The Patriots

By: Trevor Schakohl, Daily Caller, on September 17, 2022

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals preserved Texas state law Friday that would stop large social media platforms from restricting particular opinions.

Texas’ HB 20 was signed last year and generally prohibits platforms with over 50 million monthly U.S. users from censoring them based on their viewpoints. The Computer Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and the NetChoice organization, representing social media companies, argued that aspects of the law were unconstitutional but failed to convince the court.

“In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment,” the court’s majority decision said. “That Amendment, of course, protects every person’s right to ‘the freedom of speech.’ But the platforms argue that buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.”

The appeals court must give the district court that previously decided the case written instructions for the law to become effective, according to Politico. A 5-4 May U.S. Supreme Court ruling had halted the law from going into force after an emergency request by the CCIA and NetChoice.

Appealing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton celebrated the circuit court’s decision Friday, tweeting, “#BigTech CANNOT censor the political voices of ANY Texan! The 5th Circuit ‘reject[s] the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.”

CCIA President Matt Schruers decried the ruling, stating, “Forcing private companies to give equal treatment to all viewpoints on their platforms places foreign propaganda and extremism on equal footing with decent Internet users, and places Americans at risk,” according to The Hill.

The Supreme Court could still be asked to directly consider the law’s validity, the outlet reported.

In May, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a block on enforcing parts of Florida Senate Bill 7072, which would require social media platforms to explain the reasons for individual acts of supposed censorship, deplatforming and shadow banning and stop them from censoring a “journalistic enterprise based on the content of its publication or broadcast,” according to The National Law Review.

“We are disappointed that the Fifth Circuit’s split decision undermines First Amendment protections and creates a circuit split with the unanimous decision of the Eleventh Circuit,” NetChoice Vice President and General Counsel Carl Szabo said in a Friday press release. “We remain convinced that when the U.S. Supreme Court hears one of our cases, it will uphold the First Amendment rights of websites, platforms, and apps.”

Source:  https://gellerreport.com/2022/09/federal-court-against-big-tech.html/?lctg=148053577

2nd AmendmentPoliticsDemocrat Gun ControlGood Guy With a GunHighland ParkJuly 4th

Read more

by Michael Gryboski

An Indiana court has dismissed a lawsuit filed against a Roman Catholic Archdiocese by a former private school teacher who was fired for being in a same-sex marriage.

Marion Superior Court Judge Lance D. Hamner issued an order Friday in favor of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis’ motion to dismiss a lawsuit by former teacher Joshua Payne-Elliot.

According to the order, the court concluded that there was a “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” and “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, a law firm that represented the archdiocese, released a statement Friday expressing support for the order.

“If the First Amendment means anything, it means the government can’t punish the Catholic Church for asking Catholic educators to support Catholic teaching,” Goodrich said.

“This has always been a very simple case, because the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the freedom of religious schools to choose teachers who support their religious faith.”

Kathleen DeLaney, the attorney representing Payne-Elliott, told the Indianapolis Star that she took issue with the order, especially its explanation for the complaint's dismissal.

“The decision itself offers no reason, no rationale, no basis,” DeLaney said. “We have no way to know how the judge got to the decision.”

In June 2019, Payne-Elliot was fired from Cathedral High School after it was revealed that he had married another teacher of the same sex who worked at a different high school.

The firing reportedly came at the specific direction of the archdiocese, as the school had originally intended to renew his contract for the 2019-2020 school year.

Although Payne-Elliot reached a settlement with Cathedral High School soon after his firing, he filed legal action against the archdiocese, accusing it of forcing the school to dismiss him.

“We hope that this case will put a stop to the targeting of LGBTQ employees and their families,” said Payne-Elliot in a statement at the time, as reported by the Indianapolis Star.

A trial court had originally supported having the case go forward, however, the Indiana state Supreme Court intervened and told the lower court to reconsider the complaint.

In July 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that two Catholic schools could classify their teachers as ministers and not be held to the standards of anti-discrimination laws.

Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court, known as Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, which regarded two lawsuits against two Catholic schools in California.

“The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission,” Alito wrote.

“Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.”

Source:  https://www.christianpost.com/news/catholic-school-can-fire-teacher-for-being-in-same-sex-marriage-judge-rules.html

by Michael Gryboski

A federal judge has granted a temporary order in the case of a Kansas teacher suing her school district over policies requiring teachers to use the preferred names and pronouns of trans-identified students and hide those preferences from parents. 

U.S. District Judge Holly Teeter partially granted a preliminary injunction on behalf of Fort Riley Middle School teacher Pamela Ricard preventing Geary County Schools Unified School District 475 from disciplining her for not referring to a student’s preferred name and pronouns in her communications with a trans-identified student’s parents "within the regular course of her duties."

The injunction lasts until next Wednesday or “at the conclusion of Plaintiff’s contractual responsibilities to the District, whichever is later." The court stated that the motion was issued in light of the fact that the teacher doesn't plan to communicate with a parent to disclose a student’s preferred name and pronouns.

Ricard sued Geary County Schools Unified School District 475 after being suspended in April 2021 for three days and given a reprimand because she called a biologically female student by her legal name and used female pronouns.

Ricard's lawsuit names school district board members, Superintendent Reginald Eggleston and Fort Riley Principal Kathleen Brennan.

Teeter, a Trump appointee, found that Ricard "is likely to succeed on her free exercise claim for the Communication with Parent Policy" but denied a preliminary injunction to Ricard's claims against the school district policy requiring teachers to use preferred names and pronouns in class. 

Teeter concluded that Ricard could still be punished under the Communication with Parents Policy, which “prohibits employees from revealing to parents that a student has requested use of a preferred name or different set of pronouns at school” except under certain circumstances.

She wrote that while both parties reached a "détente" regarding the Preferred Names and Pronouns Policy, they are "very much at odds over the Communication with Parents Policy and the potential for disciplinary action should Plaintiff violate it." The policy prohibits employees from revealing to parents that a student has requested use of a preferred name or different set of pronouns at school “unless the student requests the administration or a counselor to do so, per Federal FERPA guidance.”

“Defendants are ENJOINED from disciplining Plaintiff for referring to a student by the student’s preferred name and pronouns in her communications with the student’s parents within the regular course of her duties,” ruled Teeter.

“The Court relies on Plaintiff’s statements that she does not intend to communicate with a parent for the sole purpose of disclosing a student’s preferred name and pronouns.”

Ricard is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal nonprofit based in Arizona that has argued several high-profile religious liberty cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer said in a statement Tuesday that he believes the government cannot “force someone to speak contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs and convictions.”[NOTE to Parents:Take your heads out of the sand and LOOK at what public education is making YOU pay for.. why keep your kid in that kind of environmentl? - ED]

“Pam has a distinguished teaching career and treats all her students with dignity and respect," the attorney said. "We’re pleased the court has freed her to exercise her constitutionally protected freedom to teach and communicate honestly with parents while this case moves forward."

The lawsuit claims that neither the school district nor the school had a "formal policy" in place dictating that teachers use the preferred name and pronouns at the time Ricard was suspended. 

“Instead, Ms. Ricard was suspended and reprimanded under generic school district policies related to Bullying by Staff; Diversity and Inclusion; and Staff-Student Relations prohibiting ‘harassment’ and ‘bullying’ of students by staff," the complaint claims. [Oh, Bullshit! ! This is nothing but LGBTQ propaganda aimed at compromising your child's social beliefs and leading them down the wrong path in life. THIS is indoctrination NOT education. - ED]

Will Rapp of the Kansas chapter of the LGBT advocacy group GLSEN believes that not affirming the gender identity of trans-identified children is harmful to trans-identified youth. [How stupid is this? Simple gender dysphoria is NOT a life changinne experience. Most kids will out gwow it. if left alone. -ED]

“This incident isn’t an isolated issue," Rapp told CNN. "According to GLSEN research, more than 40% of transgender students in Kansas report being unable to use their chosen name and correct pronouns in school."

Rapp also argues that educators “must be held accountable for creating a safe and affirming environment for all students, regardless of gender identity.”

The school district argued that a preliminary injunction would hinder its “obligations to protect young persons entrusted to its care." 

"The Court recognizes that the District is trying to create a stable learning environment for children. But the District fails to articulate any specific, concrete harms sufficient to outweigh Plaintiff’s weighty interest in preliminary relief," Teeter wrote. "Therefore, the balance of harms favors Plaintiff."