‘Indecent’ proposal: An NC school club’s plan to test their LGBTQ+ trivia skills is game over — for now
by Lucas Thomae, Carolina Public Press February 14, 2025
Public school students have fought for the right to express themselves going as far back as the 1940s, most notably during the 1960s and well into the age of social media. Over the years, the Pledge of Allegiance, prayer in schools, the Vietnam War and even Snapchat have been debated. A lawsuit recently filed against Cleveland County Schools, in the western part of the state, could provide the latest addition to the canon.
A student is suing the school district after it prohibited a high school club from playing a quiz game centered around LGBTQ+ history and pop culture.
A complaint filed in U.S. District Court by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina alleges that the county violated free speech protections in the U.S. and state constitutions, as well as federal law, by banning Shelby High School’s Activism Club from playing the game.
Cleveland County school officials claimed they were justified in forbidding the activity, arguing that the quiz game was “indecent based on community standards.”They pointed specifically to references of “bisexuality” and “cigarettes” as examples.
The ACLU’s attorneys see it differently.
The speech in question was political in nature, not indecent, they say. And decades of precedent from past U.S. Supreme Court rulings indicate that students do not shed their constitutional rights once they arrive on campus.
“The school is blatantly violating our client’s First Amendment rights and trying to suggest that a game that is text only, depicts nothing sexual in nature and just acknowledges the existence of LGBTQ+ people and their contributions to society is somehow indecent, lewd or obscene,” ACLU attorney Ivy Johnson told Carolina Public Press. “They’re essentially trying to erase (LGBTQ+ people) from the conversation, which is both a First Amendment violation and extremely dangerous.”
Controversy in Cleveland County
The plaintiff in the case is the student who founded the school’s Activism Club, a 17-year-old referred to in the complaint as M.K.
The club meets monthly during the regular school day — a “flex period” from 10:45 a.m. to 11 a.m.
Students are allowed to use the flex period as they wish. The Activism Club often uses the time to “discuss issues of public interest that are not covered in the official curriculum,” according to the complaint. Some of those have included the Black Lives Matter movement, Women’s History Month, breast cancer awareness, suicide prevention and the war in Gaza.
M.K. first proposed the club play a “Jeopardy!”-style quiz game called “LGBTQ+ Representation” in April 2024 during her sophomore year. The quiz, which M.K. created, featured questions asking club members to identify famous LGBTQ+ individuals including politician Harvey Milk, pop star Lady Gaga and comedian Ellen DeGeneres.
Although the club’s faculty advisor, a school counselor, thought the game was a good idea, Shelby High School Principal Eli Wortman decided that students would need to have permission from their parents in order to play.
Because of this, the scheduled date for the quiz game was postponed until the next school year. It was then that M.K. proposed her club play the quiz game last October.
Her proposal was again denied, but this time the rejection came from Cleveland County Schools Superintendent Stephen Fisher via a school board liaison.
That led to lawyers becoming involved.
In early December, Johnson sent a letter to Cleveland County Schools warning administrators that they violated M.K.’s First Amendment rights by prohibiting the club from playing the game.
Six weeks later, an attorney for Cleveland County Schools replied with a three-page letter, clarifying the policies used to make the decision and insisting it was done in a “content-neutral” manner.
Word to the wise
There’s a storied history of Constitutional civil cases that have determined the extent to which public schools can regulate the speech of students.
Perhaps the most famous is Tinker v. Des Moines in which high school student Mary Beth Tinker successfully sued her Iowa school district for First Amendment violations after she was prohibited from wearing a black armband to protest the Vietnam War.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tinker is the origin of the famous maxim that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gates,” and it served as the basis for many future school cases.
Public schools can regulate lewd or profane speech as well as that which encourages illegal drug use, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.
In 1983, high school student Matthew Fraser unsuccessfully tried to bring a First Amendment claim after being suspended for making a sexually suggestive speech at a school assembly.
In 2007, another student’s First Amendment challenge failed after being suspended for holding up a banner that read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” at a school event.
As far as the Cleveland County situation, the complaint alleges the school board may have violated federal law through its unequal treatment of student groups in a “limited open forum.”
The Equal Access Act, passed by Congress in 1984, makes it unlawful for schools that receive federal funding to discriminate against students meeting within a limited open forum, such as school-sanctioned club meetings, on the basis of the speech at those meetings.
“They’ve created this flex period during the day where school clubs and groups can meet,” Johnson said. “In creating this time period, what the school has done is they’ve created this open forum for students. So therefore they cannot discriminate against the Activism Club for wanting to play this game while allowing all these other student groups to discuss whatever they want.”
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-07-12 07:01:00
A Pennsylvania-based company, part of Viatris, will pay over $284 million as part of a $720 million opioid settlement distributed among nine states, including North Carolina, California, and New York. North Carolina is set to receive $23 million, with 85% allocated to local governments. The settlement prohibits seven companies from marketing opioids, limits oxycodone pill strengths, and requires monitoring of suspicious orders. Indivior agreed to stop manufacturing and selling opioids for 10 years but can market addiction treatments. Attorney General Jeff Jackson emphasized holding these companies accountable for fueling the opioid crisis and aiding addiction recovery efforts.
(The Center Square) – A Pennsylvania company boasting the reach of 1 billion patients annually and twice consecutively recognized by TIME magazine’s most sustainable companies list is paying nine states more than a quarter-billion dollars over the next years.
The settlement state prosecutors say “worsened the nationwide opioid crisis” will yield $23 million to North Carolina. Mylan, now a part of Viatris, owns a $284,447,916 share of the $720 million going to the Tarheel State, California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia.
As part of the deal, some states can get free pharmaceutical products instead of cash. Seven companies in the deal are “prohibited from promoting or marketing opioids and opioid products, making or selling any product that contains more than 40 mg of oxycodone per pill, and are required to put in place a monitoring and reporting system for suspicious orders. Indivior has agreed to not manufacture or sell opioid products for the next 10 years, but it will be able to continue marketing and selling medications to treat opioid use disorder.”
North Carolina is sending 85% of the settlements to local governments.
The companies and their amount owed to all states collectively are Mylan (now part of Viatris), $284,447,916 paid over nine years; Hikma, $95,818,293 paid over one to four years; Amneal, $71,751,010 paid over 10 years; Apotex, $63,682,369 paid in a single year; Indivior, $38,022,450 paid over four years; Sun, $30,992,087 paid over one to four years; Alvogen, $18,680,162 paid in a single year; and Zydus, $14,859,220 paid in a single year.
“These companies didn’t do enough to prevent misuse of the addictive opioids they manufactured and helped push us into the nationwide opioid crisis that continues to take lives in North Carolina every day,” said first-term Democratic Attorney General Jeff Jackson. “Today’s settlements hold them accountable for hurting the people of our state and give us resources to help people struggling with addiction.”
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article primarily reports on a legal settlement involving pharmaceutical companies and the opioid crisis without endorsing or criticizing any particular political ideology. It provides factual information about the settlement amounts, participating companies, and the intended use of the funds by state governments. The inclusion of a quote from a Democratic Attorney General is presented as part of reporting on the response rather than promoting a partisan view. The tone remains objective and informative, avoiding emotionally charged or partisan language, which indicates adherence to neutral reporting rather than an ideological stance.
SUMMARY: Many residents in Durham, Orange, and Chatham counties are dealing with severe flooding damage to homes, cars, and belongings. Navigating insurance claims can be challenging. The state Department of Insurance (DOI), local agencies, and nonprofits have set up a victim assistance center in Carrboro to help. Experts advise contacting your insurance company promptly, documenting all damages, making temporary repairs to prevent further harm, and verifying if your home is still safe to live in. DOI also helps resolve slow or denied claims and offers a complaint hotline for disputes, ensuring victims get the support they need.
After a storm, insurance specalists suggest following a checklist, including contacting your insurance company.
SUMMARY: Artificial intelligence is increasingly used in critical decisions like hiring, loans, and policing, but the ACLU warns it can perpetuate racial and disability discrimination. AI systems often reflect past human biases, leading to unfair outcomes, such as an autistic man being excluded during AI-driven hiring or facial recognition causing wrongful arrests, predominantly of Black individuals. The ACLU advocates for federal legislation ensuring civil rights protections for AI use, transparency requirements, and limits on technologies like facial recognition. They emphasize that digital rights must become part of civil rights to prevent AI-driven inequality and protect individuals’ freedoms.
