Columbus, Ohio – The Sixth American Appeal Court in Cincinnati will hear the arguments on Wednesday in a legal dispute that stimulates the policy of the Ohio School region in the suburbs that require the use of preferred pronouns for students against freedom of expression rights for classmates who believe that there are only two types of sexes.
The lawsuit filed by the fathers defending education, a Christian national organization, against the local schools area in Olentanjan in 2023, has acquired wide national attention from groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Manhattan Institute. Ohio’s general lawyer asked to participate in oral arguments on behalf of 22 US states with interests in the case.
The minimum court rejected the arguments of the group that violates students policies First amendment and Fourteenth modification The rights, and a committee of three judges for the sixth district, confirmed this decision in July.
The full court will review this decision in a rare hearing on Wednesday. This is what you need to know:
The lawsuit is exposed to the intertwined boycott policies that prohibit the use of language related to sex that other students may see an insult, inhuman, or desirable, or offensive and calls for the use of “clear preferred” for its peers.
The electronic devices policy in the region – which applies to both school and outside – prohibits the transfer of “sabotage” materials or materials that can be considered harassing or extracting other students based on their sexual identity or sexual inclinations, among other groups.
The policy of combating the separate discrimination for students is prevented from participating in a “discriminatory language” during the times when they are subject to the authority of the school. This is defined as “oral or written comments, jokes, and insulting gruces towards an individual or a group that depends on one or more of the following characteristics: race, color, national origin, sex (including sexual tendency and transgender identity), disability, age, religion, origin, or genetic information.”
The boycott code repeats many topics for the third time.
Parents defending education, which was established in 2021 amid the wars of culture on schools. Teachings on race, diversity and sexHe argues that policies compel students and parents who belong to their group to “confirm the idea that sex is liquid” in contradiction with their religious beliefs.
“These students have opinions that the boycott is distorted,” the group wrote in the court file. Specifically, they believe that people are either males or female
The group argues that the policies force the “point -based” discourse by force by forcing students who believe in only two sexes to use pronouns that indicate otherwise. They say that this violates the guarantees of the first amendment to freedom of expression and similar protection contained in the fourteenth amendment, especially since students are punished for violating policies.
Parents who defend education challenge the e -devices policy to apply for school hours and outside school property. The American Civil Liberties Union has stood up to the group of parents at this point, on the pretext that the boycott policies are Overbroad.
Olintianji’s local province outside Columbus, one of the largest regions of the state, maintains policies that protect students from abuse and harassment and confirms that parents who defend education represent “Christians, CISGENDER” who seek to dispense under the condition of freedom of amendment in the first amendment to harass other students based on their sexual identity. “
“They are not illegal immigrants to deport.” They are members of the majority who want – under the guise of the first amendment – express publicly their opposition to the group of the historically mixed minority group, transgender people. “
Olentangy argues that parents who defend education have failed to provide evidence of injury – as the lawsuit was filed before a disciplinary lawsuit against any student. The region also says that its policies leave other open options for students who do not want to use a person’s favorite pronouns. This includes contact with a person with his first name, using a neutral sexual conscience or simply not indicating it at all.
It played the availability of such options, an argument against policies that make non-constitutional students to say certain things, a role in the judgment of the Judges Committee 2-1 in favor of the province last summer.