BMX Bandit said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

True, but not relevant to what is or is not permitted under first amendment.

---

And this is not a first amendment issue. Draggieland can continue on. They just need to get a different venue.

---

it is a first amendment issue.

that does not mean A&M will not ultimately prevail. but there are first amendment issues at play here.

---

Apparently, that isn't part of the lawsuit. And if that's the case, it's moot.

Rex Racer said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

True, but not relevant to what is or is not permitted under first amendment.

---

And this is not a first amendment issue. Draggieland can continue on. They just need to get a different venue.

---

it is a first amendment issue.

that does not mean A&M will not ultimately prevail. but there are first amendment issues at play here.

---

Apparently, that isn't part of the lawsuit. And if that's the case, it's moot.

---

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/complaint-texas-am-queer-empowerment-council-v-mahomes-et-al
Read page 17.

Rex Racer said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

True, but not relevant to what is or is not permitted under first amendment.

---

And this is not a first amendment issue. Draggieland can continue on. They just need to get a different venue.

---

it is a first amendment issue.

that does not mean A&M will not ultimately prevail. but there are first amendment issues at play here.

---

Apparently, that isn't part of the lawsuit. And if that's the case, it's moot.

---

Maybe you haven't read it

Quote:

---

In the 27-page lawsuit, FIRE asks a court in the Southern District of Texas to halt enforcement of the drag ban, claiming it violates the First Amendment. Draggieland was originally scheduled to be held in Rudder Theatre on March 27 before the regents forced its cancellation. On Friday, QEC president and material sciences graduate student Sophia Ahmed told The Battalion that Draggieland had sold over 150 tickets before the ban. The group began distributing refunds on Monday.
"Public universities can't shut down student expression simply because the administration doesn't like the 'ideology' or finds the expression 'demeaning,'" FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh said in the statement. "That's true not only of drag performances, but also religion, COVID, race, politics, and countless other topics where campus officials are too often eager to silence dissent."
The Fire statement calls the regents' ban illegal and claims it constitutes "viewpoint discrimination," noting that taxpayers fund the A&M System.

---

Source

HTownAg98 said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

True, but not relevant to what is or is not permitted under first amendment.

---

And this is not a first amendment issue. Draggieland can continue on. They just need to get a different venue.

---

it is a first amendment issue.

that does not mean A&M will not ultimately prevail. but there are first amendment issues at play here.

---

Apparently, that isn't part of the lawsuit. And if that's the case, it's moot.

---

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/complaint-texas-am-queer-empowerment-council-v-mahomes-et-al
Read page 17.

---

I stand corrected. We'll see how it comes out.

TheRealJacob said:

---

Can you give me a source.

---

If you're too lazy to google, sure

https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/blm-removes-website-language-blasting-nuclear-family-structure/

Random note... I keep seeing trans and drag used interchangeably, i.e. "trans/drag". There's a significant portion of the trans community that is anti-drag, just as there is a significant portion of the drag community that is anti-trans. Several years ago even famed drag queen RuPaul came under fire for being "transphobic".

I realize the good ol' "a queer's a queer's a queer!" mindset persists in spades here, but when questions are asked like "Why do the trans/drag do X or want Y", it's a flawed question off the bat, because they are two different groups that have different (and sometimes conflicting) goals.

Think about it from a logical standpoint. If you're a trans person trying to get people to take you seriously as a woman, would you be a huge fan of men who dress up as women to entertain/get laughs?

FIRE is consistent in their worldview. They've sued dozens of public colleges that tried to implement speech codes, or allowed mobs to keep conservative speakers off campus. They're free speech absolutists. A&M knows they'll lose this, because there's no link to public obscenity in the ban, just a "you can't pretend to be a woman and prance around on campus" prohibition. The BOR are looking for brownie points from the legislature, but probably won't enjoy the negative publicity and the protests. Two years ago, A&M was rated #1 in the country on FIRE's list of universities that support free speech. The Battalion situation, the suspension of the prof who said something mean about Dan Patrick, and this have us closer to the bottom of the list this year.

Quote:

---

just a "you can't pretend to be a woman and prance around on campus" prohibition.

---

also not prohibited by the policy

Soldier: What is banned then, sir?
George Washington: Nobody knows.

TheRealJacob said:

---

However, allowing some groups to have events but denying others due to gender identity falls under the Equal Protection Clause as that is discrimination.

Discrimination is the process of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong, such as race, gender, age, class, religion, or sexual orientation.

So in this case the board cannot deny them with the reasoning they gave.

---

So let's say the "Bacchus" club wanted to stage an all nude review at Rudder Tower auditorium, then the board could not stop them because it would be discriminatory against those whose sexual orientation allows for orgies? I do not buy it.

Public nudity laws are already on the books and are enforceable. Generally, public nudity is not afforded first amendment protection, but you know that.

AGROAg88 said:

---

FIRE is consistent in their worldview. They've sued dozens of public colleges that tried to implement speech codes, or allowed mobs to keep conservative speakers off campus. They're free speech absolutists. A&M knows they'll lose this, because there's no link to public obscenity in the ban, just a "you can't pretend to be a woman and prance around on campus" prohibition. The BOR are looking for brownie points from the legislature, but probably won't enjoy the negative publicity and the protests. Two years ago, A&M was rated #1 in the country on FIRE's list of universities that support free speech. The Battalion situation, the suspension of the prof who said something mean about Dan Patrick, and this have us closer to the bottom of the list this year.

---

Regardless of the outcome of this, Texas A&M is still a pretty big supporter of 1st amendment rights compared to, let's say, Berkley, Stanford, Harvard, and Yale, who repeatedly agitated their student bodies to come out and threaten violence against voices that they did not agree with.

If TAMU loses this lawsuit, Draggiland will likely happen.

Case assigned to Lee Rosenthal.

She's a George HW Bush appointee, conservative but definitely has a libertarian streak in her.

In my opinion, she's one of the best judges in SDTX. Either way, expect a well reasoned ruling from her.

I would've loved to a fly on the wall of a Hittner initial pretrial hearing this had landed in his court.

doubledog said:

---

TheRealJacob said:

---

However, allowing some groups to have events but denying others due to gender identity falls under the Equal Protection Clause as that is discrimination.

Discrimination is the process of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong, such as race, gender, age, class, religion, or sexual orientation.

So in this case the board cannot deny them with the reasoning they gave.

---

So let's say the "Bacchus" club wanted to stage an all nude review at Rudder Tower auditorium, then the board could not stop them because it would be discriminatory against those whose sexual orientation allows for orgies? I do not buy it.

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Public nudity laws are already on the books and are enforceable. Generally, public nudity is not afforded first amendment protection, but you know that.

---

Fine, change nude review for simulated sex acts, does this change things?

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

I would've loved to a fly on the wall of a Hittner initial pretrial hearing this had landed in his court.

---

interesting you thought of him, as the only case I found in SDTX on drag shows had Hittner as the judge.

He ruled it was expressive speech and that the texas law "drag ban" was unconstitutional

The Woodland Pride v Paxton

you have to think Paxton was excited when he first saw it was in Hittner's court. I would have been too!

doubledog said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Public nudity laws are already on the books and are enforceable. Generally, public nudity is not afforded first amendment protection, but you know that.

---

Fine, change nude review for simulated sex acts, does this change things?

---

If they're clothed, then it's fine. I don't see how this is a difficult distinction for you.

Good Bull from at the Drag Ban Protest yesterday

Flower Child said:

---

Good Bull from at the Drag Ban Protest yesterday

---

It is the same group of 50-100 leftists who show up for every single cause de jour "protest" on campus.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

I used to love FIRE. I'm guessing they got co-opted by the left.

---

It's difficult to understand the first amendment. Many posters on this board have, so you aren't alone.

Case assigned to Lee Hyman Rosenthal, an H. W. Bush appointee. Likely does not bode well for A&M.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

I used to love FIRE. I'm guessing they got co-opted by the left.

---

It's difficult to understand the first amendment. Many posters on this board have, so you aren't alone.

---

They have free speech.
They don't have the freedom to associate Texas A&M with their free speech. Which includes the use of their resources and brand. It isn't a hard concept.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

I used to love FIRE. I'm guessing they got co-opted by the left.

---

No, they just sometimes defend causes that you don't like. That's what happens when you support the First Amendment.

---

Smart ass response not withstanding, no, they've switched their politics. This is a far cry from defending groups against "free speech zones". And drag shows aren't speech, regardless of what some court says.

---

So who decided they aren't?

It's especially hard when you don't understand it. If A&M makes their facilities available for student groups, they don't get a say unless it's something that clearly falls within their guidelines, namely time, place, and manner restrictions. And this is not one of those cases.

texagbeliever said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

I used to love FIRE. I'm guessing they got co-opted by the left.

---

It's difficult to understand the first amendment. Many posters on this board have, so you aren't alone.

---

They have free speech.
They don't have the freedom to associate Texas A&M with their free speech. Which includes the use of their resources and brand. It isn't a hard concept.

---

That has nothing to do with my post. Just because FIRE is suing doesn't mean they've been co-opted. It means that you defend speech you don't like.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

I used to love FIRE. I'm guessing they got co-opted by the left.

---

No, they just sometimes defend causes that you don't like. That's what happens when you support the First Amendment.

---

Smart ass response not withstanding, no, they've switched their politics. This is a far cry from defending groups against "free speech zones". And drag shows aren't speech, regardless of what some court says.

---

The law does not care about your feelings.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

I used to love FIRE. I'm guessing they got co-opted by the left.

---

It's difficult to understand the first amendment. Many posters on this board have, so you aren't alone.

---

They have free speech.
They don't have the freedom to associate Texas A&M with their free speech. Which includes the use of their resources and brand. It isn't a hard concept.

---

That has nothing to do with my post. Just because FIRE is suing doesn't mean they've been co-opted. It means that you defend speech you don't like.

---

THIS. If you only defend speech you like, you don't support free speech.

[This is not a dumping ground for Twitter or Instagram or Facebook posts. Add your own comment if you want your post to stay on the thread. -Staff]

This is so obviously a free speech issue that I am half convinced the Regents did this precisely to lose a court case and then shrug and say, "we tried". They're politicians all the way down.

The term for this is "failure theater".

temporary injunction hearing set for 3/18.

Anonymous Source said:

---

Just so I'm clear....

Campus allows Richard Spencer to speak and we have no issue.
It's the guys dressed as women that are the cause for alarm.

---

Drag shows are viewed by many as denigrating to women. I'm not sure if that is dispositive... But you conveniently left that part out.

BMX Bandit said:

---

temporary injunction hearing set for 3/18.

---

A&M will lose, as it should. This is straight up a free speech issue when A&M is a state owned facility.

its not as clear cut win as you think. several issues.

is drag expressive speech conduct? one court in texas has said "no" (the rest all say "yes")

is the speech banned protected speech or does it fall into obscenity which is not protected?

is this narrowly tailored to meet the compelling interest of the state in protecting female students under title IX?

edited.

Aston04 said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

Just so I'm clear....

Campus allows Richard Spencer to speak and we have no issue.
It's the guys dressed as women that are the cause for alarm.

---

Drag shows are viewed by many as denigrating to women. I'm not sure if that is dispositive... But you conveniently left that part out.

---

Richard Spencer is denigrating to jewish people and black people