Preston Xanthopoulos: Free speech is protected by Constitution, preferred pronouns are not

Exeter High School student is suspended from football for saying there are only two genders.” That’s been the topic of discussion and point of a recently filed lawsuit against the school district, but let me fix that sentence to be more accurate:

“Government imposes punishment on a citizen for stating his opinion.” That is what this story is truly about and all Americans should be on the same side of this issue, regardless of how you feel about the “gender” issue.

Alicia Preston Xanthopoulos
Alicia Preston Xanthopoulos

Here’s the story: Earlier this school year, an Exeter High freshman got into a discussion with schoolmates on the bus, that carried over to a text conversation after school. The male football player sent a text that noted, “there are only two genders”. His fellow classmate, who is not transgender or non-binary, tattled on the kid to the school administration. The following day, according to a lawsuit he has filed against the administration, the kid was hauled out of his class and told he was “not respecting pronouns” and was subsequently suspended from playing a football game. He got punished for “not respecting pronouns”? That’s some Orwellian stuff right there. It’s also highly unconstitutional, and I don’t have to be a legal scholar to know that.

More: Exeter High student-athlete suspended for saying there are ‘only two genders’ sues school

Exeter apparently has a “Gender Nonconforming Students” policy that says, “[a] student has the right to be addressed by a name and pronoun that corresponds to the student’s gender identity.” Here’s the thing, though: no, a student does not have that “right”. A student does have the “right” to express his opinion, however. A “right” is not granted by a school district, or any government entity, it is granted by our forefathers in the Constitution of the United States of America who wrote it for this very reason: so a government cannot punish you for your expression or speech. That is precisely what happened here and the topic—gender pronouns—is irrelevant.

I refer to people by their preferred pronouns. I think it’s polite to do and I’m certainly not harmed by it. However, no one can force me to do so. I can refer to you as a kangaroo if I so choose, and I am protected by the foundational rights of this nation.

The rights we have can only be restricted when they impede on someone else’s right. No one has the right not to be offended. I do actually have the right to say something that might offend you. That’s precisely why there is the First Amendment. It’s not there to protect popular speech, it is there to protect you from being punished by the government for speech that is not popular. Which, horrifyingly, is precisely what occurred here.

In the lawsuit filed by the football player and family, it says the student is Catholic and that it is his religious belief that there are only two genders. I think religion is irrelevant here. I don’t have to have a religious belief in order to have an opinion on this matter, or any matter. I can just have the belief and I can express it. Period. End of story. Full stop. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled “that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.” Remember when the ACLU about 20 years ago defended the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) for their right to advocate for legalization of pedophilia? I’m pretty sure if you can do that you can say, “there are only two genders.”

I sympathize, to an extent, with schools today. They are very rapidly being pressured into taking up issues in a constantly changing society. But, they can’t do that like this.

Schools want to validate the emotions of transgender and gender fluid students and protect them from their struggles. But, you can’t do that by invalidating the emotions of other students. A school—a government entity—cannot demand adherence to ideological beliefs.

There’s another issue here, we all, everyone—schools, students and society, must recognize: Being intolerant of another’s belief in the name of “tolerance” is absurd. Doing so under the threat of penalty, is dangerous in a free society. I referred to this as “Orwellian”. How is it not? The “thought police” punished a student for a “thought crime”.

Let’s just get this over with. Jump straight to the end of this societal plan. Let’s go right back to the future, the year “1984”, and impose the proper punishment for a “thoughtcrime”, as George Orwell envisioned it—death. There is, of course, one way to avoid death of his body, as Winston did in the foreshadowing-novel. He can get re-educated and lose his unique thoughts and become a soulless shell. Just that simple. That’s not a lot to ask in light of the nature of this 14 year old's crime.

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”—“1984”

This school feels it has the power here. Fortunately, the Constitution says: Sorry, Big Brother.

Alicia Preston Xanthopoulos is a former political consultant and member of the media. She’s a native of Hampton Beach where she lives with her family and three poodles. Write to her at PrestonPerspective@gmail.com.

This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Preston Xanthopoulos: Preferred pronouns not protected by Constitution