Copyright: Copyright (C) Andrey Popov
By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – On Friday, the Vanguard reported that DJUSD was voluntarily dismissing its petition for a permanent injunction against Beth Bourne, the leader of the Yolo County Chapter of Moms for Liberty.
According to a release from the Dhillon Law Group who is representing Bourne, on October 4, the District sought a workplace violence restraining order against her, “This was due to Beth exercising her First Amendment right to criticize the district’s promotion of views and policies around gender that Beth believes are harmful to vulnerable minors, namely encouraging and facilitating gender transition among young people, including without parental knowledge or consent.”
California’s workplace violence restraining order statute is meant to protect employees from outsiders who pose a credible threat of violence to employees at their place of work.
While the District was concerned about Bourne doxing district employees on social media, Dhillon Law Group argued, “The district’s case against Beth was about silencing her—not protecting District employees. “
They noted, “Beth retained counsel and was prepared to vindicate her First Amendment 
rights in court in December. Before that could happen, however, the District abandoned its case against Beth by voluntarily dismissing it.”
Said Dhillon Law Group, “While Beth was looking forward to disproving the disparaging notion that she endangered District employees, Beth is pleased the District is no longer using the court system to silence her. “
Beth Bourne, they continued, “will continue to advocate for children, parents, and other members of the community in Davis. “
“Beth faced unfair accusations in the court of public opinion when the District attempted to bar Beth from its facilities by grossly mischaracterizing her conduct and blaming her for the acts of others. While we were eager to defend Beth in a court of law, Beth’s right to continue voicing her views is intact,” said Dhillon Law Group Associate Jesse Franklin-Murdock. “We are therefore glad the District did the right thing in dismissing its petition against Beth.”
“I believe parents have a constitutional right to raise their children and direct their education. For the past 18 months, my requests to the Davis school district to be transparent with the policies, activities, and curriculum around ‘gender identity’ have largely been ignored,” said Bourne.
She added, “I also believe when you see actions being taken that harm children, you speak up. I am thankful we have the First Amendment which protects my right to free speech. This is why I wasn’t worried about the restraining order court hearing. I am not surprised the school district decided to dismiss the TRO.”
While the District has not publicly addressed their decision to drop the matter, the Vanguard reported, throughout its coverage, that Bourne was seen as potentially targeting district staff with some of her social media posts.
One in particular: “I’ve also included the names of the 900 plus people in this town who believe it’s okay to tell children that their biological reality means nothing.”
She warned, “DJUSD counselors and teachers to be listed tomorrow.”
It was an event in late August at the Davis Library, on trans-athletes, that led to escalating tensions in Davis. A Davis librarian shut down the event which led to at least six known threats to the library as well as DJUSD facilities.
Some of the threats specifically listed district employees and clearly the district is concerned about the future safety of teachers and employees.
While Bourne has never been directly linked to the bomb threats, local officials have been concerned for some time with the incendiary nature of some of her social media posts.
However, given the fact that the bomb threats ceased in late September—over six weeks ago—and that free speech concerns would have complicated an effort to enjoin her, gaining a permanent injunction at this time would have been very difficult.
The request for dismissal was filed on Thursday “without prejudice,” presumably meaning they could reinstate their request should the need arise.
So the Dhillon Law Group is representing Beth, that’s a big time name. I hope that a lawsuit against the library is coming at some point.
Keith, in the prior thread about this subject you stated:
I replied by asking you the following question, “That is an interesting interpretation/conclusion Keith. What is the “good” that Beth is on the side of?
So far you haven’t answered, so I ask that question here again.