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
Judge Kacsmaryk rejects challenge by West Texas A&M University's [LGBTQ] club to drag show ban ... [View all]
Reposted by Fucking Bitch Hat
https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick
@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
Judge Kacsmaryk writes to say that the First Amendment only protects "public discourse necessary to self-government," as he slurs drag and holds it not protected.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
INTRODUCTION
Founding-era letters, pamphlets, charters, and even draft Constitutions reflect the religious and philosophical pluralism of the Colonies and their people: one-part Natural Law, one-part Enlightenment, one-part Religion. See Jud Campbell, Natural Rights and the First Amendment, 127 YALE L.J. 246, 284 (2017). In aggregate, these documents reflect a shared First Amendment vision: Free Speech, Press, Petition, and Assembly rights combine to protect and elevate the public discourse necessary to self-government—not self-expression in all forms, and certainly not the libertine “expressive conduct” absolutism envisioned by Plaintiff Spectrum WT. See id. at 256, 287.1 And not a sexualized striptease in the presence of minors. See Woodlands Pride, Inc. v. Paxton, 157 F.4th 775, 786 n.9 (5th Cir. 2025).2
ALT
Nate Raymond
@nateraymond.bsky.social
· 6h
Judge Kacsmaryk rejects challenge by West Texas A&M University's LGBQT club to drag show ban, saying the First Amendment doesn't protect "self-expression in all forms, and certainly not the libertine 'expressive conduct' absolutism envisioned" by the group.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.374677/gov.uscourts.txnd.374677.168.0.pdf
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law – #168 in Spectrum WT v. Wendler (N.D. Tex., 2:23-cv-00048) – CourtListener.com
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 1/17/2026) (vls)
storage.courtlistener.com
10:09 PM · Jan 17, 2026
@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
Judge Kacsmaryk writes to say that the First Amendment only protects "public discourse necessary to self-government," as he slurs drag and holds it not protected.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
INTRODUCTION
Founding-era letters, pamphlets, charters, and even draft Constitutions reflect the religious and philosophical pluralism of the Colonies and their people: one-part Natural Law, one-part Enlightenment, one-part Religion. See Jud Campbell, Natural Rights and the First Amendment, 127 YALE L.J. 246, 284 (2017). In aggregate, these documents reflect a shared First Amendment vision: Free Speech, Press, Petition, and Assembly rights combine to protect and elevate the public discourse necessary to self-government—not self-expression in all forms, and certainly not the libertine “expressive conduct” absolutism envisioned by Plaintiff Spectrum WT. See id. at 256, 287.1 And not a sexualized striptease in the presence of minors. See Woodlands Pride, Inc. v. Paxton, 157 F.4th 775, 786 n.9 (5th Cir. 2025).2
ALT
Nate Raymond
@nateraymond.bsky.social
· 6h
Judge Kacsmaryk rejects challenge by West Texas A&M University's LGBQT club to drag show ban, saying the First Amendment doesn't protect "self-expression in all forms, and certainly not the libertine 'expressive conduct' absolutism envisioned" by the group.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.374677/gov.uscourts.txnd.374677.168.0.pdf
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law – #168 in Spectrum WT v. Wendler (N.D. Tex., 2:23-cv-00048) – CourtListener.com
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 1/17/2026) (vls)
storage.courtlistener.com
10:09 PM · Jan 17, 2026
Judge Kacsmaryk writes to say that the First Amendment only protects "public discourse necessary to self-government," as he slurs drag and holds it not protected.
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social) 2026-01-18T03:09:36.930Z
Nate Raymond
@nateraymond.bsky.social
Judge Kacsmaryk rejects challenge by West Texas A&M University's LGBQT club to drag show ban, saying the First Amendment doesn't protect "self-expression in all forms, and certainly not the libertine 'expressive conduct' absolutism envisioned" by the group.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.374677/gov.uscourts.txnd.374677.168.0.pdf
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law – #168 in Spectrum WT v. Wendler (N.D. Tex., 2:23-cv-00048) – CourtListener.com
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 1/17/2026) (vls)
storage.courtlistener.com
9:51 PM · Jan 17, 2026
@nateraymond.bsky.social
Judge Kacsmaryk rejects challenge by West Texas A&M University's LGBQT club to drag show ban, saying the First Amendment doesn't protect "self-expression in all forms, and certainly not the libertine 'expressive conduct' absolutism envisioned" by the group.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.374677/gov.uscourts.txnd.374677.168.0.pdf
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law – #168 in Spectrum WT v. Wendler (N.D. Tex., 2:23-cv-00048) – CourtListener.com
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 1/17/2026) (vls)
storage.courtlistener.com
9:51 PM · Jan 17, 2026
Judge Kacsmaryk rejects challenge by West Texas A&M University's LGBQT club to drag show ban, saying the First Amendment doesn't protect "self-expression in all forms, and certainly not the libertine 'expressive conduct' absolutism envisioned" by the group. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
— Nate Raymond (@nateraymond.bsky.social) 2026-01-18T02:51:27.503Z
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read