{"id":18275,"date":"2021-07-20T14:03:31","date_gmt":"2021-07-20T21:03:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/politicalhat.com\/?p=18275"},"modified":"2021-07-20T14:03:31","modified_gmt":"2021-07-20T21:03:31","slug":"free-speech-victory-over-pronouns-in-california","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/2021\/07\/20\/free-speech-victory-over-pronouns-in-california\/","title":{"rendered":"Free Speech Victory Over Pronouns In California"},"content":{"rendered":"

     California, which has a history of punishing<\/a> thoughtcriminals over doubleplusungood views of transgenderism, has just had its law, that punished healthcare workers<\/a> who \u201cmisgender\u201d patients with up to a year in jail, overturned<\/a> by a California Court of Appeals in the court case of \u201cTaking Offense vs. California\u201d.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c\u2018As we discuss at greater length post, we recognize the State has a compelling interest in eliminating discrimination against residents of long term care facilities,\u2019 said the justices. \u2018However, we conclude the pronoun provision is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government objective because it burdens speech more than is required to achieve the State\u2019s compelling objective. Accordingly, the provision does not survive strict scrutiny.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

     They key passage of the opinion is that \u201cthe restriction on speech is content neutral because pronouns are merely stand-ins for nouns and are not ideological messages\u201d, moreover:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cBut the Legislature understood the importance of pronouns\u2019 content and, thereby, their meaning, in this context, to the point that it passed a law criminalizing misgendering transgender residents of long-term care facilities. We recognize that misgendering may be disrespectful, discourteous, and insulting, and used as an inartful way to express an ideological disagreement with another person\u2019s expressed gender identity. But the First Amendment does not protect only speech that inoffensively and artfully articulates a person\u2019s point of view. At the very least, willful refusal to refer to transgender persons by their preferred pronouns conveys general disagreement with the concept that a person\u2019s gender identity may be different from the sex the person was assigned at birth. Consistent with the Legislature\u2019s findings in enacting section 1439.51, we conclude misgendering does indeed convey an ideological message.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

     This may still end up being reversed by the California Supreme Court, with dubious chances that the United States Supreme Court even addresses it.<\/p>\n

     The ruling, in full:<\/p>\n