Moms for Liberty: Issues of Contemporary Free Speech
Rowdy protestors and bomb threats. No, this isn’t the big city. This is the story of Yolo County in California, a smaller county in the Sacramento Valley where the conservative group Moms for Liberty is inciting a debate about freedom of speech.
On August 20th, 2023, Moms for Liberty held an event entitled “Forum on Fair and Safe Sports for Girls” to discuss the inclusion of transgender athletes in women’s sports at Stephens Branch library in Davis, California.This event featured Sophia Lorey, a former collegiate soccer player, who spoke about how young female athletes would not receive the same opportunities she did in athletics as a result of competing against transgender women. While giving this speech, she referred to transgender women as “men in sports,” prompting a librarian as well as other attendees in the crowd to tell her that, if she continued to misgender people, she would have to leave per the library Code of Conduct. She changed her language to biological men in sports, but at this point, the librarian came up to shut down the event, claiming that Lorey had violated the Code that required speakers to treat people with respect.
After Lorey’s dismissal from the library room, another Moms for Liberty speaker referred to biological men in sports. At this point, the librarian came to the front and actually shut down the event, turning off the projector.
The police were eventually called by an attendee and both sides left the library, though tensions remained high. Over the following weeks, Stephens Branch Library received numerous anonymous bomb threats. After the forum, Lorey and Moms for Liberty filed suit against the librarians for denying their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically, they sued the librarians in their official roles for the state of California. The Moms for Liberty argue that the librarians cannot remove them from the library room, a public use space, simply because the librarians do not agree with their speech. The library argues that the speech Moms for Liberty and Lorey used in the forum are not protected by the First Amendment, such as fighting words. This idea comes from the 1942 case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which found that speech that does harm to its target and breaches the peace is not protected under the First Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment section of this case deals with the Due Process Clause, which protects citizens against the enforcement of vague laws. In this case, they believe that the vague nature of the library’s Code of Conduct means that it cannot be enforced against them.
On a national scale, this case reflects an increased focus on sex and gender in sports, a culture war issue for conservatives. Conservatives see transgender women in sports as an unfair playing field, abandoning athletic meritocracy. For liberals, it is the beginning of figuring out how to accommodate increasingly expansive ideas about gender into an aspect of society that subscribes to a gender binary.
While this case is relatively small in scope , it encapsulates a broader story about freedom of speech in the United States. With a growing divide in political polarization, cases like these will only become more popular as liberals and conservatives disagree on definitions of race, gender, and sex. This central tension is what makes cases like Yolo County crucial to First Amendment applications of speech. While it is indubitably important for there to be arenas in which to battle out ideas, there also needs to be carveout for language that disrespects people’s basic identities. A library is not the place to consistently misgender transgender people, an identity protected by California law. Arguments like these have a place, but their place is in academia. Academia differentiates itself from other public settings due to its role in being a place as a battleground of ideas and trial and error. Arguments over identity and the social role of gender and sex belong in a place with professionals who have studied these subjects and who can conduct respectful and productive debates, not in the hands of an opinionated former athlete.
With respect to the Yolo County case, its decision will come down to how a judge views speech and the library’s Code of Conduct. If they find the Code to be too vague or overbroad and thus unduly restrictive on speech, then Moms for Liberty likely wins. However, if they find that the speech exhibited during the forum violates the Code and therefore is not protected, the librarians likely win.
While this case may seem on the surface like an isolated argument between a local moms group and two librarians, it brings in issues of how to live in a divided America. It serves as an example of a hyperreactive political environment where people only care about winning the argument, rather than learning how to live among people with differing opinions. In such a tense political climate, speech is increasingly politicized. Therefore, when this case is decided in the District Court, it will likely be appealed, as this case is an exemplary case to adjudicate these important First Amendment issues surrounding protected speech.
This small town case has the potential to alter political speech in the United States at a time where controversial political speech is at an inflection point. Look no further than Florida's restrictions on the types of speech teachers can use, exemplified by the ban on AP African American Studies or the controversial Don't Say Gay bill. Ideally, the verdict of this case can bring up important conversations about respectful speech and appropriate arenas for debate, in addition to deciding crucial First and Fourteenth Amendment questions. In an inflammatory political culture, Yolo County provides an example of a community that needs to reckon with how to coexist in a changing America.
Andreas Rivera Young is a senior at Brown University, concentrating in Political Science and History. He is a staff writer for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at andreas_rivera_young@brown.edu.
Mira Echambadi is a junior at Brown University, concentrating in Applied Math and International and Public Affairs. She is an editor for the Brown University Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at mira_echambadi@brown.edu.