Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[free speech]]>

State University Tells Students It’s Wrong to Say ‘Female’ or ‘America’

by Leave a Comment

If you want to speak inclusively, then exclude things you want to include in what you speak. So goes inclusivity.

So makes clear Michigan State University.

The East Lansing public land-grant research school boasts an annually-updaed language guide informing enrollees on which words should be sliced from their pie holes.

An introduction, from MSU.edu:

Michigan State University values communications practices that support belonging for all Spartans. In alignment with strategic efforts around diversity, equity and inclusion, the Inclusive Guide provides best practices for communications in gender and sexuality, race and ethnicity, global identity and disability.

The guide aligns with the MSU Editorial Style Guide and includes recommendations informing images, web content, speeches, events and more.

The Guide separates incision into categorical quarters:

  • Race and Ethnicity
  • Global Identity
  • Disability
  • Gender and Sexuality

Among the rejected racial references:

  • “African” or “Black slaves” removes agency and does not acknowledge the act of enslavement. Instead, use “enslaved Black people” or “enslaved African Americans.”
  • “Blacks,” “colored” or “Negro” are derogatory terms and should not be used.
  • Avoid referring to someone from an underrepresented group as “articulate,” as this can reinforce negative tropes.
  • “Minoritized” or “marginalized” can remove agency and reaffirm deficit language, avoid using unless in a quotation.

Tiptoe around pox-positioned primates:

  • Avoid reinforcing stereotypes around diseases and viruses that may impact members of a particular group and/or play into stereotypes, such as Monkeypox, which should only be used on first mention, e.g., “MPV – commonly referred to as Monkeypox.”

And if a nonwhite person is unprepared, don’t say so:

  • Terms like “at-risk” or “underprepared” blame the person rather than the structures and barriers that have neglected communities.

Dozens of disability-themed words are to be whacked:

  • Do not use “obsessive-compulsive disorder,” or “OCD,” “attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder”, or “ADHD,” “post-traumatic stress disorder,” or “PTSD,” or any other condition to describe undiagnosed behavior.
  • The term “substance abuse” is considered outdated and perpetuates shame and trauma. Instead, use “substance use” or “substance use disorder.”
  • Ableist language: “crazy,” “insane,” “bonkers,” “nuts,” “psycho,” “demented,” “senile,” “loony,” “lunatic,” “psychotic,” “addict,” “invalid,” “vegetable,” “paralyzed,” “lame,” “madhouse,” “tone-deaf,” “spazzing out,” “braindead” or “blindly.” When writing a DEI-related stance or inclusive messaging on sensitive topics, avoid metaphors that draw attention to specific disabilities such as, “the blind leading the blind.”

Out of international respect, don’t utter “America”:

  • American-centric or first-world language: “foreigner,” “alien,” “illegal immigrant,” “illegals,” “America” when referring to the United States (refers to North America, Central America and South America), “backward” or “third world.”

And fight terror with tenderness:

  • Avoid charged words and judgmental labels to describe religions and religious communities such as “extremist,” “militant,” “terrorist,” “radical,” “fundamentalist,” “cult”, “sect,” “devout” and “pious.”

Where sex is concerned, MSU is dropping science — don’t call a woman a “female.”

Purge your patriarchal pejoratives:

  • Avoid the term “female” as a noun for women. The pejorative term reduces women to their assumed biological anatomy.
  • Avoid the term “nickname,” which implies that a person’s name is a substitute for their legal name.
  • “Homosexual.” Use “gay” or “lesbian.”
  • “Closeted.” Use “not out.”
  • Instead of “women’s/men’s restroom”, use “restroom” or “all-gender,” ”family” or ”single-occupant restroom.”
  • Use inclusive terms, such as “chair,” “spokesperson,” “parents,” “siblings,” “relative,” “family,” “companion,” “significant other,” etc.

These are the days of tamed tongues. In the past, people more or less spoke their minds — in fact, such was a virtue in secondary-ed circles. But now, institutions are extracting words from our mouths and inserting syllables preferred by the Powers That Be.

See the nation’s new sensibilities:

Don’t ‘Jump the Gun’: New Speech Guide Orders You to Ax Your ‘Violent Language’

Host of School’s Free Speech Event Issues Language Guide Prohibiting ‘Man,’ ‘Woman,’ and ‘Mother’

University’s ‘Non-Sexist’ Language Guide Insists No One is Rightly a ‘Maintenance Man’

University Directs Students to ‘Practice With Pronouns,’ and It Highlights Our Stunning Sophistication

The Associated Press Says It’s ‘Dehumanizing’ to Use ‘the’ in Descriptions — Such as ‘the French’

Utah Public University’s ‘Inclusive Style Guide’ Forbids Students to Say ‘Biologically Male/Female’

Back to Michigan State University, the school is improving America this place where we live in myriad ways:

Perhaps MSU’s most notable language rule relates to holidays we’ve historically heralded. Not long ago, films presented as creeps those who crusaded against Christmas. But thanks to modern academia, villains have been revamped:

In winter and spring, avoid references to majority religious imagery and language, such as the word “merry” or “Christmas trees,” “wreaths,” “holly,” “bells,” “gifts,” “reindeer,” “bunnies,” “eggs” and “chicks.” Use terms like “wishing you a wonderful winter/spring break” or “best wishes for the new year.”

The Guide calls for quite a communication Control+Alt+Delete. But for those psyched to sound college-educated, perhaps the expression overhaul is well worth it.

For the older among you: You may have once mastered university-level English, but now’s your chance to learn how to speak Woke.

-ALEX

See more content from me:

NYC Teachers Union Trains Educators in ‘Resistance Against the Harmful Effects of Whiteness’

Potpourri in Our Pants: University Hosts a ‘Genital Diversity Gallery’

Engineering Wokeness: Elite University Schools STEM Students in Anti-Oppression and Black Feminism

Find all my RedState work here.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.

Trending on RedState Video

Stanford Law Dean Defends Free Speech, Suspends ‘Woke’ DEI Administrator Who Led Disruption of Guest Speaker

by Leave a Comment

A Stanford dean has been placed on administrative leave after she participated in interrupting a prominent guest speaker and lectured him on progressive gender ideology in front of the audience that came to see him.

Recently at Stanford University Law School, Kyle Duncan, a Trump-appointed federal judge, was fulfilling an invitation from the school’s Federalist Society when a group of student protesters interrupted his speech, shouting over him and refusing to let him continue. They claimed Duncan was transphobic and homophobic, based on past decisions in which he refused to grant transgender status to convicted male sex offenders.

Duncan was appointed by Donald Trump. And Duncan isn’t bowing to the demands of the pronoun police. In one case, he refused to bend a knee to the transgender mob. Norman Varner is a sex offender and a thug. He was convicted in a child pornography case in 2012, which followed a long history of sex offender offenses. Varner was sentenced to 15 years. At some point in his incarceration, Varner claimed he was a woman and his name was “Kathy Jett”. Varner wanted his court records to reflect that he was now a woman. Varner demanded that all court documents be changed to refer to him as Kathy Jett, not his dead name. “Jett” also demanded that his pronouns be “she/her”.

Duncan wasn’t having it. In a majority opinion, Duncan said the record was clear and would remain unchanged with “Norman Varner” as the convicted sex offender.

Duncan tried to appeal to the dean on site, Tirien Steinbach, to quell the protesters and allow him to continue his speech. Instead of aiding him, the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion dean lectured him for nearly ten minutes, accusing him of transphobia and saying he “literally denies the humanity of people.”

Stanford administrators apologized to Duncan for the disruption, and on Wednesday, Stanford Law Dean Jenny Martinez announced Steinbach had been place on administrative leave. In a ten-page letter, Martinez explained the importance of free speech on a law campus and reiterated that she would not be rescinding the original apology to Duncan.

As we consider the role of respectful treatment of members of our community, I want to be clear that the hate mail and appalling invective that have been directed at some of our students and law school administrators in the wake of March 9 are of great concern to me. All actionable threats that come to our attention will be investigated and addressed as the law permits. In the message below, I respond below to many of the questions I continue to receive about why I apologized to Judge Duncan, why I stand by that apology, and why the protest violated the university’s policy on disruption. I articulate how I believe our commitment to diversity and inclusion means that we must protect the expression of all views. And, I outline some of the steps the school will be taking in the wake of this incident, including the adoption of clearer protocols for managing disruptions and educational programming on free speech and norms of the legal profession.

She went on to explain that law school students in particular need to understand the importance of making an argument versus shouting down undesirable opinions or guests, adding it isn’t the school’s job to take “institutional positions” on current events.

At the same time, I want to set expectations clearly going forward: our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion is not going to take the form of having the school administration announce institutional positions on a wide range of current social and political issues, make frequent institutional statements about current news events, or exclude or condemn speakers who hold views on social and political issues with whom some or even many in our community disagree. I believe that focus on these types of actions as the hallmark of an “inclusive” environment can lead to creating and enforcing an institutional orthodoxy that is not only at odds with our core commitment to academic freedom, but also that would create an echo chamber that ill prepares students to go out into and act as effective advocates in a society that disagrees about many important issues. Some students might feel that some points should not be up for argument and therefore that they should not bear the responsibility of arguing them (or even hearing arguments about them), but however appealing that position might be in some other context, it is incompatible with the training that must be delivered in a law school. Law students are entering a profession in which their job is to make arguments on behalf of clients whose very lives may depend on their professional skill. Just as doctors in training must learn to face suffering and death and respond in their professional role, lawyers in training must learn to confront injustice or views they don’t agree with and respond as attorneys. Law is a mediating device for difference.

Martinez says the school will commit to educating deans and administrative staff further on their free speech and protest policies.

It was a rare moment of sanity in an increasingly insane higher education environment. However, it may have been based on a little more than free speech, although Martinez’ letter was quite clear about the school’s commitment to open dialogue.

Stanford is a prestigious school. One way a school keeps their status is by placing students in coveted internships and jobs post-graduation. For law students in particular, finding placements as clerks in judicial offices is an important start to a thriving law career. There have been rumors that some judges are beginning to pass over candidates coming out of hyper-progressive (woke) law programs, and in corporate America recruiters are looking at small things like the announcement of pronouns as clues to how cooperative and open to learning a young employee may be.

If Stanford wants to hold on to their status as a prestigious school of law, they have to be able to place their students in prime jobs. If their student body becomes known for being disruptive, uncooperative and rude, they will see a decline in the availability of those prime jobs.

Martinez is right to stand up for speech, but it is an equally intelligent move to work to preserve the integrity of Stanford graduates for future placements.

The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.

Trending on RedState Video

Sometimes, Stand and Fight

by Leave a Comment

Eric A. Sell is Associate Counsel and the Shillman Legal Fellow at the Center for American Liberty, a non-profit law firm dedicated to preserving free speech and civil liberties.

The recent debacle at Stanford Law School involving a federal judge and an angry crowd of students sparked a brushfire of debate and commentary throughout the legal community. Sadly, the reaction from many is more evidence that the state of free speech at American law schools is only getting worse.

For those unaware, dozens of sign-waving protesters heckled and shouted down Fifth Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan while he was speaking on campus to the local student chapter of the Federalist Society. Protesters accused him of heinous acts like beating his wife, killing people, and expressing a “hope that [his] daughters get raped.” Yet, despite the vile nature of the insults lobbed at the judge, many liberal legal luminaries were quick to paint him as the villain of the story.

Calling these opinions absurd is perhaps a bit too charitable. Videos of the event show a packed room of student protesters holding signs with crude messages on them, relentlessly hurling invectives at Duncan throughout his remarks. The protesters’ objections touched on things like preferred pronouns for transgender inmates and voting rights for minorities. The insults lacked both accuracy and nuance and many of the protesters didn’t seem to care what the judge had to say in his defense.

Throughout the tirade, several Stanford Law School administrators in the audience sat quietly by and allowed the crowd to air their grievances. This of course meant Duncan’s speech could not proceed as planned. The students were in plain violation of the university’s anti-disruption policy, yet these administrators did nothing.

Eventually, the associate dean for Diversity Equity and Inclusion, Tirien Steinbach, took the podium from Judge Duncan to address the crowd. During her minutes-long interlude into the event, Dean Steinbach unloaded her own personal enmity onto Judge Duncan (via a prepared speech), criticizing him for “harming” students by “denying [their] humanity.”

While Steinbach informed the protesters that disruption violated school policy and that Duncan had the right to speak, she also made clear that she welcomed the chaos that unfolded. She even questioned whether the “juice” of inviting Duncan to Stanford “was worth the squeeze” of students’ hurt feelings. This speech had a tone similar to an email Steinbach sent to the student body the night before the event, which read more like a call to arms than a request for proper decorum.

Yet, after all of this, some insist that Judge Duncan is the bad guy. The reason: He had the temerity to stand up to the mob. Duncan engaged with the protesters, pushing back on what he viewed as inaccurate or misleading characterizations of his work on the bench, using pointed language to defend himself.

The main argument from Duncan’s critics is that his reaction to the protest was not befitting of a federal judge. Basically, the words he used in describing the crowd’s conduct were too on the nose. Some even argue Duncan welcomed the protest for his own political gain. The whataboutism is striking.

Yes, Duncan’s reaction wasn’t what we usually hear from a federal judge. But it was human, nonetheless. He adopted a defensive posture in the face of a volatile crowd bent on insulting and demeaning him. To fault the judge for this is Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.

Judge Duncan could have sat in silence and let the crowd insult him and his family. Or he could have gotten up and left the event. But either would have been a victory for the mob, which Judge Duncan was right to deprive them of by staying and engaging.

And while it’s unfortunate that a federal judge had to endure the wrath of immature law students, the Stanford Federalist Society and its members are the real victims here. The students who wanted a productive and insightful conversation with a respected and influential member of their profession were deprived of this opportunity by an angry group of their peers who think using crude language and insults is a powerful form of persuasion. By standing up to a petulant crowd, Judge Duncan stood up for the students who invited him to speak. Staying silent or walking away would have been a disservice to them.

Robust and open debate on campus—particularly at a law school with a reputation like Stanford’s—is something any tolerant society should promote and preserve. Shouting down those we disagree with doesn’t advance this goal. Winning them over with persuasive arguments does. Perhaps not all of the protesters sought to silence the judge. But for many, this was clearly their only goal.

If Judge Duncan hadn’t stood up for himself, and for the Stanford Federalist Society, the censorship mob would have won. For the sake of free expression and open debate on campus, we should all be thankful he did.

The opinions expressed in guest op-eds are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.

Trending on RedState Video

Fifteen Days to Slow Free Speech

by Leave a Comment

Fifteen days to slow the spread!

A phrase that shall live on in infamy. Three years ago this week the U.S. joined the entire planet in shutting down pretty much all of society as a virus spread from China across the globe. In those early days not much was known. We were already in the chaos of an election season and sadly we were in media chaos as well. The progressive media was already absorbed with giving Trump a hard time at every turn.

At a time when we needed clear and concise communication from our Commander-in-Chief, our corporate media was actively involved in obfuscating and censoring information coming directly from POTUS. Trump didn’t help matters with ill-advised recommendations to shelter in place and keeping in place a medical team that openly defied his instincts and direction.

Still, we went into what we now affectionately refer to as “lockdowns” with trepidation, fear, but also a hope that we could get back to regular life soon enough. We’d put in our time, do our part, slow that spread, and move on.

There is no need to rehash the past. We all know what happened next. Some of us knew it would happen all along. Some of us tried to warn the rest of America that if we cede this type of power to the government, our tyrannical woes would never end. Others of us thought we’d wait out our two weeks and then start screaming bloody murder if our governments didn’t end the lockdown as promised.

As it turns out, screaming bloody murder became damn near impossible…on purpose.

The naysayers and worrywarts were right. Once our local and federal governments got a taste of communistic-type powers, they could not release it. Like crack cocaine, that power began coursing through their veins and too many were helpless to resist. Suddenly they had the power to decide who gets to run a business, who gets to go to school, and who even gets to go to church. It became abundantly clear why the Founding Fathers went to such lengths to form a constitution that explicitly spelled out our human rights. They lived so close to tyranny, the taste was still in their mouths as they signed that great document.

It was worse than just shutting down small businesses and churches. The government shut down dissent. They shut down free speech, our most sacred right behind the right to life. They colluded with Big Tech to punish those who questioned the measures being taken, questioned the origin of the virus, and eventually questioned the efficacy of masks and an experimental vaccine that was suddenly mandated as a condition to participate in American life. We are only now seeing the extent to which that hellish partnership actually operated with the release of the Twitter Files.

It was a huge blessing, perhaps a gigantic turn in history, that Elon Musk purchased Twitter and released the Kraken on censorship, so to speak. While it doesn’t solve our larger problems in Big Tech, it was a gigantic step towards freedom and towards getting out truth that was being suppressed as “misinformation” by the left-wing tyrants of government and social media.

Our government found a way to nearly entirely squash any dissenting voices, and they almost got away with it.

In the opening days of the lockdowns and tense days following the J6 events, our publication had to do a lot of scrambling to stay visible. The crackdowns on conservative content were swift and punishing. There were moments when we and others wondered about our very future in the business. We had to pull back a bit and take a moment to reassess and figure out how to stay afloat in this new era of censorship. Our dissenting voices wouldn’t be much good if we allowed the left to make them disappear from public.

I’m proud to say, we weathered that storm and while it hasn’t been all sunshine and roses, it has been empowering. Conservative media is definitely stronger for having to push through the despotic instincts of the progressive political class. In fact, there is an argument to be made that the attempt to shut us up has only helped spread the conservative message.

Content creators began taking their messages directly to the customer through video and podcast platforms and paywalled content. Those paywalls aren’t always a fun adjustment, but they have allowed conservative media to free ourselves from the chains of Google and online ad revenue. Thankfully, our audiences have understood and we are now in the midst of a conservative media renaissance.

Here at RedState, and across the Townhall family of sites, we have created our VIP subscription program aimed at protecting our customers and our messages. It frees our pages and our writers from the grips of cancel culture, and gives our audiences more direct, in-depth content that doesn’t depend on getting through the fact-checker fascists first. It has been a huge success, thanks to the prescience and intelligence of our reader base. If you’re interested in joining us in the battle to free ourselves from left-wing censorship, details on how you can subscribe are below.

As for this morbid anniversary, let us use it to remind ourselves just how easy it was for the freest citizens on earth in the greatest nation on earth to become subjects again, 250 years after a group of farmers and businessmen changed the course of the western world. And let us pledge to never go quietly into that quiet night again, to continue being loud and truthful and demanding.

Fifteen days to slow the spread turned into three years to slow free speech. It feels like we are finally pulling out of that spiral, even if it’s a bit slower than we would have anticipated so many months ago.

It’s been a rough road, but we’re still Americans. That hasn’t changed.

To hell with censorship…all the way straight to the pit of hell with it.

Each RedState VIP and VIP Gold membership lessens our reliance on Big Tech and allows us to continue this critical work. We know that the Biden economy is affecting everyone’s bottom line, so with the promo code SAVEAMERICA you’ll get 40% off your VIP membership.

By becoming a RedState VIP member, you’ll not only directly support us in changing minds and winning those ideological battles, but you’ll also get exclusive columns and videos from some of our top writers, including me, and more.

P.S. – While VIP members have access to a wealth of exclusive content, VIP Gold subscribers get even more. With VIP Gold, not only is your direct support doubled, but VIP Gold members have Gold access across the entire Townhall Media family (Townhall, RedState, PJ Media, and more) – a nearly $300 value.

Iowa student sues over 2A t-shirt suspension

by Leave a Comment

An Iowa high schooler has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that her school district and a civics teacher violated her First Amendment rights by suspending her for wearing a pro-Second Amendment t-shirt to class; a case that could one day have far-reaching implications for students across the country.

In the complaint, which is the topic of today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, the student (identified by her initials A.B.) alleges that just two days after discussing students’ rights to free speech in class, teacher Thomas Griffin “removed her from class and suspended her” for wearing a t-shirt promoting the Second Amendment, claiming it was “inappropriate”.

Griffin told his students that, although they had some right to free speech, that right was “extremely limited” when the students stepped on school property. Griffin told his students that their teacher (in this case, him) would decide what was acceptable speech in the classroom. And with respect to clothing—which was at the very core of the Tinker case—Griffin told his students that he would not allow students to wear any clothing that depicts guns, alcohol, or any other “inappropriate material.”

A.B. knew that Griffin was wrong about the scope of the First Amendment, so the next time she had Griffin’s government class, September 1, 2022, she wore a shirt to school that said “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” with a depiction of a rifle underneath it.

A.B. had worn the shirt to school before, with no complaints from students, teachers, or administrators. And A.B.’s brother, who graduated from Johnston High School in 2019, had worn the same shirt to school multiple times with no complaints.

Griffin, who teaches the Bill of Rights, knew that shirt was quoting the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and he knew it was a commentary on gun control efforts. Nevertheless, he claimed that the shirt violated the school’s dress code and he removed A.B. from the classroom, sending her to the school administration office.

A.B. told Griffin she had a right to wear the shirt, which was not causing any disruption in the class—other than any disruption Griffin himself created by removing A.B. from the classroom. But Griffin said she was wrong about the First Amendment and that the administration would back him up.

As you can see, there are no depictions of violence on the shirt worn by A.B., but the school administration did indeed originally stand by Griffin’s actions, suspending her after she refused to change her shirt in order to return to class.

The lawsuit alleges that later that evening, however, A.B.’s mom Janet Bristow received a call from the school district’s superintendent to apologize for their actions, as well as a similar mea culpa from Chris Billings, the Executive Director of School Leadership.

That evening, Johnston Community School District Superintendent Laura Kacer called Bristow to apologize.

Shortly after Kacer’s phone call, Billings emailed A.B. to apologize. He stated that he “now recognize[s] that this is considered political speech.”

Bristow asked the school officials that Griffin also apologize to A.B. and address the students in his class, (the students knew A.B. had been removed from the classroom because of her shirt) and inform them that he was wrong in claiming that A.B.’s shirt was not protected speech.

According to the lawsuit, Griffin did not apologize to A.B. or issue any corrective statement to students. Additionally, despite the district’s apology the suspension remains in A.B.’s student file.

A.B.’s attorneys say the district’s actions are in direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, a seminal free-speech case that also originated in Iowa in the 1960s when then-high schooler Mary Beth Tinker sued after she was disciplined for wearing a black armband in protest of the Vietnam War. In its decision, the Court made it clear that students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” and as A.B.’s attorneys note, established the precedent that unless the speech in question causes “substantial disruption, promotes illegal conduct, or is lewd, indecent, or vulgar, it is constitutionally protected.”

Interestingly, when the Des Moines Register reached out to Tinker and other free speech advocates like UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s Adam Steinbaugh for comment on the lawsuit, she was the only one who sided with the school district.

“Under (the Tinker decision), there is ample room for the censorship of messages that impinge on the rights of others, the often-overlooked second part of the Tinker test,” Tinker said in an email, pointing to the Supreme Court’s holding that “conduct by the student … which for any reason … involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.“

Tinker said she believes wearing a shirt to school depicting a gun might constitute such an invasion of the rights of others, not just of other students, but of teachers, staff and visitors to the school.

Tinker’s not an attorney, but it does sound like she’s a supporter of gun control, and I can’t help but think that colors her perspective here.

Tinker, now a pediatric nurse and speech activist, said that beyond the free speech question, the dispute should be an opportunity for the district to address controversies about firearms.

“What if the Johnston school district took this as a teaching moment to promote dialogue on gun laws, gun violence statistics, etc.?” she asked. “Iowa trauma nurses who, like me, have cared for so many pediatric victims of gun violence, might take part as well.”

If A.B. had worn an anti-gun shirt with an image of an AR-15, maybe with the phrase “Ban Assault Weapons Now” on it, I wonder if Tinker would find that equally objectionable? As to her argument that a simple graphic of a firearm invades the rights of others, both Steinbaugh says Tinker’s point of view isn’t likely to find a friendly reception from the courts.

“The ‘invasion of the rights of others’ is not the right to be free of words or views that you dislike. It’s more a right to be free of harassment or discriminatory conduct or threats,” he said. “I understand the image of a gun might sometimes be unsettling to people, but it’s far from a threat.”

The Register acknowledges that at least two similar cases have already been heard in courts in Wisconsin and Virginia, and students were ultimately able to prevail in their challenges. Volokh says that’s likely to be the outcome here as well; at least if the school district doesn’t decide to settle before the lawsuit goes to trial. With anti-gunners ramping up their efforts to delegitimize the right to keep and bear arms and criminalize modern sporting rifles, however, A.B. probably won’t be the last student to run into school officials who are willing to trample on their First Amendment rights in order to silence their support for the Second.