SCOTUS vs LGBTQ
June 27, 2025 Ruling
What is the purpose of schools? To educate the next generation of citizens for our country. To prepare them to become a functional member of society. When you live in a country created from a diverse set of cultures, then schools need to prepare the next generation to collaborate with a diverse workforce. Most educators would agree with this ideology of education and design classrooms to accommodate a diverse range of students from any background and culture. On June 27, 2025 the Supreme Court ruled against diversity, excluding LGBTQ+ representation in public schools.
The ruling does not prohibit teaching LGBTQ+ history or topics, but it allows parents to opt their child out from exposure to learning about this group of humans. Meaning, teachers will have to let parents know in advance if they are going to read a book about a family with two mothers, or two fathers. However, the reason for having a child opt-out from hearing about different families is purely religious. This ruling from the SCOTUS allows one religion’s ideology to dominate in a country where its citizens’ constitutional right is freedom of religion. Will classroom rethink their pedagogical diversity? The ruling adds an unnecessary strain to public school educators.
Every student in a public school classroom who has a sense of belonging performs better academically. Schools focus on teaching children to respect their peers for who they are regardless of their family’s makeup because most of their life revolves around what happens at school. As children age, peer acceptance becomes a vital part of their social life. When diverse cultures and ideas form into their foundation, children are more likely to develop acceptance for people who differ from them in the real world. This ruling creates an obstacle for most educators who want to create a safe and diverse environment for every student. What about the parents? Isn’t that the parents’ job to teach acceptance?
The current political stance in America regarding the LGBTQ+ is a true testament of how parents are supporting this vulnerable and marginalized group. Since Trump’s first term, bullying targeting LGBTQ+ (particularly trans) has increased. While there are many parents who are unable to spend more time with their child because of economic strife, there are also parents who instill transphobic/homophobic ideas. To keep schools safe, administrators require teachers to implement social emotional learning in the classroom with the focus on empathy, respect, and acceptance.
What happens next?
The decision will fall on school boards and administrations. Schools will either have to decide to remove LGBTQ content from curriculum and discussion on this topic in the classroom, or understand that the most vulnerable group of people need support and continue supporting them and have forms ready for parents to opt-out. Classroom libraries may be purged of content on and from LGBTQ authors. There are much more harmful outcomes from this court’s decision against human rights and self expression.
What you can do?
Support teachers in the classroom. Understand the work they are doing is already colossal. Understand the goal for every classroom to have a safe environment for all students. Encourage your state to amend its constitution to protect families in the LGBTQ community. State constitutions override federal law because of state sovereignty. Check your state’s constitution and lobby for equal human rights for all.
Being part of the LBGTQ community needs to be acceptable because they are human. Parents in the LBGTQ community have children who deserve to have education, along with their peers, and it would support an inclusive environment learning about their history. The SCOTUS’s ruling paints a target on the children of an already marginalized community. It eliminates literature and the topic of representation from being shown in the classroom. By hiding the LGBTQ community, it continues to support the idea of the community being wrong. Strangely, parents with alleged Christian values are the ones pushing to prohibit LGBTQ+ topics from public schools. What is wrong with wanting to live your life authentically? Being in love with someone who loves you for who you are? Most important, how is it Christian to display hatred for a group promoting self-acceptance and love? The LGBTQ community is not a political pawn for people to vote for a ballot. They are human. Ordinary people who will live their lives regardless of laws, executive orders, or court decisions.
About the Creator
Iris Harris
An aspiring novelist. I enjoy writing ghost, horror, and drama. Occassionally, I dabble with some essays. You can find more of my work with the link below:
Keep reading
More stories from Iris Harris and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Safeguarding Voting
Attention all women, Black and Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC), Naturalized American citizens, and trans-people. Are you tired of having to listen to political speeches drone on and on about how awful the opposing candidate is for your state or country? Has it become a hassle to conduct your own research on all running candidates for an elected office? Wouldn’t you rather just breeze through your life without worrying about the political direction of your state or country? Well, fear no more! The US Republican party has a solution for you. Introducing the SAVE Act, short for Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.
By Iris Harris9 months ago in The Swamp
Meta Blocks 550,000 Accounts Under Australia’s Social Media Ban
Australia’s Social Media Ban Hits Hard Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has blocked more than 550,000 accounts in response to Australia’s new social media regulations. The move comes as the government enforces stricter rules designed to combat misinformation, online harassment, and harmful content, including material deemed illegal or unsafe. While this is the largest enforcement action of its kind, it reflects a growing trend: governments are no longer treating social media platforms as free-for-all spaces. Regulators are increasingly holding tech giants accountable for what happens on their platforms—sometimes forcing them to act quickly and decisively, even at scale. What Australia’s Social Media Ban Entails Australia’s legislation, aimed at protecting citizens online, gives authorities the power to demand removal or restriction of content considered illegal, unsafe, or harmful. Social media companies that fail to comply face heavy fines. The law targets a range of issues, including: Misinformation and fake news Content promoting self-harm or suicide Hate speech and harassment Material that violates national security or public order For Meta, compliance meant identifying, reviewing, and blocking hundreds of thousands of accounts—a task of unprecedented scale. How Meta Responded Meta confirmed it had blocked over 550,000 accounts, including both individual users and pages, primarily to comply with government orders. The company also ramped up automated systems and human moderation teams in Australia to monitor content and enforce the new rules. The scale of the action highlights how governments can now influence the digital landscape, especially when platforms operate within their borders. However, Meta’s approach has sparked debate about accuracy, fairness, and free expression. Critics argue that large-scale account blocking can inadvertently silence legitimate users alongside harmful actors. Free Speech vs. Safety: A Delicate Balance Australia’s social media ban raises challenging questions about the balance between free expression and online safety. Supporters argue that strict enforcement is necessary to protect citizens, prevent the spread of dangerous misinformation, and curb online harassment. Critics warn that sweeping measures can unintentionally suppress legitimate voices, limit public debate, and give tech companies enormous power to decide what is acceptable. This tension is not unique to Australia—it reflects a global debate over how much control governments should have over online platforms. The Human and Technical Challenges Blocking over half a million accounts is no small feat. Meta relies on both automated systems and human moderators to identify content that violates laws. While technology can flag obvious violations, subtle issues like satire, context, and regional differences require human review. This raises questions about errors and fairness. Could legitimate accounts be blocked? How transparent is the process? Meta says it tries to balance compliance with user rights, but incidents of overreach or mistakes are almost inevitable at this scale. International Implications Australia’s social media ban is likely to influence other countries considering stricter regulation of digital platforms. Governments in Europe, Asia, and North America are watching closely to see how social media companies respond to legal pressure. The action by Meta signals to regulators worldwide that tech giants can and will comply with national laws, even when it involves mass enforcement. At the same time, it highlights the challenges of global platforms operating under multiple jurisdictions, each with different legal and cultural standards. Meta’s Broader Strategy Meta’s large-scale blocking of accounts is part of a broader strategy to adapt to increasing regulation worldwide. Over the past few years, governments have enacted laws targeting misinformation, online harassment, hate speech, and data privacy. Companies like Meta face a delicate balancing act: comply with local laws, protect users, and maintain global platform consistency. Australia’s enforcement highlights how reactive and adaptive tech companies must become in a rapidly changing regulatory landscape. Public Reaction and Controversy The public reaction has been mixed. Many Australians support strong measures to curb online harm, especially after high-profile cases of online abuse or misinformation. At the same time, some worry about overreach, censorship, and the lack of transparency in mass account blocking. Social media users, advocacy groups, and legal experts are calling for clearer guidelines and appeals processes, so that users whose accounts were mistakenly blocked can have their voices restored. This conversation is likely to intensify as governments continue to regulate online speech more aggressively. Looking Ahead: What This Means for Social Media Australia’s social media ban—and Meta’s response—marks a turning point in the regulation of online platforms. Governments now have tools to enforce compliance, while social media companies must adapt quickly or face legal consequences. For users, it signals a changing landscape where content is increasingly monitored and regulated. For companies, it demonstrates the high stakes of non-compliance and the operational challenges of moderating millions of accounts worldwide. The broader implication is clear: social media is no longer a free-for-all environment. National laws, safety concerns, and global scrutiny now dictate how platforms operate, shaping the way millions of people interact online. Final Thoughts Meta’s blocking of 550,000 accounts under Australia’s social media ban is a powerful example of how governments and tech companies are grappling with the complexities of online regulation. Balancing safety, legality, and free expression is a high-stakes challenge that will only grow as the digital landscape evolves. For Australia, it is a test of regulatory power. For Meta, it is a test of operational capacity and ethical responsibility. And for users worldwide, it is a reminder that the rules of the online world are changing—and that compliance, safety, and governance now shape how we experience social media every day.
By Muhammad Hassanabout 5 hours ago in The Swamp
Comments (9)
Good for you. Shout it loud and proud to the treetops. Children are innocent until adults mess them up. Maddening.
Funny how by shielding children against this, they unleash children into a new world so unprepared.
What an important read. I'm gonna send the link to a few friends of mine that also needs to read this.
SCOTUS and the Trump administration are actively dumbing down our society. They are trying to shield our children from the realities of life. Therefore we will be sending children out there as young adults who are going to be naïve about the diverse range of people out there in the real world. That’s no way to raise and educate children.
I really enjoyed your article. I was not aware this was passed last month. Being a part of the LGBTQ+ community. I see the struggles first hands from hate crimes to just plain idiotic people who just don't know any better,. Thank you for bringing this to the fore front.
Thank you for speaking this truth with clarity and conviction. Representation is not optional—it’s essential for empathy, understanding, and safety. This ruling doesn’t protect children; it protects ignorance. We must keep showing up, speaking up, and standing with our LGBTQ+ students, families, and educators.
Back to say congratulations 🎉🎉
Your political articles are always on point Iris. I have never felt such an overwhelming bleakness as I do today.
This is a disgusting ruling, and while Trump and his cronies are in power, it will get worse. This should be a top Story, but I don't know if Vocal will have the guts to do that given they support "X" (default share) and may be wary of anything seen as anti Trump. Excellent work