Ari Cohn
@aricohn.com
First Amendment & defamation lawyer.
Lead Counsel for Tech Policy @thefireorg.bsky.social
Past: Free Speech Counsel @TechFreedom.org
Illini/music junkie/oofnik.
“A snarky gay lawyer Jessica Fletcher.”
Posts are my own.
https://linktr.ee/aricohn
Lead Counsel for Tech Policy @thefireorg.bsky.social
Past: Free Speech Counsel @TechFreedom.org
Illini/music junkie/oofnik.
“A snarky gay lawyer Jessica Fletcher.”
Posts are my own.
https://linktr.ee/aricohn
I don't think it's *impossible* that it could rise to the level of targeted. But it'll take some specific facts to get you there, and moreso than doing it to someone's face.
November 8, 2025 at 10:43 PM
I don't think it's *impossible* that it could rise to the level of targeted. But it'll take some specific facts to get you there, and moreso than doing it to someone's face.
I think the question isn't whether those two things are different, it's the context in which either of them is used. I think factual circumstances could render either of them actionable harassment, or not.
November 8, 2025 at 10:42 PM
I think the question isn't whether those two things are different, it's the context in which either of them is used. I think factual circumstances could render either of them actionable harassment, or not.
You're just ignoring all the times I've said no, that's actually not at all what I'm saying.
November 8, 2025 at 10:37 PM
You're just ignoring all the times I've said no, that's actually not at all what I'm saying.
Yes, and that's the difference between "targeted" colloquially and in the context of the legal question here. Relating to an identifiable person isn't necessarily targeted. Quick example:
bsky.app/profile/aric...
bsky.app/profile/aric...
Here's an example, just off the top of my head.
Student A is trans.
Student B, talking to student C *about* Student A, calls them by the wrong pronouns.
That is not speech targeted at Student A, despite being about them.
Student A is trans.
Student B, talking to student C *about* Student A, calls them by the wrong pronouns.
That is not speech targeted at Student A, despite being about them.
November 8, 2025 at 10:37 PM
Yes, and that's the difference between "targeted" colloquially and in the context of the legal question here. Relating to an identifiable person isn't necessarily targeted. Quick example:
bsky.app/profile/aric...
bsky.app/profile/aric...
I'm not sure how you saw my example and came up with this.
November 8, 2025 at 10:36 PM
I'm not sure how you saw my example and came up with this.
I haven't said anything at all to you, and given this particular post, that seems to have been a wise choice. Enjoy your day.
November 8, 2025 at 10:32 PM
I haven't said anything at all to you, and given this particular post, that seems to have been a wise choice. Enjoy your day.
Free Duffey Strode.
Whoremongers is an A+ insult for that age.
Whoremongers is an A+ insult for that age.
November 8, 2025 at 10:31 PM
Free Duffey Strode.
Whoremongers is an A+ insult for that age.
Whoremongers is an A+ insult for that age.
I would say, personally, I think a course of repeatedly misgendering a student to their face could plausibly (obviously always depends on circumstance) rise to the level of actionable discriminatory harassment. I think a repeated course of action of targeted misgendering could suffice as a pattern
November 8, 2025 at 10:30 PM
I would say, personally, I think a course of repeatedly misgendering a student to their face could plausibly (obviously always depends on circumstance) rise to the level of actionable discriminatory harassment. I think a repeated course of action of targeted misgendering could suffice as a pattern
If you ever hear of a student being disciplined for not going by their deadname please send them my way. I will personally make sure their submission gets seen. Sincerely. We can only take the cases that come to us.
November 8, 2025 at 10:29 PM
If you ever hear of a student being disciplined for not going by their deadname please send them my way. I will personally make sure their submission gets seen. Sincerely. We can only take the cases that come to us.
You could look at the dates on stuff, ya know
November 8, 2025 at 10:27 PM
You could look at the dates on stuff, ya know
No, that's not what has been agreed. The difference between targeted and not is whether it is aimed directly at a student.
bsky.app/profile/aric...
bsky.app/profile/aric...
Here's an example, just off the top of my head.
Student A is trans.
Student B, talking to student C *about* Student A, calls them by the wrong pronouns.
That is not speech targeted at Student A, despite being about them.
Student A is trans.
Student B, talking to student C *about* Student A, calls them by the wrong pronouns.
That is not speech targeted at Student A, despite being about them.
November 8, 2025 at 10:24 PM
No, that's not what has been agreed. The difference between targeted and not is whether it is aimed directly at a student.
bsky.app/profile/aric...
bsky.app/profile/aric...
Here's an example, just off the top of my head.
Student A is trans.
Student B, talking to student C *about* Student A, calls them by the wrong pronouns.
That is not speech targeted at Student A, despite being about them.
Student A is trans.
Student B, talking to student C *about* Student A, calls them by the wrong pronouns.
That is not speech targeted at Student A, despite being about them.
November 8, 2025 at 10:24 PM
And those are just literally the first page of results
November 8, 2025 at 10:17 PM
And those are just literally the first page of results
First of all I did not write the brief; I wasn't even at FIRE when it was written.
Second of all, the courts are well aware of what "targeted" means in the discriminatory harassment context. Just because you're not doesn't mean everyone else is similarly ignorant, and this was dumb of you to say.
Second of all, the courts are well aware of what "targeted" means in the discriminatory harassment context. Just because you're not doesn't mean everyone else is similarly ignorant, and this was dumb of you to say.
November 8, 2025 at 10:13 PM
First of all I did not write the brief; I wasn't even at FIRE when it was written.
Second of all, the courts are well aware of what "targeted" means in the discriminatory harassment context. Just because you're not doesn't mean everyone else is similarly ignorant, and this was dumb of you to say.
Second of all, the courts are well aware of what "targeted" means in the discriminatory harassment context. Just because you're not doesn't mean everyone else is similarly ignorant, and this was dumb of you to say.
Yes, their established policies were not in line with the promises that they made elsewhere. As I have been saying all along.
November 8, 2025 at 10:11 PM
Yes, their established policies were not in line with the promises that they made elsewhere. As I have been saying all along.
I get what you're saying, and I think as a colloquial matter I would agree with you generally. But what constitutes "targeted" in the context of discriminatory harassment analysis is a bit different than this.
November 8, 2025 at 10:10 PM
I get what you're saying, and I think as a colloquial matter I would agree with you generally. But what constitutes "targeted" in the context of discriminatory harassment analysis is a bit different than this.
Devil is in the details, but if the question is basically do I think that repeatedly misgendering a kid to their face could rise to the level of discriminatory harassment the First Amendment permits schools to address, my answer is yes of course I do think that could be the case.
November 8, 2025 at 10:09 PM
Devil is in the details, but if the question is basically do I think that repeatedly misgendering a kid to their face could rise to the level of discriminatory harassment the First Amendment permits schools to address, my answer is yes of course I do think that could be the case.
How do I feel about them? Weird question.
They're people who ought have the same autonomy, self-determination, and rights as any other people and anyone who overly cares about how they choose to identify themselves is a fucking weirdo.
Is that helpful?
They're people who ought have the same autonomy, self-determination, and rights as any other people and anyone who overly cares about how they choose to identify themselves is a fucking weirdo.
Is that helpful?
November 8, 2025 at 10:05 PM
How do I feel about them? Weird question.
They're people who ought have the same autonomy, self-determination, and rights as any other people and anyone who overly cares about how they choose to identify themselves is a fucking weirdo.
Is that helpful?
They're people who ought have the same autonomy, self-determination, and rights as any other people and anyone who overly cares about how they choose to identify themselves is a fucking weirdo.
Is that helpful?
No, it's called freedom of association.
We don't tell a school that doesn't want to offer free speech that it must. We tell schools that do promise it that their actions and policies must so reflect..
It's a private school's own right to not offer free speech, just as with a social media platform.
We don't tell a school that doesn't want to offer free speech that it must. We tell schools that do promise it that their actions and policies must so reflect..
It's a private school's own right to not offer free speech, just as with a social media platform.
November 8, 2025 at 10:01 PM
No, it's called freedom of association.
We don't tell a school that doesn't want to offer free speech that it must. We tell schools that do promise it that their actions and policies must so reflect..
It's a private school's own right to not offer free speech, just as with a social media platform.
We don't tell a school that doesn't want to offer free speech that it must. We tell schools that do promise it that their actions and policies must so reflect..
It's a private school's own right to not offer free speech, just as with a social media platform.
That's both not what the brief argued and also a ridiculous thing to claim.
Calling every single black student the N-word is targeted: each time that kid calls a classmate a slur, it is targeted at the classmate. That's not the type of thing our brief was arguing.
Calling every single black student the N-word is targeted: each time that kid calls a classmate a slur, it is targeted at the classmate. That's not the type of thing our brief was arguing.
November 8, 2025 at 9:59 PM
That's both not what the brief argued and also a ridiculous thing to claim.
Calling every single black student the N-word is targeted: each time that kid calls a classmate a slur, it is targeted at the classmate. That's not the type of thing our brief was arguing.
Calling every single black student the N-word is targeted: each time that kid calls a classmate a slur, it is targeted at the classmate. That's not the type of thing our brief was arguing.