I will mention, for no particular reason, that I caught endless shit when I wrote this article criticizing Taylor Swift for threatening litigation and demanding that information exactly like this be kept secret: www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnb...

I was not at risk of donating to my alma mater anytime soon, but I sure as fuck am not going to do it now.

It is the most ridiculous Calvinball I have ever encountered.

Also, just for fun, here was the District Court’s pre-enforcement standing analysis in my own case, which followed *me getting gagged and ordered to delete statements under threat of contempt and then the same court declining to find the challenged rule problematic in a separate case after that*:

The criminal cases I am referring to are also First Amendment cases. E.g.: www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf...

Anyway, read the standing analysis in this opinion yourself and form your own conclusions: www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf...

Then compare it to the standing analysis in this opinion: www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf...

When pre-enforcement standing analysis—which should be vastly easier for all plaintiffs to overcome, especially in First Amendment cases—is selectively deployed this transparently, it makes a real mockery of the court system, which isn’t supposed to exist only for conservative culture warriors.

This opinion is utterly incompatible with the Sixth Circuit cases that don’t even let people challenge criminal laws—including felony prohibitions carrying real and lifelong consequences—without a comically large amount of proof about the likelihood the plaintiff will be prosecuted and convicted.

The highlighted passage finds present just one of four pre-enforcement factors the 6th Circuit normally scrutinizes. And the “warning” it finds present isn’t even a warning! It’s a statement about how the school district interprets its policies, not a specific threat of prosecution.