Federal judge rules against parents seeking to protest transgender athletes with wristband
In September, the parents wore pink-colored "XX" wristbands during a high school soccer game where transgender athlete Parker Tirrell, now 16, was playing on an opposing team. The wristbands referenced the sex chromosomes associated with biological females.
The protest led to Bow and Dunbarton School Districts Superintendent Marcy Kelley issuing a notice of trespass against parents Anthony and Nicole Foote, along with Kyle Fellers and Eldon Rash, according to the New Hampshire Journal.
Trump Admin Executive Order Banning Transgender Participation In Women's Sports Just The Start, Expert Says
The parents then sued the school district, claiming their First Amendment rights were violated. While the no-trespass orders have since expired, they asked the judge to allow them to carry signs and wear the wristbands featuring the symbol for female chromosomes at school events while the case proceeds.
On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe, a President George H. W. Bush appointee, ruled that the district acted reasonably in its decision to prevent parents from protesting.
Read On The Fox News App
McAuliffe said the parents' "narrow, plausibly inoffensive" intentions were not as important as the wider context, and that adults attending a high school athletic event do not enjoy a First Amendment-protected right to convey messages that demean, harass or harm students.
"While plaintiffs may very well have never intended to communicate a demeaning or harassing message directed at Parker Tirrell or any other transgender students, the symbols and posters they displayed were fully capable of conveying such a message," he wrote. "And, that broader messaging is what the school authorities reasonably understood and appropriately tried to prevent."
"The broader and more demeaning/harassing message the School District understood plaintiffs' 'XX' symbols to convey was, in context, entirely reasonable," wrote McAuliffe.
United Nations Hold Panel On Fighting Violence Against Women And Girls In Sports
Fellers and Foote testified that they had not intended to harass or otherwise target a transgender player on the opposing team, but the school district said differently. The group of parents had also not protested at any previous game.
In the days leading up to the game, another parent told school officials that she had overheard others talk about showing up to the game wearing dresses and heckling the transgender player.
"When we suspect there's some sort of threat . . . we don't wait for it to happen," Kelley said previously.
In February, the parents asked the court to rule that they be allowed to wear pink wristbands at the spring games to protest transgender athletes competing in girls' sports. Their request for a preliminary injection was denied, and the court has yet to rule on the request to wear the pink wristbands at all school sporting events, per the Concord Monitor.
Del Kolde, a senior attorney for the Institute for Free Speech and one of the attorneys representing the parents, said he strongly disagrees with the court's opinion issued denying their request for a preliminary injunction.
"This was adult speech in a limited public forum, which enjoys greater First Amendment protection than student speech in the classroom," Kolde said in a statement to the outlet. "Bow School District officials were obviously discriminating based on viewpoint because they perceived the XX wristbands to be 'trans-exclusionary'."
After the ruling was issued, the plaintiffs filed a notice saying they do not intend to enter more evidence before the judge makes a final decision.
The decision comes just weeks after President Donald Trump signed an executive order intended to ban transgender athletes from participating in girls' and women's sports.
Fox News' Ryan Morik, Paulina Dedaj, Landon Mion, Jackson Thompson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.Original article source: Federal judge rules against parents seeking to protest transgender athletes with wristband
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Candace Owens responds to defamation lawsuit filed by French president, first lady
Candace Owens, a right-wing podcast host, is responding to the defamation lawsuit filed against her by French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, over the media figure's claims that the French first lady is male. The Macrons said in a lawsuit filed in Delaware Superior Court on July 23 that Owens has waged a "campaign of global humiliation" and engaged in "relentless bullying" against the 72-year-old Brigitte to "promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money." The 219-page lawsuit details dozens of the podcaster's claims made over several months, and includes corresponding photographs, screenshots and archived newspaper clippings. Owens responded to the lawsuit in her July 24 episode of her eponymous podcast "Candace," spending more than 30 minutes criticizing the legal action, the Macrons and doubling down on her claims. "I think you're sick," Owens said, addressing France's first couple. "I think you're disgusting, and I am fully prepared to take on this battle." The Macrons are suing Owens, her media company and the company that runs her website for 22 counts of defamation and defamation-related claims, seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. They are represented by Clare Locke and Farnan LLP, well-known firms specializing in high-profile defamation cases, who helped win a $790 million defamation lawsuit against Fox News brought by Dominion Voting Systems in 2023. Owens has been repeating false claims over the first lady's identity for more than a year, the lawsuit alleges, starting in March 2024 when the podcaster stated she stakes her "entire professional reputation" that Brigitte Macron "is in fact a man.' In January, Owens released the first episode in an eight-part podcast series entitled, "Becoming Brigitte," in which the lawsuit says she presented various "outlandish, defamatory, and far-fetched fictions." The filing says they include allegations by Owens that Brigitte was born a man and stole someone's identity, that Brigitte and Emmanuel Macron are blood relatives and that they have committed "forgery, fraud and abuses of power to conceal these secrets." More: French president sues Candace Owens over claim about wife Brigitte The filing alleges that Owens ignored the Macrons' requests to retract the allegations. "Owens has dissected their appearance, their marriage, their friends, their family, and their personal history — twisting it all into a grotesque narrative designed to inflame and degrade," the complaint said. In a statement, a spokesperson for Owens said the filing represented a "foreign government attacking the First Amendment rights of an American independent journalist." Owens has attracted criticism for years over her commentaries on a range of topics, with a history of spreading antisemitic rhetoric, including Holocaust denial and revisionism. She was suspended from YouTube for a week in September after videos of several of her interviews were deemed as hate speech by the Google subsidiary. In the following two months, authorities in New Zealand and Australia rejected her visas to visit the countries ahead of her speaking tour in February and March 2025. Local media reported Australian Immigration Minister Tony Burke mentioned her rhetoric "downplaying the impact of the Holocaust with comments about (German SS officer Josef) Mengele through to claims that Muslims started slavery," as reasons for her visa denial. Wednesday's lawsuit is a rare case of a world leader suing for defamation. To prevail in U.S. defamation cases, public figures like the Macrons must show defendants engaged in "actual malice," meaning they knew what they published was false or had reckless disregard for its truth. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Candace Owens responds to French president's lawsuit Solve the daily Crossword
Chicago Tribune
6 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Jonathan Zimmerman: Why higher education needs diversity in viewpoints
At a court hearing in Boston on Monday, Harvard University charged the Donald Trump administration with violating the university's free speech rights. The White House had threatened to cut Harvard's funding unless the school took action to insure 'viewpoint diversity' in its different departments. You can't have a free university — or a free country — if the government is telling you which viewpoints you need to enhance or suppress, Harvard argued. As one of its lawyers told the court, that's a 'blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment.' He's right, and I hope the court agrees. But I also hope that Harvard — and the rest of higher education — uses this moment to broaden viewpoint diversity, especially in our classrooms. The White House shouldn't force it upon us, which is clearly unconstitutional. Instead, we should widen it ourselves. That's because our first duty is to open students' minds. And that won't happen if we're closing them off to different ways of seeing the world. In a recent study of 27 million college syllabuses collected by the Open Syllabus Project, scholars at Claremont McKenna College showed that professors rarely assign readings that take contrasting perspectives. For example, classes requiring Michelle Alexander's influential book 'The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarcertation in the Age of Colorblindness' — which blames white racism for the war on drugs — almost never assign texts by authors such as Michael Fortner, who claims that African Americans were a key constituency pressing for draconian drug laws. Likewise, professors who assign Palestinian scholar Edward Said's 'Orientalism' — which connects Zionism to Western ideas of cultural superiority — rarely pair it with 'Occidentalism,' by Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit, who argue that the West is caricatured by intellectuals around the world. The point here isn't that that Alexander and Said are wrong and their critics are right. It's that our students won't learn — or learn well — if we expose them to just one or the other. And they certainly won't learn if our universities fail to protect faculty members who dissent from the conventional wisdom. That sends the message that there's one way to think, which is the enemy of real education in all times and places. Between 2000 and 2022, universities sanctioned nearly 1,080 professors for speech that is 'protected by the First Amendment,' according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. And since the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023, 40 professors have been investigated by universities for pro-Palestinian speech, and nine have been fired. That's our own fault. As Harvard told the court on Monday, the government shouldn't be telling us which professors to hire and fire based on its perception of their viewpoints. But nor should universities judge people according to their politics. All that should matter is the quality of their research and teaching. Alas, we haven't always adhered to that principle. At Harvard, for example, the prominent biologist Carole Hooven became a campus pariah in 2021 after she told Fox News that gender could take any number of forms, but there were just two biological sexes: male and female. The director of her department's diversity and inclusion task force denounced Hooven's 'transphobic and harmful' comments. Graduate students refused to serve as teaching assistants for her popular course about hormones. And nobody atop Harvard's administration spoke up for Hooven, who suffered severe mental health challenges and eventually resigned. The issue came up in the fateful 2023 congressional testimony of Harvard President Claudine Gay, who was asked why 'a call for violence against Jews' is 'protected speech' but saying that 'sex is biological' isn't. Gay, who stepped down a few weeks later, replied that Harvard supports 'constructive dialogue, even on the most complex and divisive issues.' Please. The meaning of sex is a hugely complex and divisive issue, but the university didn't support Hooven's efforts to dialogue constructively about it. Instead, it hung her out to dry. If you're the kind of professor who is outraged by the dismissal of pro-Palestinian scholars, you need to speak up for people like Hooven. Otherwise, you don't really believe in free speech; you just want freedom for the speech you like. And you're also echoing the Trump administration, which doesn't want real dialogue either. In a social media post following Monday's court hearing, the president called Harvard 'anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America.' He has a right to his opinion, of course. But he has no right — none — to impose it on anyone else. As Harvard argued in its court filing, the First Amendment doesn't allow the government to 'advance its own vision of ideological balance.' Nor should it penalize us for expressing views that the president doesn't share. But we owe it to our students to advance viewpoint diversity on our own, no matter what the court rules. Anything less will imitate Trump, all in the guise of resisting him.
Engadget
13 hours ago
- Engadget
FCC approves Skydance's $8 billion Paramount acquisition
Regulators won't stand in the way of Skydance's Paramount acquisition. The Federal Communications Commission has approved the $8 billion purchase of Paramount Global and its subsidiaries, including the parent company of CBS Network. In a statement, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said he welcomes "Skydance's commitment to make significant changes at the once storied CBS broadcast network." Skydance, he said, has made written commitments to ensure that its "news and entertainment programming will embody a diversity of viewpoints across the political and ideological spectrum." He also said that Skydance has "committed that it will not establish" DEI programs. "Americans no longer trust the legacy national news media to report fully, accurately, and fairly. It is time for a commitments, if implemented, would enable CBS to operate in the public interest and focus on fair, unbiased, and fact-based coverage. Doing so would begin the process of earning back Americans' trust. Today's decision also marks another step forward in the FCC's efforts to eliminate invidious forms of DEI discrimination," part of Carr's statement reads. FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez, however, issued a statement saying she cannot support the deal "in light of the payout and other troubling concessions Paramount made to settle a baseless lawsuit." In early July, Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle the lawsuit Donald Trump filed over a CBS interview with Kamala Harris during the 2020 presidential campaign. His lawyers accused the network of editing her answers to "confuse, deceive and mislead the public." Legal experts said at the time that Paramount may have settled to ensure that there are no obstacles for the merger's approval. When news about the acquisition first came out, the company said that it plans to rebuild its streaming technology while reducing costs under its new CEO David Ellison. Paramount, after all, invested billions into its streaming service Paramount+, and it had yet to turn a profit. The company said that it was allocating the $16 million to Trump's future presidential library and not paying him "directly or indirectly." "In an unprecedented move, this once-independent FCC used its vast power to pressure Paramount to broker a private legal settlement and further erode press freedom," Gomez said in her statement. "Once again, the agency is undermining legitimate efforts to combat discrimination and expand opportunity by overstepping its authority and intervening in employment matters reserved for other government entities with proper jurisdiction on these issues. Even more alarming, it is now imposing never-before-seen controls over newsroom decisions and editorial judgment, in direct violation of the First Amendment and the law." She added: "The Paramount payout and this reckless approval have emboldened those who believe the government can — and should — abuse its power to extract financial and ideological concessions, demand favored treatment, and secure positive media coverage. It is a dark chapter in a long and growing record of abuse that threatens press freedom in this country. But such violations endure only when institutions choose capitulation over courage. It is time for companies, journalists, and citizens alike to stand up and speak out, because unchecked and unquestioned power has no rightful place in America."
