Here is the thing, this is...at best, a VERY VERY VERY uphill battle. The Court has already very explicitly and plainly stated that only very specific kinds of speech are crimes. Otherwise the Government has no business to restrict what people say. They made it very clear speech is not a hate crime, actually doing a crime with the motive of "hate" is a crime.
The uphill battle comes in the fact that overruling previous president has ONLY been done once in US history with Brown vs Board of Ed. And there it was only legally possible because the previous ruling had an "escape" of "if they be separate but equal" to enable a future ruling to overturn it. Which is what happened, it was proven it was not equal, and thus actually they full upheld the previous ruling, and used the "Escape" to strike down segregation.
Since Free Speech was so plainly and openly defended, the Court cannot now legally impose censorship. It would mean the violation of precedent.
The ACLU would have to equate using the wrong pronoun to be legally the same as a "Fire in a crowded theater" or a plain and direct call to violence or treason. And while that might be possible with liberal logic.... if the Court actually conducts that big of a breach of precedent it will shatter the very basis of the legal system.
Here is the thing, this is...at best, a VERY VERY VERY uphill battle. The Court has already very explicitly and plainly stated that only very specific kinds of speech are crimes. Otherwise the Government has no business to restrict what people say. They made it very clear speech is not a hate crime, actually doing a crime with the motive of "hate" is a crime.
The uphill battle comes in the fact that overruling previous president has ONLY been done once in US history with Brown vs Board of Ed. And there it was only legally possible because the previous ruling had an "escape" of "if they be separate but equal" to enable a future ruling to overturn it. Which is what happened, it was proven it was not equal, and thus actually they full upheld the previous ruling, and used the "Escape" to strike down segregation.
Since Free Speech was so plainly and openly defended, the Court cannot now legally impose censorship. It would mean the violation of precedent.
The ACLU would have to equate using the wrong pronoun to be legally the same as a "Fire in a crowded theater" or a plain and direct call to violence or treason. And while that might be possible with liberal logic.... if the Court actually conducts that big of a breach of precedent it will shatter the very basis of the legal system.