Is it about parental rights?

[CJD]

(01-23-2024, 08:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't believe that the law prevents anyone from calling you anything.  As for the teacher themselves, they have a wide range of things they cannot say in class without repercussion.  Should a teacher be able to say they believe that Black people are inferior without consequence?  Can a teacher call a student a little A-hole without consequence?  Can a teacher describe their weekend sexual escapades in graphic detail to their class and face no discipline?

You'll note that I am not comparing any of these things to stating your preferred pronouns in terms of severity.  I am illustrating that the logic you are using as the foundation of your argument is faulty.

I am not familiar with the law that Pally is referencing regarding Floridians not being allowed to refer to people by their preferred pronouns or names.

With that said, if such a law exists where a person can be arrested or fined by the government if they refuse to refer to a person by their "birth" pronouns or name rather than their preferred pronouns or name, then that would indeed be a violation of freedom of speech.

Facing consequences for your speech and having your freedom of speech violated are two circles on a venn diagram but they do not always intersect.

As for your examples, if a teacher said they believed that black people were inferior to white people, the consequence they would suffer would be via their employer, not the government. In this case, there would likely be an outrage amongst the parents of the children and the school would make a decision on whether they would choose to fire this teacher based on their extremist views.

If the school chose to fire them, this would be a consequence of their speech, but it would not be a violation of their freedom of speech.

If they were then arrested and sent to jail, then that would be a violation of their freedom of speech.

Same with calling a student an A-hole or describing their sexual escapades. There may be some extent with that final example where, if they were explicit enough, that it would fall under some anti-lewd law, but I can't speak to those, as I am not familiar with their existence or extent of protection.

This is a topic that comes up a lot when people talk about "cancelling" people. If someone posts a heinous opinion online and a group of people find out where this person works and sends their boss screenshots of the person's heinous opinion, resulting in that person being fired, that is not a violation of their freedom of speech.

If the government comes and arrests them or otherwise restricts them based on said heinous opinion, then it is a violation of their freedom of speech.