Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
7th CIr.: no 1A violation for school district to fire counselor who gave a profanity-laden speech at an anti-trans rally
Reposted by Bad Popehat With Evil Intentions
Gabriel Malor
@gabrielmalor.bsky.social
7th CIr.: no First Amendment violation for school district to fire counselor who gave a profanity-laden speech at an anti-trans rally in which she vowed that no student would ever be allowed to transition "under her watch," which conflicted with school policy.
https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2025/D07-02/C:23-1610:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:3392287:S:0
We affirm. Though Darlingh spoke on an issue of public
concern in a traditional free-speech setting—a right she did
not surrender when she accepted public employment—the
school district reasonably concluded that her speech was
incompatible with her role as a school counselor. It’s not
hard to see why: she made a strident public pledge to perform her counseling duties in an exceedingly rigid way that
No. 23-1610 3
conflicted with the school district’s obligation to ensure a
supportive educational environment and promote student
and parental trust. That took Darlingh’s speech outside the
scope of the First Amendment’s protection as applied in the
public-employment context.
ALT
July 2, 2025 at 2:38 PM
@gabrielmalor.bsky.social
7th CIr.: no First Amendment violation for school district to fire counselor who gave a profanity-laden speech at an anti-trans rally in which she vowed that no student would ever be allowed to transition "under her watch," which conflicted with school policy.
https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2025/D07-02/C:23-1610:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:3392287:S:0
We affirm. Though Darlingh spoke on an issue of public
concern in a traditional free-speech setting—a right she did
not surrender when she accepted public employment—the
school district reasonably concluded that her speech was
incompatible with her role as a school counselor. It’s not
hard to see why: she made a strident public pledge to perform her counseling duties in an exceedingly rigid way that
No. 23-1610 3
conflicted with the school district’s obligation to ensure a
supportive educational environment and promote student
and parental trust. That took Darlingh’s speech outside the
scope of the First Amendment’s protection as applied in the
public-employment context.
ALT
July 2, 2025 at 2:38 PM
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.