Overall, the public sentiment is largely positive towards the Supreme Court's ruling to restore the Corbett Tiger Reserve, with many expressing hope for its impact on wildlife conservation. While there are acknowledgments of the importance of such decisions, concerns about the effectiveness of conservation organizations remain prevalent, leading to a cautious optimism about long-term outcomes.

Supreme Court

Wildlife Conservation Organizations

The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written by /u/Okratas.

The California Supreme Court [upheld a law](https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S270535.PDF) that protects LGBTQ+ nursing home residents, arguing that penalizing employees for repeated misgendering is a regulation of discriminatory conduct, not protected speech. However, opponents argue that forcing an employee to use specific pronouns under the threat of civil fines or even criminal misdemeanor charges constitutes compelled speech, setting a dangerous precedent for government control over language.

Obviously everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, but how do you reconcile the progressive value of protecting marginalized communities from harassment with the liberal value of rigorously defending the First Amendment against government-mandated expression?

Does the government's threat of criminal penalty inherently make this an unconstitutional form of compelled speech regardless of the setting? 

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

No. They can misgender their patients as much as they want at home. It's totally reasonable that laws exist that regulate healthcare, and that those laws protect patients' dignity.

00Oo0o0OooO0

&gt; In addressing this question, we emphasize the narrow context in which the challenged statute operates. It
seeks to protect long-term care residents’ right to be free from
discrimination in a setting in which they constitute a “captive
audience” in what has become, in effect, each resident’s home.
The provision regulates conduct by staff persons whose job is to
provide and support medical treatment and intimate personal
care — thereby seeking to promote an environment conducive to
such treatment and care. It is carefully calibrated and does not
restrict long-term care facilities’ staff from expressing their
views about gender to anyone (including a resident) in any
otherwise lawful manner other than by misgendering a
resident — and even then, the prohibition is limited to willful,
repeated, knowing acts done because of a legally protected
characteristic. In light of this unique setting and scope, we
conclude that the provision should be analyzed, and upheld, as
a regulation of discriminatory conduct that incidentally affects
speech. It should not be subject to First Amendment scrutiny
as an abridgment of the freedom of speech. And even assuming
the statute were subject to intermediate scrutiny, we find the
provision easily satisfies that test.

I concur.

antizeus

Free speech means the government can't throw you in jail over fringe beliefs, but that doesn't mean you can't be barred from positions of professional trust because your beliefs are incompatible with that duty.

Also, pragmatically speaking, I was visiting my dad in hospice for his final weeks, and if anyone was deliberately disrespecting him over their own political bullshit I absolutely fucking would burn that place down (figuratively speaking) to get it fucking stopped. Anyone who does that shit in that setting is absolutely a massive shitbird.

throwdemawaaay

This law isn't about speech, it's about discrimination in a patient's own home. Because that's what a long-term care facility is, their home. Which makes this an issue of elder abuse.

If it applied in public spaces, or the speakers own home, there might be an issue. But we're talking about the *patient's* home. The power difference between a professional caregiver and the patient who is dependent on that care just makes it more severe. Nobody should be abused like that in their own home, and nobody should be allowed to do that abusing.

Those people are still free to speak hatefully in public, or in their own private spaces. That they are not free to do it in other people's private spaces is just protecting the freedom of the people that live there. My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of my neighbor's nose, as the saying goes.

-Random_Lurker-

No. The safety of disabled people trumps some person's right to be an ass.

If some Christian dumbshit wants to misgender disabled people, they can do it on their own time,

Plus, if someone's willing to misgender a disabled LGBT person, they're likely going to escalate the behavior when they think nobody is looking. Bigots always escalate when nobody's watching.

And it's VERY often the case that nobody is watching the nursing homes. Best to make the bigots find other work.

ManufacturerThis7741

I think it's depressing that this even has to be a law for people to just treat one another with respect. I think it's probably something better handled by the nursing home disciplining their employees but maybe there needs to be a bigger stick.

You shouldn't be allowed to verbally assault or demean someone that you are a nurse or care worker for. Period. Hospital patients and the elderly are vulnerable and deserve respect and dignity by those entrusted to take care of them. I have no problem with that being a law.

formerfawn

Probably yes, but just to play it out a bit..  I wonder what the arguments are on how this differs from criminalizing something like sexual harassment.  Do unwelcome verbal comments of a sexual nature differ meaningfully from unwelcome verbal comments of a 'gender' nature, particularly when both create a hostile environment in a workplace/home environment?  Is the suggestion now that any such protection for long term care residents cannot survive a First Amendment challenge?  If care workers cannot be forced to use preferred names, can they also not be forced to not use derogatory names?  Can a long term care worker routinely call someone "Mr Fat Fuck" and be shielded by the Constitution from any repercussion?

CTR555

It's not a free speech issue. I can't be a bigot to anyone and hope to keep my job, and it's hardly controversial to expect the same of anyone else.

Sir_Tmotts_III

I do not think it should be a criminal offense, it should lead to dismissal from employment

MachiavelliSJ

Are caregivers allowed to use racial slurs or cuss at their patients?

bellegroves

Here’s my two cents:

I don’t think it should necessarily be a criminal offense, but I definitely don’t think it should be protected that speech that you can’t get fired from your job over. If you’re misgendering residents constantly (Which I would argue is harassment) you should be able to be fired.

Fresh3rThanU

I would think that repeatedly calling a vulnerable person under your care something like sinful or a liar would constitute verbal abuse. At the very least, it should get you fired. But given that it's psychological abuse of a vulnerable person, there's a fair case to be made that it's a criminal offense. 

Misgendering someone is also verbal abuse. The negative health effects of doing this to trans people are well documented. Plus, refusing to use their preferred gender is calling them sinful and liars. So it's abuse of someone in whose best interests you have a legal duty to act. 

So yeah, misgendering people whom it's your job to care for should be punished. I'm a huge fan of the First Amendment, but every amendment has, or should have, limits where the exercise of that right does actual damage to other people.

mesarasa

Yes but if the companies/hospitals employing these small minded people fire them then those companies/hospitals shouldn't be punished

Capital-Giraffe-4122

If you literally cant show basic respect to the people you care for, why are you in that field?

The mental health facility I work at has a few black residents. I however would expect that someone calling them the N word would face consequences

flairsupply

Punishment is acceptable and warranted. Six months jail does seem excessive for misgendering. If it’s combined with negligence or further harassment and consistent, I could understand. I believe firing and some sort of state registry (similar to Megan’s Law for SOs) that could be accessed by care facilities and directors so they can make good choices would be a good response.

prettypeculiar88

If a care worker repeatedly verbally abused an elderly lesbian by referring to her as "he", do you think it is *definitely unreasonable* that the worker face some sort of legal consequence for that? Please answer "yes, that is definitely unreasonable", or "no, that is possibly reasonable".

DirtyDaddyPantal00ns

Should you lose your job for any form of what we consider hate speech here in America sure. Should it be a criminal offense? No that sounds like a slippery slope

TheRadHeron

Hard to say. It's not clear to me if this requires you to refer to them with a specific pronoun (compelled speech) or merely bars you from using the wrong pronoun (blocking speech/anti harassment)

meister2983

People shouldn't be forced to use language they don't agree with. We have a first amendment right to freedom of speech. 


Also, people that can't do a job should just be fired. People that can't work with other people should be fired. 



Don't force speech. Just fire them. 


Let them get a job where being a hateful piece of shit doesn't matter. 

tonydiethelm

No. Harassment is rightly a crime, is not free speech, and obviously given that, criminalizing it is not unconstitutional in any way.

jweezy2045

I think if it's legal to pass laws against harassment that should include harassment against transgender individuals as well.  It's not compelled speech that you can't call someone a slur.  This is certainly less compelled speech than forcing abortion providers to give misinformation to their patients.

Kerplonk

I'm not an expert on the first amendment. Would a different law banning other forms of verbal abuse by nursing home employees violate the first amendment? For example, a law banning nursing home employees from using offensive slurs against nursing home residents, like the n word or the f word? If the answer to that question no, then no the California law doesn't sound it violates the first amendment. If the answer to that question is yes, then yes the California law sounds like it violates the first amendment.

material_mailbox

Yeah it seems like a free speech issue

I think nobody should misgender anyone but I don't support banning any speech I disagree with 

In a case like that, it can be reasonable for employers to punish workers for speech that gets in the way of carrying out the job they are hired to do (and repeated, clearly intentional misgendering would count as such). But fines and legal punishment doesn't seem like the right way to do that, they should simply be fired if they refuse to do the job properly

Okbuddyliberals

I think no one should misgender anyone. 

However this is an important free speech issue.

Why is this an important free speech issue? Because it’s a slippery slope. If the government can ban certain words today, tomorrow they might pass a law saying you can’t call someone old, or stupid, or say “God doesn’t exist.” And in a few years then they’ll start jailing political candidates for saying things… and eventually it will be: welcome to the USSR.

This law will probably be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

CharityResponsible54

Wages, housing, and electricity are the only things Dems should run on. They get killed on these social issues.

smswigart

They likely niche partitioned. Lions are better suited for open habitats (asiatic lions being found in forests today is artifact of all other populations of asiatic lions being wiped out, leaving the one in Gir as the sole survivors) whereas tigers are better suited for closed, forested ones, and the Indian subcontinent has both in spades.

It is true that lions are flexible enough to live in forests, but regarding tigers living “grasslands,” the only grasslands they are found in abundance in is in Kaziranga, whose “grasslands” are comprised of **elephant grass** which, as the name implies, are as tall as elephants, and densely packet together. Those grasslands are practically forests in and of themselves.

Mophandel

As far as I know, both historically co-existed all across India. However I'd be interested to know the specifics too!

Educational-Fruit-16

The British have recorded sightings of tigers and lions in the same areas on the same days. The Bombay Natural History Society has a few articles that discuss how both apex predators managed to coexist by avoiding each other's territories.

Read The Clash of The Titans by Shashank Yadav

https://preview.redd.it/dvud0sravdne1.png?width=1128&amp;format=png&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=ec6f14652c5352f5893ccc23ffe66ac45b2fb3da

Akshat-inCosmicMaya

Look at India before humans extirpated lions from most of the subcontinent.
There’s your answer right there.

CyberWolf09

It’s difficult, but not impossible. 

The optimal thing would be to release a few lions in an area with a low density of tigers so that competition is not too much and both species have a chance to get used to each other as their numbers increase. 

For example, releasing lions in Ranthambore would be a disaster, but releasing lions in Mukundara (another reserve in Rajasthan that has few tigers) could work.

Limp_Pressure9865

They made it work for thousands of years before we came along

AJ_Crowley_29

 It's not unusual to have multiple apex predators in a single location. Some places in Africa can have over 4-5 different species: lion, hyena, crocodile, leopard, cheetah, wild dogs... that's just the land animals. In North America, we have bears and wolves (and sometimes mountain lions) occupy the same space. 

None of them hunt in exactly the same way, and even if their territories overlap, they're either large enough to avoid each other or they sometimes get killed. Less often, but not unheard of, they tolerate each other's presence. They change their behavior in habitats where they have competition.

unabashedlyabashed

They both coexisted in most of sout and central Asia for thousands of years.  
Lions can cope with spotted hyaenas, leopard and lycaon, and with their social lifestyle, in clans, they can perfectly defend themselve from tigers.

Tiger mainly preys on cervids, boars, and occasionnaly on larger preys such as wild bovids and young rhinoceroses.  
On average they target smaller prey and prefer forested habitat whenc omapred to lion, a specialisation that allow both species to be sympatric, via niche partitionning.

The presence of lion would just decrease the presence of tiger in the more opens areas, in bushlands for example.

However this is just speculation, and there's issue to that logic.  
1. Asiatic lions have a different social behaviour than their african counterpart, females and males live in distinct coalitions.  
2. asiatic lion do live in more forested area than their african counterpart, they might not be able to survive in jungles or dense forest, but can thrive in open woodland, such as the tropical dry deciduous forest that are prime habitat for bengal tigers.  
3. even with niche partitionning there's still a great overlap in habitat and preys. The question is to know if it's enough to supress or negatively impact one or the other species.

In general i think both can coexist, with the tiger struggling,   
You would need a great prey density and diveristy, including many large game such as feral zebu, wild water buffalo, banteng, gaur/gayal etc, that the lion will prefer, decreasing the competition with the tigers which mainly prey on cervids and boars.   
The tiger would shift it's diet to avoid large game, while the lion would do the opposite.  
Tiger would avoid the most open areas and stay in the closed one.

In case there's drought, epidemic or any other issue, i think tiger would be better adapted to cope with that than lion tho.

But again, it's pure speculation.  
But we know that both species used to coexist, the nature of that cohabitation however remain a mystery, has it hasn't been recorded by indian naturalist of the time.

thesilverywyvern

They can definitely coexist India is the best example but tigers will pick more Woody habitat and lions would pick more open habitat also they might shift in the time there active I opinion tigers might be more nocturnal and lions might be more dirunal

Economy_Situation628

tigers prefer dense woods, lions prefer grassland and shrubs, of course there is potential for them to co exist in the same reserve

Antique_Song_7879

My heart aches for all the young LGBTQ+ folks in red states who won't have words to describe their experiences, who will be stuck forced to miserably pretend to be something they aren't for years, for decades.

SilverMedal4Life

The article cites this part from Project 2025:

&gt;Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children \[...\] Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug \[...\]

That's rather telling regarding the creators of that hateful drivel, lmao.

As always with conservatives, every accusation is a confession.

Cyphomeris

It hasn't even been half a year yet and I'm already beyond exhausted. I'm also terrified. This country is going to collapse at this rate.

JonM313

Weaponized their hatred. Use the ruling against them, in any way you can, malicious compliance it all to hell. Make them regret crossing us.

No_Talk_4836

As a future teacher in Europe, one thing we learn is that the children's right to an education weighs higher than the parent's right of religious freedom.
That is the way it should be.

MightBeEllie

K31RA-M0RAX0

I feel safer with the dolls &amp; kings then I do *any* republican

burritoman88

this is what a silent genocide looks like

Gnash_

We're not going to disappear. Our love and solidarity are eternal, but if they want to try, they'll find out just how hard we'll fight back for each other.

Motor_Somewhere7565

“Don’t let the bastards grind you down.”

Joshtice_For_All

I really wish I had the means to help the young people. I’m trans and I have an adult child that is bi and we are scared living in a red state. I can’t imagine how it is for the children.

[deleted]

I'm sorry I haven't read on this what does disappear mean in this context

HorrificityOfficial

Fyokuwu

I was saying on another post about the recent age verification for porn thing that Georgia passed is not just to ‘save the kids’. I have a feeling that they’ll put all LGBTQ existence for ‘age verification’ which will essentially make it harder to exist in public. In the US in the 40’s and 50’s, they arrested gay people for just showing interest in another person from the same sex. They arrest them and throw them in jail. Then you would get put on a list that would make it almost impossible to find a job or a place to live. Hell, Nazi Germany rounded them up and sent them to death camps for just existing. I’m seeing the beginning of their effort to effectively criminalize our very existence. I’m starting to actually get scared now. I worry about every one of us. Especially our transgender community. We have to protect each other. From one queer person in a red state to all queer people in this country, we need to start paying attention and watching closely what happens. Let’s keep each other and ourselves safe.

Wise-Effective0595

And yet if I simply say "I hate that PART of the reason why Sundays are closed is all because Christians need a day to worship" i get banned from spaces. (Before somebody gives me shit. If you live in a civilized place like California or New York and your not surrounded by Christian influence EVERYWHERE like in the south. Well la dee fucking da for you. But some of us live in heavily prominent Christian states and don't have the gods damn money to move so we're stuck in suffering and we have to deal with Christians 24/7. I DONT HATE THAT SUNDAY IS USED AS A DAY OF REST FOR WORKERS. THATS PERFECTLY FINE AND UNDERSTANDABLE. I HATE THAT CHRISTIANITY WAS ROOTED IN THE REASON WHY THE FUCKING WORLD CLOSES DOWN BECAUSE 'it's gods day')

Buy a lottery ticket as you are a very lucky person to ever see a wild tiger. (and surviving after you see it)

Best-Eye6818

Do the the same as a majority of the population would do… Take a selfie

Choice-Lavishness259

I am guessing that if you use grizzly bear tactics it might be better than doing nothing. When in grizzly country we wear some bells that jingle as we walk. You don't want to surprise a wild animal and many will avoid strange noises. 

If a tiger does get near ,running away is useless. They run faster than you. 

1. Remain Calm: If a tiger is tracking you or snarling, try to stay calm. Do not look the tiger in the eye, but turn towards it. Back away slowly without turning your back. Keep walking backward until the tiger is out of sight, then move quickly away from its location. 

2. Make Yourself Big: Stand up as tall as possible. Do not run; running invites an attack. By standing tall, you appear less like helpless prey. Crouching makes you look weak and small, increasing the chances of an attack. 

3.Repel with Noise: Tigers may be frightened by unfamiliar sounds. Make noise using anything you have. If you have a firearm, shoot it into the air. Light a signal flare or jingle metal or glass items. Shout confidently, avoiding nervousness that could provoke an attack. 

4. Survive an Attack: If the tiger physically attacks, it is unlikely to stop. Continue making noise and use anything you have to shield yourself and strike back in self-defense. Avoid playing dead; if the tiger is attacking out of interest in eating you, it will proceed unencumbered. Obviously seek medical help quickly if you survive.

Your best chance of survival is convincing the tiger to flee, which may require frightening or injuring the animal.  Injuring would include shooting it, smashing its  nose, gauging its eyes.

Ask the ranger if and where there has been sightings. The animals are territorial.

Momo-Momo_

You're supposed to pet it. Have you not been on Instagram? Tigers are super friendly.

PSmith4380

CarloFailedClear

StraighterCircle

colormeup82

Do your best impression of a ladyboy “helloooooo handsum maaaan” and hope the tiger responds the same as everyone else and ignores you and walks the other way?

I've heard if you maintain eye contact they won't attack, of course then you're in a staring contest with a tiger. Bonus points if you rub one out at the same time.

LouQuacious

You don't have to do anything. The tiger will do it.

dr_avenger

Oh nothing. Just hope your affairs are in order.

Capture it and bring it back to your hotel. Then, sneak it into your room, lock it in the bathroom, and go get blacked out drunk. Then…..

NomadTravelerLife

Competitive_Put_5473

gandrezcm

Give it a hug! Contrary to conventional wisdom, wild Tigers love to be cuddled 🤗

becomingundeinable

Whatever you do, DO NOT stratch its belly no matter how tempting

SkylarAV

kyrgyzd

Shit yourself &amp; hope the smell makes it clear off 😂😂😂

Sorry_Interaction834

Mr-Nitsuj

Just close your eyes and everything will be over soon

Guy_PCS

Historical_Risk444

I'd be more concerned about the crocodiles tbh, but I guess there is nothing to do if they are hungry. You can't outrun, outmaneuver, outswim or out climb them. I wouldn't go there without trained professionals (with guns - or tranquilizer gun)

forellenfilet

Scream as loud as you can, be sure the kitty sees you, than run away as fast as you can. Trust me the tiger will run away because he will be anxious about you

Pupsi42069

Offer him some Frosties; you might luck out and it's Tony.

paultbangkok

Aren't tigers ambush predators? You'd never see it coming. Nowt to worry about lol

Intelligent_Toe8202

Nell_mayy

Back up slowly, never break eye contact and hope that the shit in your pants deters the tiger from eating you.

Gloomy-Shoe-4021

You don’t surprise a tiger. Tigers are perhaps the most mysterious in keeping themselves hidden whenever they want. And are totally aware of the narrow surroundings. If you encounter a tiger, face him and don’t turn your back towards it. Never do that. You do that and you’re dead as fuck. Of course, if it decides to attack you all you can do is make huge noises and use whatever you can to save your neck or skull from getting pierced. But I don’t think there is any chance of survival. You’re dead within seconds. It would be less painful than a grizzly/polar bear attack though.

Different_Tax1920

Be composed &amp; fearless. You cannot outrun it.

SignificanceCute4212

Previous_Spend_8022

Bend over in front of it, present your anus and vagina (if you have one) and hope it's horny

Adept-Entertainer327

The word "Elusive" should cover your fears

naughtyman1974

Cultural_Lab_2682

jedinachos

You really can’t run, your only chance is to fight it with your bare hands

whatkindamanizthis

Carry some tooth picks; dental hygiene is also important for felines

MisterKnif3

I usually start by pissing in my pants. Then I called the police as I begin shitting in my pants. And then I make it one of those phone calls that’s gonna be famous in history as I’m crying and the tiger is having her way with me.

dvduval

lazylemongrass

Just turn your back to it. It will walk away.

bobby2286

gaxxzz

Hope you're with another person who can't run as fast as you

copacetic51

Offer it catnip?!?!?!?! 


Obviously, I'm joking....

FluffyCaterpiller

Pray you have a large bag of catnip on you! Toss it at the tiger like a grenade and run!

The Supreme Court of India has directed Uttarakhand to restore ecological damage at the Corbett Tiger Reserve caused by illegal constructions and mandated the demolition of unauthorized structures.

Supreme Court's Ruling on Corbett Tiger Reserve and Wildlife Conservation

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want