ban on the use of QR codes to tabulate ballots, the board will likely continue to draft rules to guide local election officials tasked with implementing the changes. However, this year the board is workshopping changes to the rulemaking process in the hopes of avoiding a repeat of the chaos that defined the 2024 election cycle. During a May meeting, state election board members discussed the possibility of forming a rules committee with election directors, legislators, Georgia residents, and election law attorneys. Rules would be vetted by the committee before being presented to the full board. Senior reporter Stanley Dunlap contributed to this report. s25a0362 SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE