(THE CENTER SQUARE) - The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a legal and advocacy nonprofit that protects freedom of expression, sent a letter to a Davis, California library that ejected an in-progress forum on policies regarding transgender high school athletes demanding that it allow the interrupted forum to be rehosted at their facilities.
On August 20, local parents, including members of the Moms for Liberty organization, hosted a forum at the Mary L. Stephens Davis Library in Yolo County. Organizers for the event, including Yolo County Mothers for Liberty Chairwoman Beth Bourne, had paid the $75 fee to reserve the room, as they had done for several prior events of a similar nature at the same facility. Citing misgendering, library staff stopped the “Fair and Safe Sport for Girls” forum on the California Interscholastic Federation's participation policies for transgender athletes in high school girls' sports during its introductory speaker.
When explaining why he was ending the event, Library Regional Manager D. Scott Love said in a video recording of the incident that “California state law recognizes trans women as women. They are protected under state law. Our policy talks about treating people with respect. And if you are misgendering somebody, that is not respectful.”
Aaron Terr, FIRE’s director of public advocacy, wrote in his letter that while the library’s Code of Behavior does require individuals must “treat people, materials and furniture with respect,” “no public library policy can supersede the First Amendment” and that “nothing in state or federal law regulates how people may refer to transgender individuals in a public forum.”
Speaking more broadly on free expression in the United States, Terr contended that what happened at Davis with the use of a code of conduct to end an in-progress event reflects changing attitudes towards free speech by many individuals within government.“This is a trend that FIRE has seen across the country where school boards and councils are shutting down speech during public comment periods because they don't like the criticisms they are receiving from their constituents. Sometimes you'll see the government try to justify these policies under the name of decorum or prohibiting abusive or disruptive speech, but the government can't expand the definitions of those terms as a means to shut down criticism or comments that are directed at government officials.”