Despite the Efforts of Anti-LGBTQ Extremists, 鈥楧rag Queen Story Time鈥� Will Go On
Last week, in response to a lawsuit filed by the 老澳门开奖结果 of Louisiana, the Lafayette Public Library agreed to lift its unconstitutional ban on patrons organizing events called Drag Queen Story Time.
This was welcome news for our clients, the LGBTQ community, and everyone in Lafayette who will once again be able to use library space without being unfairly interrogated or censored by library officials.
Drag Queen Story Time was designed by Lafayette residents to give young people diverse, positive role models and to combat harmful gender stereotypes. The goal of the program was to provide children with constructive lessons in inclusion and diversity, while also having a positive impact on literacy.
But when Matthew Humphrey and other Lafayette residents tried to organize the event at the Lafayette Public Library, they were stymied by library officials who refused to allow them to use the space for any event related to Drag Queen Story Time. All residents who wanted to use a meeting room for any purpose were made to sign a form disavowing any affiliation with Drag Queen Story Time and promising not to use the space for that purpose. The form also threatened residents that they could be sued if they used the library for that purpose.
The new library policy stemmed from a frivolous lawsuit filed by an anti-LGBTQ group called Warriors for Christ, which was trying to block the library from hosting Drag Queen Story Time. The library鈥檚 response to the lawsuit was not only to hold off on any official sponsorship of the event, but to prohibit their patrons from doing so as well.
Last month, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Louisiana filed suit, challenging the ban on Drag Queen Story Time as a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech. As we explained in our suit, it鈥檚 a fundamental principle of our democracy that the government can鈥檛 discriminate against people 鈥� or silence them 鈥� based on the content of their speech. By banning people from using public library meeting rooms for the purpose of organizing a Drag Queen Story Time, library officials were engaging in targeted, viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.
Adding insult to injury, library officials allowed extremists to usurp the public library to advance their intolerant agenda. The Warriors for Christ argued in their court filings that allowing Drag Queen Story Time would mean 鈥渆ndorsing transgenderism鈥� as a religious ideology and 鈥渞elegating Christians to second class citizens.鈥� As their suit was being litigated, the library reached an agreement with the court to 鈥渟tand down鈥� on planning the event, and introduced the form requiring library patrons to disassociate themselves from Drag Queen Story Time.
These baseless and offensive claims would be laughable if they didn鈥檛 inflict such real harm on society and on the rights of vulnerable kids and communities in desperate need of acceptance and support.
The Constitution protects all people鈥檚 right to practice whatever religion they wish, or none at all. If the Warriors for Christ wanted to organize a meeting to denounce libraries and books, we would defend their right to do so. However, contrary to the Warriors for Christ鈥檚 rhetoric, gender identity is not a religion and we won鈥檛 let them use the legal system to advance their radical brand of intolerance.
But what the Constitution does not give the 鈥淲arriors鈥� the right to do is discriminate against, harm, or silence people on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation. Nor does it give them the right to banish LGBTQ people from public spaces, as we鈥檝e seen in attempts to do here in Louisiana and across the country.
Last week, it seemed that the library realized the unconstitutionality of their actions and agreed to stop using the form. This was a big victory for the LGBTQ community.
鈥淭oo many LGBTQ youth are suffering in communities where they feel they were made wrong. They have to know it gets better,鈥� said our client, Matthew Humphrey. 鈥淜ids who are different have to know it's okay, and kids who aren't different have to know it's okay for other kids to be different. That's what Drag Queen Story Time is about.鈥�
The Lafayette library and parish have an obligation to protect the rights of everyone they serve. Drag Queen Story Time is a show that must go on. Thankfully, it seems as though the Lafayette Public Library finally recognized that.
Sign up for the and get our finest content from the week delivered to your inbox every Saturday.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.