Skip to main content
  • Hire Top-Rated Alameda School Censorship Lawyers Today!

    Hire Top-Rated Alameda School Censorship Lawyers Today!

    Over $150 Million Won

If we don’t win, you don’t pay.


No Win No Fee Promise from reputable nationwide USA accident attorney specializing in severe burn injuries to skin
Speak to the Attorney.

ON CALL 24/7

On Call 24/7 to answer questions and strike back to get you urgent medical and legal aid when you need it
Born to serve.

U.S. Marine

Inactive U.S. Marine Lawyer - As an aside, we practice law statewide and in Texas.
Date Modified: December 15, 2023

Many Alameda, CA parents started complaining in 2020 that schools had become breeding grounds for hatred of whites and parents while pushing sex between adult males and children. Parents complained their children were being subtly instructed that parents are “patriarchy” by colleges and teachers’ unions. When parents started to stand up and fight back, we saw them being silenced at school board meetings, harassed, and intimidated by federal police all over YouTube. Parents and their kids think it makes sense for them to be heard at school board meetings. At the Ehline Law Firm, we understand firsthand the impacts of censorship, particularly within tax-funded, public education, and law enforcement personnel using social media to silence political enemies. 

This is why our experienced and knowledgeable Censorship Lawyers serving Alameda with over 18 years of experience are so committed to protecting your rights and ensuring your voice is heard. This article aims to introduce our services, discuss relevant issues surrounding school censorship, and ultimately, guide you on safeguarding your legal rights “When Your Education is at Stake” in Alameda, California. Our lead child abuse lawyer, Michael Ehline, and his lawyers in related practice areas can help parents in all CA cities with all types of abuse cases.

Purpose of this Article? 

This article, by world-famous child abuse injury attorney Michael Ehline, will explore how parents and others can sue the school and rogue teachers for violating their rights to speak up and protest overt and covert sexual child grooming being forced on their kids and their families. Below, we will explain how teachers’ unions are being accused of infusing leftist ideology into the minds of impressionable school children. We will also look at what many parents call “child grooming.” They say radicalized teachers unions are “coming for your children.” They say since 2020, the “radical LGBTQ agenda” has drastically harmed parental rights in the state of California.

We firmly believe that freedom of speech, open dialogue, and exchanging ideas form the bedrock of quality education. We can take assertive legal action when public servants threaten these principles with a dysphoric ideology or financial interest. When the state is involved in this new gig and profiting at the expense of families, we will NOT BACK DOWN.

We believe that all Americans, not just so-called minorities, should have their rights protected. Sadly, in practice, parents complain that Critical Race Theory (CRT) teaches that the government must mistreat whites and even Asians to make things “fair.” This is part of why parents are so angry, especially the hundreds of thousands of bi-racial families in California. Here is a breakdown of everything parents must know to protect their children from woke school teachers.

Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. – Potter Stewart

Why Choose Ehline Law Firm to Sue the Woke School Board? 

  • Expertise in School Censorship Law: Our legal team has extensive knowledge and experience in school censorship law and how California and its accomplices in Silicon Valley have tried to create a fake consensus on science and politics. (Source: Twitter Files.)
  • Highly Rated Attorneys: Recognized as some of the top-rated personal injury lawyers in Los Angeles, our team prides itself on its expertise, client satisfaction, and dedication.
  • Contingency Fee Basis: We operate on a contingency fee basis. This means that we don’t get paid unless you win your case. You can trust in our commitment to securing the best possible outcome for your situation.
  • Millions Won: With millions of dollars won for our clients, we have a proven track record of successfully resolving complex personal injury cases. We always place the people over corrupt, single-party systems, such as the one in place in California being used to indoctrinate CHILDREN. When we say: “leave our kids alone,” we mean it!

Both Sides Argue They Are Being Censored

  • Parents’ Argument Re: Censorship: On one side, we have parents and their minor children. These “birthing people” are angry that pornographic, sexually explicit material was placed in school libraries by “woke activists” and so-called “scholastics,” receiving tax funding and subsidies from their woke politician friends in Sacramento. They argue this is about pushing perversion and making money off it, plain and simple.
  • Govt aka LGBTQ Advocate “Teachers” Union Argument Re: Censorship: On the other side, we have woke activists with teaching credentials (parents say these folks were indoctrinated in the Marxist university system to hate white people, especially white males [so-called “patriarchy]. These political activist teachers “educating” your kids, claim that fascist [mainly white] parents are trying to “censor” kindergartners from reading LGBTQ propaganda. The school boards had been SILENCING parents at school board meetings. Parents fought back and kicked these activist school board members out. Then, say parents, Gavin Newsom passed laws to castrate parental rights. They say this is the now defunct Man Boy Love Association (MANBLA) of the 1980s repackaged, with billions in funding from far-left donors who hung out at Epstein Island. They do not like the “Gavin Newsom, Scott Weiner position.”

Let’s get into the facts and the approach to fighting totalitarian California’s anti-parent, faith-based, gender and sexual ideology K-12.

Parents Have Two Main Complaints

  1. Censorship of Complaining Parents and Students: At least one FBI email shows the National Teachers Union demanded the FBI investigate parents who complained, and in fact, parents were investigated for merely speaking out NON-VIOLENTLY and NON-TREATENINGLY. The White House helped draft the memo, calling parents “DOMESTIC TERRORISTS.” Some say they were even attacked by police and arrested for trying to exercise their First Amendment rights at School Board meetings. This started the Temecula School Board Revolution that went as far as Chino, Ontario, and some parts of Orange County and Alameda. This was also when a significant spike in single-family parents fleeing California began.
  2. Retaliation and Social “Cancelling” of Complaining Parents: ANTIFA and other democrat organizations bus transgender rights advocates and agitators to disrupt parent conferences as proxies for the teacher’s unions, according to many parent rights organizations in Los Angeles, CA. As noted, the teacher’s unions are accused of acting as STATE ACTORS, using a weaponized FBI to brand parents as “DOMESTIC TERRORISTS.” The lapdog press tried to explain this all away but ultimately ignored it. Their new message is that a “few” parents are trying to censor books. However, parents are starting to protest woke teachers (“child groomers”) everywhere, and the NSBA is worried. You will recall that the head of Twitter “Trust and Safety,” Yoel Roth, [Twitter’s former head LGBTQ activist pushing sex with little boys], was also an academic who wrote his college dissertation about making it easier for little boys to hook up with men for sex on Grindr. (See the video here.) He also fielded emails from the FBI and other agencies demanding censorship of those hostile to the Biden Admin’s gender ideology movement.

The National School Boards Association board of directors …. repudiated a letter its two top officials sent to President Biden, which precipitated Attorney General Merrick Garland’s order that the FBI to investigate complaints of threats to school officials from parents. – NY Post.

In a message to NSBA members, the board said that “we regret and apologize for the letter,” which was sent Sept. 29 and co-signed by association CEO Chip Slaven and President Viola Garcia. – NY Post.

Parents Censored for Complaining About:

1. Secret “Gender Affirming Care” Indoctrination of Minors

Radical Transgender Ideology on k-12 is purportedly being kept secret by Teacher’s Unions, and parents are FURIOUS. Teachers unions want to keep any “gender-affirming care” their members “teach” your kids during “Pride Month,” SECRET, for example.

Can activist teachers strip parents of rights under the guidance of the “Mandatory Reporter”?

According to parents and many CPS lawsuit attorneys, yes, they do. Activist teachers and the State of California say it would be “violent” to tell parents, triggering their MANDATORY REPORTER DUTIES. They claim since their student is “coming out,” they can strip parents of their rights if they refuse to approve of the public servant’s finding that their son or daughter is a “they, them, there” pronoun. They are required to report your crime of violence for refusing to “affirm” your child is not their biological sex.

Many California parents are concerned about the direct, indirect, and long-term implications of these highly political gender ideology programs on their children. There’s a worry about children being exposed to concepts and ideas they might not fully understand. Mainly, there’s a fear children might feel pressured to conform or make decisions about their identity at an age history sees as being too young. Parents say enough with the LGBTQ indoctrination, especially when teachers force Drag Queen Library Day and non-stop rainbow flags on minor children.

Many parents and traditional therapists think it is insanity to think these activists are not indoctrinating kids. Of course, this is not to say that many teachers are not upset, either. We have interviewed many whistleblower teachers who say the same thing: “The teachers’ unions are forcing us into college campus-style groupthink, all designed to turn children against their parents.” – Anonymous Former, CA public school teacher.

One parent said:

“… drive through a few LAUSD public school teacher parking lots. That will say a lot about the teachers. Look at their bumper stickers. Might as well be a Pride Festival.” – T. Cloud, Torrance, CA.

  • Pressure and Influence: Parents often express concerns about external influences or pressures that might affect their children, pushing them towards unprepared decisions. This is also part and parcel of “child grooming,” which involves separating kids from their parents and brainwashing them into a perverted sexual ideology. If school teachers are indoctrinating kids, it makes sense parents would go ballistic. That, of course, would be used as a pretext to call your mom and dad “domestic terrorists.”
  • Information overload: There’s also a real fear that children will be burdened with too much information, leading to confusion or distress. This is what gender confusion is all about. The more confused your child is, the more a gender-affirming doctor can bill and the fewer rights you have as a parent to protect your child from this same confusion. Remember, if you disaffirm, you are “violent.”
  • Lack of Oversight: Some parents say they want to be involved in any discussions around gender identity. They fear these programs infringe on parental rights or do not involve parents. Single mothers, in particular, are easily influenced by this gender-affirming ideology, with promises of money and unique care benefits, according to at least one prominent psychiatrist. Teacher’s unions say this interferes with their child “coming out,” so it’s “violent.”

These concerns are heartfelt and met with these parental concerns under arguments from advocates of gender-affirming programs. They argue that these programs serve to give children the tools to understand and express their gender identity safely and in a supportive environment. 

2. Porn in School Libraries

Any Facebook paid Fact Checker will tell you there is no porn being forced in K-12. If you dare say that on their social media sites, you risk being banned and having your content banned or shadowbanned for “Misinformation.” 

For-profit media and others receiving copious amounts of ad spend from woke corporations are pushing the Larry Fink, DEI agenda, say parents.

Teachers Unions Prefer Pay Raises over Parents?

Teacher’s unions benefit because they are pushing a political agenda. And since the majority of public school teachers are Democrats, they can count on tax-funded pay raises if they tow the political line. There are new books to be sold and gender-affirming hormones that other doctors and nursing unions stand to make a nice clawback from as well. They all donate to the same politicians. This is the battle parents face.

Statistics on Political Views of Woke Teachers – VIDEO

97 Dem Public School Teachers Per 3 Republican?

“Among English teachers, there are 97 Democrats for every three Republicans, with the proportion being even more one-sided among health teachers…” – Source: Pacific Research

“The joke in the town I grew up in was that the only Democrats in town were the teachers.” – Source: Matt Johnson, Long Beach, CA

There are more than ten professors [the people who credential your teachers] affiliated with the Democratic Party for every one faculty member who is a registered Republican. Indeed, faculty political affiliations at 39% of the colleges in my sample are Republican free — having zero Republicans.” – Mitchell Langbert, Associate Professor of Business Management at Brooklyn College – Source: NAS.Org

For every 1 Republican school teacher there are 4 Democrat teachers (80 D’s for every 20 R’s) – Source: FEC Campaign contribution data as reported in Washington Post, 2015

Many teacher’s unions rely on a 2017 Education Week survey that found only 41% of teachers admitted being Democrats. Parents think the WaPo study and NAS data are more accurate. Since Obama, there has been a sea change in more government employee jobs being occupied by Democrats and donating democrat. 

Government Unions Vote Far Left Too.

A new report measures public union cash flow to Democrats nationwide.

Percentage of Democrat Teacher Campaign Donations is Overwhelming – 94%

Even more than most labor unions, they have little use for Republicans, giving Democrats at least 94% of the funds they contributed to candidates and parties since as far back as 1990, where our data begins. Source: Open Secrets

California Porn Laws Ignored by Schools? Why?

Gender-affirming ideologists, in particular, say it is violent not to let your kids see the sex acts depicted in their books. Parents say there is adult porn material in our schools designed to “out” children and groom children into perverted, unclean sexual activity. A cursory review of California pornography laws places many of these books, with their sexually explicit images and messages, into the sexually “pornographic” category. But to many parents and Christians, it seems there is a coordinated effort by radicalized teachers’ unions to force adult sexual material on children. 

It’s happening with all taxpayer-funded schools nationwide at your expense. 

The Iowa State Education Association and Penguin Random House filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday challenging parts of an state law prohibiting books that depict sex acts from being available in Iowa K-12 school libraries. – Source: Iowa Dispatch

There are two areas of porn law at play:

  1. Children Viewing Porn
  2. Porn Images of Children in School Books.

Children Viewing Porn Books Laws in CA?

In California, it is illegal for minors to view pornographic materials. California Penal Code Section 313 outlines the laws and penalties regarding exposure to explicit materials deemed harmful to minors. The stipulations of this code target entities that intentionally distribute or sell explicit content to minors, with punishments including monetary fines and possible jail time. 

However, when it comes to education, the situation becomes murkier. Some courts have found, for example, that artistic sexual images or depictions of children are not “child porn.” However, they are nonetheless pornographic. School programs and curriculums are supposed to adhere to the guidance from the California Department of Education.

Yet, as many parents have discovered, some school libraries’ materials have graphic, sexually explicit content. And, of course, when parents try to talk about it, they are silenced by the state and its submissive school boards.

Parents Are Allowed to Fight Public Servants Forcing Sexual Ideology on Kids

Parents and guardians, many state laws allow you the right to challenge the appropriateness of the content accessible to your child in school. California Education Code section 49091.10 explicitly states that parents have the right to examine the instructional materials of the school their children attend. However, the companies selling these books say it is merely a book and not being used for instruction. Hence, parents have no rights over the materials in the library. Does this make sense?

Maybe look at the fact California recently lowered the legal age for men to have sex with young boys. “…Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed SB 145 to allow 24-year-olds to have sex with 14-year-olds without being required to register as a sex offender…” Source: Washington Examiner

California also recently forced some retail stores to maintain a “trans kids” toy section. Democrat policies are moving entire steam ahead and are “coming for your children,” say parents.

Legal Ramifications of Porn Images of Children in School Books

The explicit representation of minors in a sexual context is strictly forbidden under the legal regulations of both federal and California state law. Federal law, defined under US Code Title 18 Section 2256, considers any explicit sexual depiction of minors (those below 18 years) as child pornography. 

Similarly, California’s law, as articulated under California Penal Code Section 311, proscribes involvement in creating, distributing, or possessing explicit sexual material involving those under the age of 18, thereby safeguarding their interests. 

Penalties and Consequences under Federal and State Law 

The penalties for infringements of child pornography laws under both federal and state jurisdictions are severe. Federal laws could impose penalties ranging from 15 to 30 years in prison, which escalate if the offense is recurring. 

Under California law, violations can result in a state prison sentence ranging from a few years to life, depending on the severity and gravity of the infringement. Besides these legal penalties, such convictions could also impair future employment opportunities, deteriorate social relationships, and even result in registration as a sex offender. Parents say there is zero justice for families with people like Scott Weiner dictating policy in our schools.

Legal Implications of Sexually Explicit Material in School Books 

Introducing pornographic content within the educational sphere, specifically through school resources, could potentiate numerous legal implications. Schools permitting or promoting such content could be held accountable for contravening child pornography laws. 

Furthermore, the school board members, staff, or administrators guilty in these scenarios could also face personal liability. Such occurrences also often trigger tort liabilities, including claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and negligence per se, among others. 

Schools may also find their federal funding threatened, as violating child pornography statutes often represents a failure to maintain a safe, non-hostile educational environment, as mandated by Title IX. 

Legal Recourse for Challenging Inappropriate School Materials 

You can express your outrage and seek legal recourse should you discover explicit content accessible to your child at school.

The following are the steps you may follow: 

  1. Firstly, it is crucial to document the explicit content. Taking photographs or photocopies can serve as compelling evidence.
  2. Bring the explicit material to the school administrators’ attention, requesting the removal from the library or classroom.
  3. If the school district fails to act, consider escalating your complaint to the school board or the California Department of Education.
  4. You may file a civil damages claim if they still do not act. This process might require expert legal representation to navigate successfully.

At Ehline Law Firm, we understand the gravity of this issue and are committed to protecting the future of your child’s education. If you hire us, our dedicated Alameda School Censorship Lawyers will guide you through launching a successful legal action. From the initial consultation to executing a viable legal strategy, we will be with you every step, ensuring your voice is heard and your rights are defended. 

It is not within the school’s jurisdiction to expose your child to inappropriate content, especially under the guise of education. If a school fails to act appropriately, legal intervention may be the only chance to protect your child and prevent this from happening to other students.

“Victorious in the face of adversity, we ensure justice is done and seen – our resolve in taking the duty of guardianship over your legal rights remains unshaken.”

Examples of “Porn” Given to Kids By CA Teachers [aka Social Justice ADVOCATES]

“Beyond Magenta” – Susan Kuklin

Purportedly, these are stories of LGBTQ+ youth. Many passages describe children as “sexually mature.”

One passage says [I] “hated being a kid,” and of course, wanted to be with older MALES randomly in the neighborhood. Parents and many non-LGBTQ activist doctors say this is straight-up “child grooming.” Still not convinced?  “I was sexually mature. What I mean by sexually mature is that I knew about sex. From six and up, I used to kiss other guys in my neighborhood, make out with them, and perform oral sex on them. I liked it. I used to love oral. And I touched their you-know-whats. We were young, but that’s what we did… Guys used to hit on me – perverts – pedophiles. I’d see guys giving me a look, and it creeped me out. They would touch themselves, saying, ‘Come here, sweetie.’ I ran away… By then, I hated being a kid; I had a grown-up mind and thought I was an adult.” 

“This Book is Gay”

The content investigates collective sexual activities, unusual sexual preferences, and digital outlets dedicated to sexual interactions. This material was found through the digital book catalog of the Sequoia school, commonly known as the Follett Destiny Library Manager.

“We in the kink community are aware that there are a multitude of ways people can… achieve gratification without touching and without orgasm. So this is all very fuzzy,” based on excerpts in the book. 

“This Book is Gay” also covers the gay site “Grindr” that Twitter once hoped kids would join, and detailed information on engaging in anal and “girl-on-girl” sex.

Gender Queer

Gender Queer” In 2021, the American Library Association listed the graphic novel “Gender Queer” as the most challenged book nationwide. The heart of the controversy lies in determining whether its presence in school libraries and classrooms is suitable, given its overtly graphic depictions of oral sex.

Juliet Takes a Breath

“Juliet Takes a Breath,” authored by Gabby Rivera, tells the journey of a woman discovering her lesbian orientation, featuring detailed illustrations of intimate encounters, self-pleasure, and sexual thrill, according to Common Sense Media.


The book, whose former title was “George,” This article discusses the journey of a transgender girl in fourth grade. Certain sections in the text use somewhat crude language when describing a child’s genitalia. “She immersed her body in the warm water and tried not to think about what was between her legs, but there it was, bobbing in front of her,” according to the book. Another part of the book states, “There was nothing George dreaded more than when boys talked about what was in her underpants.”

When skirts were discussed, Kelly said, “I choose not to wear them to school, as boys tend to be mischievous and attempt to sneak a peek underneath them.”

“I don’t wear them to school. Boys are dirty and try to look up them.” “I’d never try to look up your skirt,” said George. “Of course not. You’re not a boy.” 

“I wouldn’t even consider peeking under your skirt,” George affirmed. “Certainly not. I’m not a boy.” The narrative also explores Melissa’s (formerly named George) experience with using the restroom. “Melissa locked herself in a stall, delighted for the privacy. She lifted her skirt to see her underwear, covered in tiny red hearts. She pulled it down, sat, and peed, just like a girl… This part of this magnificent day was her secret.” 

Milk and Honey

“Milk and Honey,” penned by Rupi Kaur, is a poetry anthology addressing concepts of womanhood, amour, distress, and aggression. A particular page showcases an illustration of a nude woman with her legs extended apart, encompassing a central poem, which expresses, “You have been taught that your legs are a pit stop for men that need a place to rest; a vacant body empty enough for guests, but no one ever comes and is willing to stay.”

Black Girl Unlimited

As per the analysis by Common Sense Media, the book includes intricate depictions of mutually agreed sexual acts, self-pleasure, and sexual daydreams. It frequently alludes to grown-up sexual and romantic themes, encompassing faithfulness and infidelity in matrimony, as well as a character known for her promiscuity. The book also shows “graphic scenes of violence.” “A woman puts a knife to her husband’s throat and draws blood. A young girl stabs a woman to death. A teen blurs memories of consensual sex with memories of being sexually assaulted by a neighbor,” says Common Sense Media.

The 57 Bus

This book addresses “restorative justice” in sexual harassment cases. It gives an example of a male student who touched several girls inappropriately and criticizes the practice of suspension, arguing that it unfairly targets African-American males. 

The narrative opens with an explanatory section that characterizes numerous romantic, sexual orientations, and gender identities, serving as a glossary for readers.

  • Graysexual – Predominantly lacks sexual attraction, however, experiences it infrequently.
  • Pansexual – Experiences physical attraction toward individuals of all gender identities.
  • Cupiosexual – Regardless of a lack of sexual attraction, still maintains an interest in sexual activities.
  • Cupioromantic – Doesn’t feel romantic attraction but is still interested in romance.
  • Quoiromantic – Doesn’t understand the difference between romantic and platonic love.
  • Neutrois – Doesn’t identify as any gender
  • Gender questioning – Is unsure of where they fit on the gender spectrum.

3. Anti-White Hatred, aka “Critical Race Theory.”

Parents complain at board meetings that intersectionalism and other names for Critical Race Theory (CRT) are infused into what amounts to secret Soviet Style brainwashing. Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an academic and legal framework that examines how race and racism intersect with social structures to perpetuate systemic inequalities. In application, it theorizes that most nonwhites are  “marginalized groups” in need of reparations or forced wealth redistribution from whites. Although interpretations and applications of CRT can vary, complaining parents and publicly available teachings show CRT teaches that all white people are systemically and “irredeemably” racist. 

Tax Paid CRT Teacher Says All Whites Are “Racist”

History of CRT

In the late 1980s, leftist legal scholars and far-left political activists created critical race theory. The co-founder of the CRT movement, Mari Matsuda, provided a definition for critical race theory, which is: “the work of progressive legal scholars of color who are attempting to develop a jurisprudence that accounts for the role of racism in American law and that work toward the elimination of racism as part of a larger goal of eliminating all forms of subordination.”

The goal of CRT – Punishment of Whites Forever?

“Gone are the days of Martin Luther King Jr.’s notion of judging people solely by the content of their character.” (Source: Texas Scorecard for Parents.)  While equity and equality may seem similar, they carry distinct meanings. Equality implies uniform treatment for all, regardless of their circumstances; conversely, under the academia/woke system, equity caters to the needs of “marginalized” people (anyone not pale-skinned), forcing their white neighbors to pay any perceived differences from their taxes.

One example is California forcing people to pay more for electricity if they make more income (a form of communism). This shows the “marginalized voters” that their politicians care about them by exposing more “oppressor” whites to paying more and even denying services to whites in favor of the less advantaged. Parents complain this is no different than what the Nazis did to the Jews.

Parents also complain that woke law school professors are churning out the next generation of judges who believe in forced wealth redistribution and punishment of whites in favor of so-called “marginalized groups” as “equity.” There is no room for equality; a centralized planner (a public employee) decides who gets what tax-funded resources and why.

Video of Tax Paid 100K Yr CRT Teacher Explaining “All White People Are Evil”

Here is a video by a CRT instructor explaining that all white people are evil and incapable of redemption. It teaches only white people can be racist and that black people can’t be racist, so apparently, it’s ok to hate white people. This is similar to the pro-Hamas, anti-Israel propaganda on many colleges we see, say parents. Parents say this is designed to destroy families and place their children under a Soviet-style social block captain, or “minder.”

Video of NEA Head Demanding CRT Indoctrination of Impressionable Children

This has all been documented, according to many parents. Despite early denials, the head of the NEA leader wants anti-white CRT indoctrination of all public school children. Left-wing media such as Wikipedia and their fact-check fact-checkers all say CRT is not being, nor will it be, taught in public schools. However, a good body of evidence now exists it is being conducted under other names and integrated into the school curriculum subtly to pain whites as “oppressors” and nonwhites as “victims.” 

Teachers Unions Finally Admit They Are Pushing RACIST CRT in All States

“Some more liberal colleges in CA (the ones who trained your child’s teacher) are “…lumping Asian and white students together because their test scores are roughly the same. Students of color — not including Asians — were a separate category.” 

California Doubles Down On Parents

Government Position: Accuse Parents of Conspiracy Theorist

Gavin Newsom claims exposing children to highly sexual, raunchy books is part of his Family’s Agenda to promote educational freedom and success. So AB, 1078 was sponsored by Assemblymember Dr. Corey.

Newsom praised the bill’s quick passage Thursday, saying it would send a message to school boards not to put their political agenda ahead of the education rights of his woke agenda.

A Guide to California’s Student Press Freedom Laws

The law is supposed to protect the freedom of the press of California’s public school student journalists, and school officials cannot censor student media. (Source.)

“”California school district faces legal challenge over critical race theory and transgender policy.”””California school district faces legal challenge over critical race theory and transgender policy.”

Why Temecula Matters to Alameda?

The Temecula Valley Unified School District, currently embroiled in a contentious debate over its ban on critical race theory and its transgender policies, has been drawn into a legal dispute instigated by an alliance of parents, students, educators, and a union. They are the reason Newsom was unable to force his radical LGBTQ agenda on parents there. They kicked out their extreme, far-left school board and got rid of what they consider to be “child grooming” materials, especially sexually riveting library books.

This lawsuit against the school board of Temecula was initially brought forward by the non-profit civil rights law organization Public Counsel, along with Ballard Spahr, a prominent law firm, with an argument that the Board’s regulations are infringing upon the rights of students, as stated in the California state constitution. Our constitution stipulates that education is a ‘fundamental right’ and proactively guards students against racial prejudice. The issue is teachers’ unions pushing CRT claim only “white people” can be racist (oppressor class), so it’s not racism to treat whites poorly to make up for the sins of their forefathers.

“Due to the Board’s censorship, Temecula students are being misinformed and left behind the rest of the state. Unless stopped, the Board’s actions will place these students at a permanent disadvantage in preparing for college, careers, and participation in a diverse democracy,” according to Amanda Mangaser Savage.

She is the supervising senior staff attorney for Public Counsel. Newsom and many newly admitted judges appear eager to enforce this new equity law created on a college campus. But some lawyers are fighting back. 

“We fight for every voice – be it one that echoes with the multitude or stands alone against the majority. Because a democratic society is not where the majority prevails but where the minorities are protected.”

This is our commitment to equality and diversity – offering everyone a chance to fight back against institutions that try to silence them. Our commitment to equality and diversity stems from our undying belief in every individual’s right to express their opinions, irrespective of their background or beliefs. We firmly stand against the institutionalized mechanism to suppress these voices, often leading to distorted discussions within the societal fabric. As Alameda School Censorship Lawyers, our goal is simple – to ensure every voice is heard, every argument is considered, and every individual is given the due respect that our constitution promises.

In a republic like ours, where the Constitution guarantees everyone the freedom of speech and expression, it becomes a dire state of affairs when those rights are plucked away systematically by governing institutions. The palpable threat this poses to academia’s integrity, particularly concerning our state’s schools, is of tremendous concern. To address this, our team of experts at the Ehline Law Firm delve deep, aiming to bring to light and counter instances of institutionalized censorship in Alameda schools. 

Expertise and Empathy: The Pillars of Our Service 

What sets us apart at Ehline Law Firm in Alameda isn’t merely our professional expertise and the empathy with which we approach every case. We believe that every situation requires us to understand the implications and the personal implications for our clients. This sense of empathy drives us to form stronger relationships with our clients, ultimately allowing us to shape more effective legal strategies with our years of experience winning cases. 

“We are not just a law firm; we consider ourselves allies in our clients’ battles against the silencing authority.”

Our dedicated free speech rights attorneys are familiar with the terrain of school censorship law and are rigorously trained to handle these cases’ unique complexities. Equipped with the sensitivity required to handle cases involving the youth’s future, the team rolls up its sleeves to give our clients the best legal representation one can expect from top-rated lawyers. With us by your side, you can rest assured that your voice, rights, and freedom of expression are in capable hands. 

Committed to Fight: No Win, No Fee 

We function on a contingency fee basis. We are committed to fighting your battles without charging you a penny until we win. Our team will pour in every professional effort, leaving no stone unturned to ensure your situation’s best legal outcome. Thus, we shoulder the financial risks, enabling our clients to focus solely on their fight for justice.

“Your fight for justice is ours, and we leave no room for complacency until victory is attained.”

Remember, change begins with a single voice. So let your voice against censorship echo through the hallways of power, and we at Ehline Law Firm will ensure it’s heard. If your rights have been curtailed or squelched, contact us today by dialing 833-LETS-SUE. Together, let’s leave no room for prejudice and silence. Let’s fight for the right to be heard. Because, after all, the dialogue is the heart of the Constitutional Republic, and we promise to keep it beating. 

Parents’ Rights in School Board Meetings Versus Secret Gender Identity Discussions in Public Schools

In a world increasingly swayed by progressive ideologies, the debate surrounding the state’s role in molding students’ thoughts and perceptions concerning gender has never been more critical. Contentiously, radical gender ideology has made its way into our public education systems, causing much anxiety among parents and triggering dissent at school board meetings. The controversy involves censorship, parental rights, adolescents’ autonomy, and educators’ roles. 

This article aims to unravel these complexities, focusing on two controversial trends. Firstly, the hindrances parents face when raising concerns about radical gender ideology at school board meetings – a disturbing form of censorship. Secondly, the controversial practice of encouraging students to hide their gender identity from their parents is critically assessed. 

Freedom of speech, an essential pillar of democracy, turns into a battleground when parents’ attempts to voice their concerns about radical gender ideology are stifled at school board meetings.

Censorship at its finest: Parents Silenced 

Public school systems, traditionally regarded as the arena for free thought and vibrant discourse, are ironically turning into bastions of censorship. This manifest contradiction instigates us to delve into the problematic practice of thwarting parents from expressing their reservations about the indoctrination of radical gender ideology in schools. 

What Parents Say?

  • There is a growing trend of censorship against parents who oppose radical gender ideology in schools. 
  • Parents are not allowed to read the pornographic books given to their kids out loud at board meetings.
  • Parents are not allowed to complain at school board meetings about pornographic materials loaded by the school districts on student laptops.
  • Parents are being marginalized and silenced in discussions about gender identity in public schools. 
  • Teachers encourage students to explore and embrace their gender identity without parental knowledge. 
  • Some public schools are instructing students to keep their gender identity secret from their parents. 
  • Parents’ rights to voice concerns at school board meetings are being severely restricted under force, threats, and color of law by the FBI and local police. 

What Many Woke Teachers Want

LGBTQ activist teachers and school administrators are basically giving the middle finger to parents, bolstered by their support from the FBI and Silicon Valley. Here is a viral video of a concerned woman complaining about a woke teacher swearing into her office on a heap of sexually explicit materials in public school libraries. In typical Luciferian fashion, she insults parents rather than using a bible to swear in. Check it out!

In-School Encouragement: Kids Keeping Secrets 

Concomitantly, the unsettling trend wherein teachers encourage students to hide their gender identity from their parents, fostering a covert culture of non-disclosure, needs meticulous scrutiny. Under the guise of creating a safe space for students, the school is crossing boundaries and infringing on parental rights. 

When Education Turns Covert: An Analytical Insight 

  • In these unprecedented times, we’ve observed an alarming trend: the surreptitious encouragement of children in public schools to keep their gender identity secret from their parents. This phenomenon is not only unusual but also profoundly concerning, potentially breaching several boundaries of trust between different pillars of society. 
  • The responsibility of schools as primary socializing agents extends far beyond academics: they are likened to a crucible where the future citizens are formed, honed, and polished. However, taking on the role of influencers of children’s gender identities without parental consent puts the concept of this responsibility into question. We must scrutinize this trend not only from an ethical standpoint but also from a legal perspective. 

Delving Into the Legal Nexus: Parents, Schools, and Gender Identity Discussions 

Parents have voiced concerns over the covert discussions around gender identity and sexual orientation led by educators in schools. The main contention is that these discussions occur without their knowledge or consent. This perceived usurpation of parental authority has increased tensions between parents, schools, and the Constitution, the battleground of rights and responsibilities; where does the law stand? This question inevitably beckons a clarification of the legal parameters governing this issue. 

Parental Authority, Children’s Rights and School’s Obligations: A Legal Balancing Act 

Parental rights, enshrined in the Constitution, give parents the liberty to direct the upbringing and education of their children. Conversely, as individual rights holders, children are entitled to their privacy and freedom of speech, often facilitated by school educators. Schools mandated to provide inclusive education grapple with accommodating the diverging interests of parents and pupils while aligning with state education policies. 

Bridging this gap fosters a challenging arena as schools strive to balance the rights of students to explore their identities and express themselves freely against the rights of parents to be explicitly informed and involved in their children’s upbringing. These delicate intricacies represent the intersection between the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, forming the constitutional scaffolding for legal arguments. 

Tackling Covert Discussions: A Legal Recourse 

Parents who believe their rights have been infringed upon can resort to legal action. A competent law firm experienced in handling school censorship cases can aid in this process. Leveraging Constitutional rights and relevant precedents, such as the Tinker ruling, the legal discourse would focus on whether the schools’ conduct disrupts parents’ constitutional right to manage the upbringing of their children. For instance, legal recourse may be warranted if the school’s actions interfere substantially with the parent-child relationship. The outcomes, however, would be contingent on the specifics of each case. 

Transforming Conflict into Conversation: The Legal Path Forward 

While overt censorship at school board meetings is unequivocally unconstitutional, whether the covert gender identity discussion qualifies as a form of censorship is a dialogue that still requires comprehensive legal interpretation. The resultant grey area, pregnant with constitutional conflicts, charges the legal fraternity with significant challenges and opportunities. 

Law firms like the Ehline Law Firm can help navigate this complex landscape and construct a strong case, invoking the right statutes, instances, and interpretations the law provides. In doing so, they ensure parents’ voices are heard and rights upheld, aiding in transitioning from a conflict situation to a conversation toward resolution.

A Legal Perspective: Walking a Tightrope 

A careful examination of this issue sparks a debate continuing to engage legal theorists and practitioners: where does the line lie between the rights of the child and the parental rights? It brings to the forefront key questions relating to potential privacy violations and the sanctity of the parent-child relationship. 

From a legal standpoint, encouraging children to keep secrets about fundamental aspects of their identities from their parents raises significant concerns. Existing laws and legal precedents largely uphold parental rights in child upbringing, including education and personal development. This includes a consideration of the child’s best interest. So, while the child’s right to self-determination and identity expression is essential, it cannot, and should not, disregard parental rights. 

Implications and Consequences: The Thin Line 

The implications of such dynamics are manifold: they stake a claim on the trust between the child and their parents and provoke a critical reevaluation of the role of schools in the socialization process. The encouragement of such secrecy can potentially lead to emotional distress and confusion among children, especially when they are navigating a sensitive development phase. 

Furthermore, it potentially fosters an environment of mistrust and tension between parents and educational institutions. Such a situation can gravely undermine the collective effort essential for the child’s holistic development. The most conducive learning environment can be achieved at the intersection of parents, children, and teachers— functioning in harmony with open communication. 

Parental Rights: In the Crossfire 

Parental rights, a cornerstone of our societal structure, have seemingly been caught in the crossfire. The onus to balance these rights with a student’s autonomy and well-being undeniably falls upon the educational institutes. “In loco parentis,” the term as we, educators and parents, know it, refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. It is a role schools have executed for a long, although these recent situations demonstrate a tilt of this balance in favor of secrecy over transparency. 

Education should aim to foster learning environments that acknowledge differences, encourage open dialogue, and respect unique student identities. However, the line seems to be a bit blurred when it comes to preserving a child’s right to express their gender identity. Whether parental rights should precede the student’s privacy in identity expression is indeed complex. We fervently advocate for a balanced approach that respects the child’s autonomy while acknowledging and respecting the parents’ rights to be involved in their child’s education. 

Man Censored/Arrested After His Daughter Was Sexually Assaulted by Transgender Student in Shared School Restroom

At the heart of this discourse lies an understanding of the fundamental rights and freedoms extended to parents within the confines of school board meetings. It is indeed a testament to the democratic values we uphold that even here, in these local spheres of influence, the presence and enforcement of such rights are pivotal. 

Firstly, according to the First Amendment, parents in the US possess the right to free speech. This right pertains to their ability to voice their concerns, air their grievances, and express their views as long as their comments do not incite violence, create a risk of immediate harm, or lead to illegal activities. It ensures that their opinions about issues such as curriculums, teaching methods, and administrative decisions, including those on gender ideology, are heard and considered. 

Parents’ participation in such meetings cannot, and should not, be arbitrarily hindered or muffled, thus leading to a situation of enforced silence.

Secondly, parents are entitled to information about their children’s education, fostering transparency between educators and parents. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) safeguards these rights, ensuring parents can access their child’s education records. 

Relating this to the issue of radical gender ideology, we observe the controversial dynamics in play: When school authorities fail to respect these rights by promoting an atmosphere where children are urged to withhold their gender identity from parents. These concerns are muted in school board meetings; we are, in essence, witnessing an affront against legally protected parental prerogatives. 

Under the protection of the US Constitution’s First Amendment, students have irrefutable rights to free speech. This right implies that educational institutions cannot seriously limit or restrain students’ ability to express their personal beliefs and opinions or disseminate information. Unfortunately, there are instances when these rights may be clandestinely undermined in the name of educational policy or administrative protocol. This is where the need for profound legal discernment becomes imperative. 

Understanding the Constitutional Right to Free Speech 

The constitutional right to free speech, protected under the First Amendment, is applicable on a broad scale, including within the boundaries of a school setup. This property grants students the liberty to express personal beliefs and ideologies and harbor and disseminate dissenting opinions unhampered by the fear of institutional censorship or reprisal. However, applying this right in an educational context must be balanced to maintain the integrity of the institution’s mission and avoid discord that disrupts the learning environment. 

Exceptions to the Free Speech Rule 

While the First Amendment offers broad protections, this right to freedom of expression is not absolute, particularly within school contexts. It has been legally established, in cases such as Tinker v. Des MoinesIndependent Community School District and Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, that a school may limit or control a student’s speech if it interrupts the school’s educational mission, disrupts school activity, or infringes on the rights of other students. However, these limitations should be fair, reasonable, and communicated so they don’t morph into tools of insidious censorship. 

Legal Rights in Situations of Censorship 

When a student or parent suspects that these constitutional rights have been violated, they are entitled to seek legal recourse. The right to take legal action against a school for infringement of First Amendment rights is a significant protection. When such a case arises, the knowledgeable and experienced team of lawyers at the Ehline Law Firm can help articulate a compelling and effective legal strategy. 

The Inherent Irony: Suppression in the Name of Freedom 

The crux of the matter is the pseudonymous ‘freedom’ being propagated. Herein, while undoubtedly important, freedom of identity expression seems to be usurped by a calculated strategy to eclipse the rights of parents to have their concerns heard within an educational framework for their children. This paradoxical scenario of suppression in the name of freedom merits deep introspection from educators, lawmakers, and society. 

If we genuinely wish to advocate for a dynamic, inclusive and involved parental body, we cannot do so by selectively muting voices that disagree with the status quo. Instead, we must nourish an atmosphere of discussion, debate, and compromise where all voices carry weight and significance.

Inclusivity versus Transparency: A Delicate Balance 

At a glance, introducing a curriculum critical of traditional binary gender norms seems a step toward inclusivity. However, these measures risk overstepping the boundaries into areas that traditionally belong to the domain of parental guidance. The significance of the school’s role in guiding students on sensitive topics is not under dispute. The contention arises when this guidance subtly transforms into directives that negate the healthy involvement of parents. 

While it is crucial to create a safe and supportive learning environment for all children, disregarding parental rights and encouraging practices of secrecy is not the solution. Empowerment should not mean the negation of familial bonds. In the quest for academic progression and social evolution, we must not lose sight of the integral role parents play in the development and well-being of their children.

The extent of Censorship Against Parents Concerns?

The extent of such censorship is wide-ranging and takes many forms, often subtly embedded in the structures and secrecy of public educational institutions. The censorship is often reflected in the school board meetings, where parents are routinely sidelined or silenced. Such instances represent an infringement of parents’ freedom of speech and a locus of power imbalance. 

Silenced Voices: A Subtle Censorship 

One of the most conspicuous and problematic forms of such censorship is the denial or limited access to the school board meetings, the forums where they should rightfully voice their opinions. Parents are not just stakeholders; they are fundamentally integral to a child’s education since it is scholarly acknowledged that education is not the school’s enterprise alone but a shared responsibility with family unity. Consequently, limiting their access to standings reflects an exercise of subtle yet impactful censorship. 

In many situations, their expressions of concern are dismissed as an overreaction or branded as politically motivated rants. This misconception grossly undermines the essence of their concerns, further fostering an environment of censorship. 

Defining Boundaries: Striking a Balance 

Creating boundaries and regulations around communication is necessary for maintaining order. However, such defining boundaries should not devolve into barriers that inhibit open dialogue and dissent. A balance must be struck between legitimate critique and obstructionist rhetoric while ensuring that educational institutions do not become arenas for manipulative political propaganda. 

The censorship faced by parents expressing concerns over radical gender ideology underlines a need for careful introspection. Schools ought to be open platforms where diverse views are respectfully acknowledged and adequately negotiated rather than venues of one-sided narratives. Inclusivity should not come at the cost of transparency and open dialogue. 

A Silent Rebellion: Sparking Change 

Regardless of the extent of censorship, parents have continued to voice their concerns and disagreements, albeit often muted and in covert forms. From social media platforms to neighborhood gatherings, these silenced voices have found alternative outlets to express their concerns, antagonisms, and fears. This silent rebellion indicates their unwavering commitment to their rights and children’s well-being, sparking conversations about change and policy reform.

Shattering Trust: Home-School Partnership 

The parent-teacher relationship is always sensational to a child’s education. Forcing children to withhold elements of their identity, such as their gender, breaches this trust not only at a personal level but in a broader societal context. The assumption that public schools can dictate what information a child shares about their identity strikes at the heart of parental authority and interpersonal relationships. 

Understand our argument: educational institutions should support youth exploring their gender identities, a vital part of student life that they should be equipped to handle. However, respecting and acknowledging parents’ position in this process is equally fundamental. It’s about achieving the right balance, ensuring that the rights of one party are not forcibly suppressed for the sake of the other. 

Need for Policy Reform: A Proposal 

Censorship of parents at school board meetings and illicit encouragement of secrecy among students in educational institutions should promote open dialogue and mutual respect between schools and parents. Rather than encouraging secrecy and alienation, education must focus on generating understanding and compassion. 

For such transformation to occur, we propose: 

  1. Regular Parent-Teacher Meetings: These forums would allow for constructive exchanges between parents and faculty about curriculum changes and their rationale.
  2. Transparent Policies: Any school policies regarding gender identity discussions should be made clear to parents and open for discussion to prevent misunderstandings.
  3. Supportive Frameworks: School resources like counseling, workshops, and educational resources can be provided for parents to understand better and address their child’s exploration of gender identity.

Some school districts have adopted controversial policies that, while professing to safeguard marginalized gender-diverse students, may inadvertently encourage a communication gap between students and their parents. Critically, educators’ involvement sometimes extends beyond the academic realm, potentially stepping into personal and family matters where they may lack the necessary insight or context. 

Teachers are the torch-bearers of knowledge, fostering a safe and inclusive environment for children to learn, grow, and express themselves. However, an essential part of their role is to build trust and open dialogue with parents. If they foster secrecy and essentially encourage children to keep significant aspects of their lives hidden from their parents, it creates a disturbing contradiction in their roles. 

Can this dichotomy be attributed to personal judgment, where individual teachers may consider it in the best interests of children to deduct the parents from the equation concerning gender identity? If so, further contemplation needs to be given to what extent personal judgment can sway ethically and legally viable actions in an educational setting. 

The Thin Line: Teacher Autonomy vs Systematic Intervention 

Or perhaps, is this an element of a broader systematic intervention where the education system implicitly encourages such behavior? If that’s the case, thoroughly examining these underlying policies becomes paramount. Preliminary investigations hint that these incidents are not isolated, suggesting that such actions may be a symptomatic issue within the system rather than cases of independent judgment. 

However, this doesn’t wholly absolve individual teachers’ roles. Teachers’ actions continually reinforce and validate these practices even within a seemingly flawed system. It sets a precarious precedent that raises yet another fundamental question: is the secrecy within acceptable limits of teacher autonomy, or does it fall under unauthorized intervention? 

Moving Toward Transparency: A Necessary Shift 

In conclusion, while respecting and protecting children’s rights to self-identify is critical, it’s equally crucial to maintain transparency and ongoing communication with parents.

Existing Guidance: A Look at Title IX 

Without explicit school policies, many look to existing legislative guidance. The oft-cited Title IX, a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational institutions receiving federal funding, provides an implicit shield. Yet, it does not explicitly address the matter of students keeping their gender identity a secret from their parents. While courts have increasingly recognized the rights of LGBTQ+ students under Title IX, the question of privacy vis-à-vis parents remains somewhat nebulous, teetering between the boundaries of student privacy and the exercise of parental rights under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

This legislation, ostensibly created to protect the Confidentiality of students’ educational records, is often mobilized by parents seeking access to personal and sensitive information about their children, spotlighting more questions than answers. In this legal ambiguity, a dangerous void has emerged, making it apparent that decisive action is required to clarify, once and for all, the rights, responsibilities, and limits of all parties involved in this complex terrain.

Engaging Diversity and Promoting Integration: Ehline Law Firm’s Approach 

At Ehline Law Firm, we firmly uphold the Constitutional safeguards to protect the parents’ right to voice concerns and express outrage at perceived impositions on their children’s innocence and spaces. We now acknowledge the need for diverse and inclusive education, instilling values of acceptance and equality among the young minds being shaped within their walls. This dichotomy forms a significant part of the cultural and legal landscape we foresee in combating school censorship. Our approach skillfully integrates both these strands, creating a compelling legal strategy to uphold the rights of all parties involved. 

Defending Parents’ Rights, Upholding Student Confidence 

Beyond just legal victories, the Ehline Law Firm aims to preserve the sacred bond of trust between parents and children. We acknowledge the dilemma that the teachers and educational administrators might face, caught in the tension of maintaining Confidentiality with students while keeping parents informed. Our approach aims to strike a balance that respects each party’s interests, ensuring parents’ rightful concerns are voiced and heard and students are provided with an impartial and considerate environment. 

Ehline Law Firm: Your Defenders in School Censorship Battles 

Do you want to hire a top-rated civil rights attorney for a false arrest, retaliation, or free speech violation? Are you tired of faith-based, extremist school boards pushing college campus theories on you and your kids? Ehline Law can help level the playing field. If you’re experiencing an infringement of your rights to express concerns over your child’s education in Alameda schools, delay contacting us. With a contingency fee system and a track record of securing millions for our clients, Ehline Law Firm inspires confidence and assurance in its pursuit of justice from the radicalized, educated” public servants brainwashing your children. If you think teachers should not be teaching their faith-based science-religion of intolerance couched as “tolerance,” we stand ready to act as your sword and your shield.

Our commitment to defending your rights and achieving positive outcomes makes us your defenders in battles against school censorship. Call our hotline at 833-LETS-SUE and let us be your legal advocates in your fight against school censorship.  


Michael Ehline is an inactive U.S. Marine and world-famous legal historian. Michael helped draft the Cruise Ship Safety Act and has won some of U.S. history’s largest motorcycle accident settlements. Together with his legal team, Michael and the Ehline Law Firm collect damages on behalf of clients.
Animation of injury lawyer, Michael Ehline Animation of injury lawyer, Michael Ehline

Michael Ehline

Top Injury lawyer, Michael Ehline, Esq.
We pride ourselves on being available to answer your most pressing and difficult questions 24/7. We are proud sponsors of the Paul Ehline Memorial Motorcycle Ride and a Service Disabled Veteran Operated Business. (SDVOB.) We are ready to fight.