In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court famously declared that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” That may be true but apparently they can shed their sweatshirts in Michigan. In a newly filed complaint, two middle school students are suing Tri County Area Schools after they were ordered to remove their sweatshirts featuring the anti-Biden slogan “Let’s Go, Brandon.” The lawsuit filed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) makes a compelling case that the schools acted in an unconstitutional fashion in censoring the political message.
“Let’s Go Brandon!” has become a similarly unintended political battle cry not just against Biden but also against the bias of the media. It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud-and-clear chants of “F*** Joe Biden.” Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”
“Let’s Go Brandon!” instantly became a type of “Yankee Doodling” of the political and media establishment.
In this case, an assistant principal (Andrew Buikema) and a teacher (Wendy Bradford) “ordered the boys to remove the sweatshirts” for allegedly breaking the school dress code. However, other students were allowed to don political apparel with other political causes including “gay-pride-themed hoodies.”
The district dress code states the following:
“Students and parents have the right to determine a student’s dress, except when the school administration determines a student’s dress is in conflict with state policy, is a danger to the students’ health and safety, is obscene, is disruptive to the teaching and/or learning environment by calling undue attention to oneself. The dress code may be enforced by any staff member.”
The district reserves the right to bar any clothing “with messages or illustrations that are lewd, indecent, vulgar, or profane, or that advertise any product or service not permitted by law to minors.”
The funny thing about this action is that the slogan is not profane. To the contrary, it substitutes non-profane words for profane words. Nevertheless, “D.A.” was stopped in the hall by Buikema and told that his “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirt was equivalent to “the f–word.”
That seems a strikingly biased and selective enforcement of the policy. Before students appear in “Let’s Go Buikema” sweatshirts, the school should reconsider its stance on free speech.
As the Supreme Court stated in Iancu v. Brunetti (2019), “viewpoint discrimination is an egregious form of content discrimination and is presumptively unconstitutional.”
In the appendix of the complaint, FIRE has included a letter from counsel for the district, Kara Rozin, who insists that the school may make such clearly selective judgments on censorship. I believe that she is dead wrong on the First Amendment in this case. Frankly, I am surprised that the school district has elected to litigate this matter rather than seek a settlement. While the district may find lower court judges who would support the district, it should lose this case as a denial of protected speech.
What is so troubling is the message being taught here by the district. It is one of arbitrary enforcement and speech intolerance. It is precisely why we are seeing a generation of speech phobic students entering higher education. They have been taught since elementary school that speech is harmful and they do not have to tolerate the opposing views of others. My guess is that it is the teachers, not the students, who are most offended by anti-Biden sentiments.
This is an important free speech case for that reason and FIRE is to be commended for taking up the cause for these middle school students. This was once the work of the ACLU, which has largely abandoned its signature commitment to free speech. FIRE is now filling that void and this is a great case to reinforce free speech rights in our schools.
FJB
I’m confused. Who’s FJB? 🙂
Freedom of speech for me but not for thee. Typical behavior from an out-of-touch “ruling class” who are bereft of ideas, forcing a decades-old, obsolete, Leftist agenda down our throats. Leftist Dems have long failed to move their extreme policies forward by earning the support of 50+% of US voters, so, they resort to lies, smears, and leaks. Those dirty tricks wore out, so, the Dems resort to the weaponization of federal law enforcement, which, essentially, means the Dems are using the government’s monopoly over violence to enforce its political agenda.
I have news for Dems: opposing Democratic Party policies are not illegal. The Dems must be made aware that this country is not theirs alone, it is shared, equally, with us, and we will not back down. The Communist-captured Democratic Party must be destroyed and rendered to trash-heap of history. A well-functioning Democratic-Republic must include elements of the Right and the Left, or, both Liberal elements and Conservative elements must exist in order to ensure balance.
If the plaintiffs win this case, the floodgates will be wide open to kids barely out of grade school wearing clothes printed with messages that contain vulgar innuendos. At that point, the schools will have no choice but to require uniforms.
catawba – that will just be awful if students get to speak freely, how will America ever survive with such freedom of speech?
Yeah, like snarky, psuedo-vulgar sloganeering helps our country cope with complex problem-solving! Kids need to learn respect and positive-thinking while at school. The principal sets the environment for the school, not the most militant students. We’re in a period of re-establishing norms. Those “anything goes” days are past.
prince – if the choice is between uniforms or not, I’d choose uniforms. But if the school district doesn’t require them, then the next best thing is to set a good example by respecting people’s freedom of expression. Censoring only conservative slogans teaches contempt for the government and is therefore counterproductive.
Well said.
To a significant extent I agree – but education is NOT one size fits all. Different students need different things.
There are students that desperately need the discipline that you discuss – especially those that do not have it.
There are those that actually need the “anything goes” freedom – especially those that do not have it.
Discipline is a necescity for those who do not have self discipline. If we do not learn self disciple otherwise, we can learn it from external forces.
Conversely the most self disciplined students need to learn freedom of expression.
It is all ying/yang. Order and chaos, in the right measures. And each of us has our own unique needs for one or the other.
So it’s okay for lgbq2 transgender and all the rest to wear whatever they want but you can’t have a let’s go Brandon t-shirt that doesn’t seem fair does
No they don’t need to learn respect and positive thinking. Respect is earned not freely given and they need to learn all forms of thinking, not just the kind of thinking you want them to think. Nice try at a red herring though.
Maybe you should try reading the SCOTUS decision Sullivan v. NY Times. Which clearly stated that part of the responsibility of being public officials is that not only do they have no protection from but should expect “caustic and uncomfortable criticism.” In other words it’s part of the job.
Yeah, you’re not bright. Not even a iittle . Your mummified president shall be mocked and there’s not a thing you can do about it, but seethe and cope. Now come at me… and make me laugh.
The schools will more than likely go with white shirts, black pants, and neck ties for the boys. And maybe white blouses and black pants or some kind of skirt for the girls.
Sorry son, but the Bong Hits for Jesus case says otherwise. Maybe have a clue. Political, non-disruptive speech is allowed. However, school has a wide range of options due to various compelling state needs in regards to educational necessities in the suppression of speech when it comes to commercial and vulgar speech. So, you can’t riot and they can censure you for any type of commercial or vulgar speech.
That is nonsense. The standard cited in Turley’s article is pretty close to what courts have already established is allowed censorship in school.
“Lets Go Brandon” does not violate that standard. Nor would FJB – even though we all know what the F stands for.
You can not ban euphemism,s or “coded speech” or “dog whistles” – because those are exactly the types of political speech that the first amendment is most intended to protect. Further banning speech because you believe it is code for something else ultimately enables you to ban anything.
If this drives schools to uniforms – that would be good.
Uniforms save the parents of poor students money, and thwart keeping up with the jones efforts in school.
They reduce the distraction of attire.
Though I will not that uniforms do not resolve the issue.
Tinker V Desmoines was about black armbands as a means of protesting the vietnam war.
One of the responses of Students at this HS should be to where Blue armbands in protest of the school.
Everyone will know what they means, and that gives the school the oportunity to act even more stupidly.
Uniforms do not prevent armbands, and it is likely that school policies requiring uniforms but barring armbands would be unconstitutional.
There is always a means of getting arround restrictions on speech – even in totalitarian regimes.
In Hong Kong, Shop owners altered the formating of displayed prices to show solidarity with protestors.
Everyone knew what it meant but what was the CCP supposed to do bean price labels ?
Communism sucks snd do to their puppets
When I was in HS 6 decades ago, I would never have bet that in the future it would be the left that was pissy about free speech and trying to shutdown opinions they did not like.
Leftists are doing an excellent job of pushing Joe MacCarthy out of his spot as the most egregious censor in history.
We are seeing the left practice EVERYTHING we thought unbelievably repugnant 70 years ago.
We have leftists censoring speech, Keeping blacklists. Firing people for their political views.
Who would have thought that JK Rowling would be the Lucille Ball of the 21st Century.
“Leftists are doing an excellent job of pushing Joe MacCarthy out of his spot as the most egregious censor in history.”
John, what makes you think that? Can you provide some details about McCarthy while excluding events of the era he was not personally responsible for? I am sure you know the Hollywood Ten had little to nothing to do with McCarthy. That was in the House, and McCarthy was a Senator. I am sure you know that he did release but one name. I am also sure you know that his basic theme was proven correct in more than one way. You know about the Venona Files, so I shouldn’t have to say much more.
By the way, did you forget the President who tried to censor parents using their children?
I am not interested in a debate about the failings of MacCarthy or the precise individual responsibility for the failings of the era.
Like it or not MacCarthy made himself the poster boy for censorship.
Democrats as a whole – and Biden to the extent that he is aware of what he is doing are displacing MacCarthy.
Oddly they are concurrently proving MacCarthy right – not about censorship, but about the dangers of communism and the threat marxists pose particularly to a=our schools – and other institutions. MacCarthy was wrong about the remedy, but actually right about the threat.
One of the enigma’s of a free society is that you must give freedom to those who would destroy it, who do not beleive in freedom, who would take freedom from all, or you become them.
“I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” –
“Like it or not MacCarthy made himself the poster boy for censorship.”
John, you completely missed the point. They deflected using character assassination of not just McCarthy but people that testified before the committees. In other words, you are buying the J6 of the day and calling it an insurrection. In the process, you destroy innocent lives. That you misunderstand what happened during those hearings 70 years ago, makes you uninterested in seeing how they relate to today’s problems. It doesn’t fit in neatly with theory.
“Democrats as a whole – and Biden to the extent that he is aware of what he is doing are displacing MacCarthy.”
They can only do so because we didn’t learn the lessons of the past.
“Oddly they are concurrently proving MacCarthy right – not about censorship, but about the dangers of communism “
They are doing that, but you still haven’t provided data demonstrating how McCarthy was the greatest censor of the era. What did he do? He claimed he had a list of communists in government. He said he wanted them removed from sensitive areas until investigated. He released only one name under great pressure, and that was the partner of the one yelling and screaming for McCarthy to produce the names. Moreover, he has been accused of a list that was much greater than his own. People were confusing his list with the much longer FBI list. McCarthy put no one in jail. The House was far more intimidating.
It is time for you to put up and show us how McCarthy was the greatest censor. I will wait and ask the question repeatedly until you can produce the data and deal with the facts.
“MacCarthy was wrong about the remedy,”
Exactly, what was McCarthy’s remedy, and how did it present itself far worse than the efforts of the House? McCarthy made many mistakes, did things poorly, and was a drunk, but that only made it easier for people to criticize him. However, those are false arguments for the claims you are making.
“One of the enigma’s of a free society is that you must give freedom to those who would destroy it, who do not beleive in freedom, who would take freedom from all, or you become them.”
Provide more facts and less rhetoric. Whose freedom did McCarthy take away? I’m waiting.
John, when I talk about McCarthy, I am not doing so to provide an empty history lesson. I don’t like the man, but that doesn’t mean I focus my efforts on destroying his name. The reason I think it is important to skip the anti-McCarthy rhetoric is because the same game played in the 1950 era is being played again. Even then, they had their committees, and at least one committee run by Democrats decided to destroy at least one witness that favored McCarthy’s position. He was a respected hired investigator. Like J6 they didn’t hear his witnesses, they didn’t fully interview him, and they tried to destroy him in public. Sound familiar? I believe one of the committee members confessed to this before he died.
In the 60s I lived in Greenwich Village where all of the leftist movements engaged, San Fransisco was the other big area. Greenwich Village was at the center, and I lived almost touching the Arch. I met many people involved at that time who are now involved either behind the scenes or in front. I remember the townhouse that was blown up and I remember the marches, parades, and violence.
Some of the people involved, you would have considered free speech advocates They sounded like they were, but anyone that knew them knew they were not. That is where many talking points were born and then written about, read, and disseminated. Many of those people were liars and didn’t care one iota about free speech. They cared only about their ideology, and how free speech and all the other cr-p could help them produce a dystopian society and then Utopia.
Theorists were produced, but many never understood practicality, and though the left was ‘defeated’ in the 1960s by voices such as Milton Friedman and Hayek, the left learned from history how to lay low and change their appearance along with their name. Stalinists became the New Left while progressives became the new Liberals in total opposition to classical liberalism. When the Taliban destroyed historic art our Stalinists, New Leftists, progressives, and Liberals called them savages, but soon after were doing exactly the same thing in this country.
McCarthy is important because he is telling you our history and our future, but only if you listen.
Uhhhhhhhh…Wrong…..
It’s ok to say frick but not the real word, happens all the time. Which I don’t understand, it’s ok to mean f$%k by saying frick but it’s not ok to say f$%k.
I don’t associate let’s go brandon with vulgarity. I associate it with displeasure with biden’s america even though I know the story behind it.
Then so be it. Better uniforms than selected enforcement
Or close.
Reality: “If you leave the students wearing the shirt alone, nothing will happen.”
Bureaucrat: “MUST SCREW WITH EVERYONE!”
Ensuing Mushroom Cloud: “I am become dearth, the destroyer of school treasuries.”
Protection of student political speech does not extend to vulgar language in a school setting. Tinker v. Des Moines
Vulgar profane speech includes innuendo. “Schools have the right to suppress student speech that is considered lewd or indecent, even if not obscene.” Chief Justice Beger Bethel School District v. Fraser
I will note that Fraser was not about political speech and mention something in the current complaint:
It is clearly established that ambiguously lewd,
vulgar, or profane speech is protected by the First Amendment if it comments on a
matter of political or social concern. B.H. ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area Sch. Dist., 725
F.3d 293, 320 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc).
Clearly established, that is, by a district in Pennsylvania.
What do you say for the briefing level here Turley? A? A-?
I realize I’m just inviting abuse.
Using the law, then, would immediately discount anything LGBTQ+, as those letters, and their accompanying images, is a replacement for sexual acts. Where am I wrong here? Just as “Let’s Go Brandon” is a movement of resistance against the incoherent, bumbling occupier of the Oval Office, the rainbow flag clearly represents something that is far from natural. How is one acceptable and not the other? You could say that these kids are not allowed to vote, so shouldn’t be able to opine, but then we have to look at the current goals and legislation being brought about under the rainbow flag as they affect children. Therefore, either both are allowed, or none. Period.
Did this school allow left-wing political speech, such as BLM apparel? LGTBQ+ symbols?
The slogan is a euphemism. It is not profane or lewd. The school is exhibiting opinion bias. If it seeks to avoid any politics on school grounds, then it needs to use a school uniform, and keep all politics out of the classroom and curriculum. That includes the debunked 1619 Project.
This is clearly a losing case for the school district, so of course that is why they will fight it to the bitter end.
Some schools will waste hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation costs they caused through their own incompetence, egotistical behavior of its employees, or refusal to accept they are wrong. It is more likely than not that these officials are using their position to further their personal political agenda. That is not education, it is banditry.
In looking at the image of the shirt, it makes reference to “AwakenWithJP” a.k.a. JP Sears, who it seems is a media personality of some renown, having an audience in political circles. That further demonstrates this shirt was a political statement of the student and not an expletive as proffered by the school.
Prose check, professor:
“The funny thing about this action is that the slogan is not profane. To the contrary, it substitutes profane words for non-profane words
Leo – that caught my eye too when I read it. It’s backwards.
“it substitutes profane words for non-profane words”
Huh? That’s not his construction. And that construction is wrong.
His is: “it substitutes non-profane words for profane words.” And that construction is correct. “Substitute” is the verb; “for” the preposition — as in: Use A (“non-profane”) instead of B (“profane”).
Leo quoted it correctly at the time. It has now been edited to be correct.
Didn’t know that. Thanks for the update.
Sure thing 🙂
LGBTQ
______
L et’s
G et
B iden
T o
Q uit
L et
G eorge
B e
T otally
Q uiet
Aninny, I thought the “Big Guy” banned you dastardly charlatans for life.
Do you actually have thoughts George? It’s hard to tell. You come across as a bot that posts the same things day after day after day after day.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
– Queen Gertrude
I hadn’t realized that you think of yourself as a lady. Thanks for letting us know. Lady George.
In an earlier time, we would be embarrassed to explain to our kids what something like the Brandon chant meant. Now the kids are participating in it. God help us.
Riiiiiight. If a student wore a sweatshirt that said “Oh Sugar” you’d have to ban that too because “sugar” clearly substitutes for “sh-t.”
I’ve never heard that about sugar. But, I guess it wouldn’t matter with the new school policy mandating uniforms.
You never heard anyone say, “Oh sugar”? Maybe it’s an old-timey thing.
Having the right to do something doesn’t mean it is right to do it. There is no way in hell I would allow my kid to wear a shirt with an implied vulgarity on it, to school or anywhere else.
specs – you wouldn’t let your kid wear as bland a slogan as “Let’s Go Brandon”?
Turley’s posting here could have been placed with his next one “The American Cultural Revolution: Whitworth Students Bar Survivor of Maoist China from Speaking.” The common ingredient is their examples of counter revolutionary persons doing things and saying things the progressive revolutionists disapprove.
The common ingredient is Turley’s ignorance and continued disingenuousness.
The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world where students don’t wear uniforms. Everywhere from elite British prep schools to the poorest villages in Africa, students wear uniforms to avoid the distractions of fads, gimmicky clothing and fashion competition. Something as basic as requiring a simple white shirt or blouse with no visible brand or logo would send the message that school is serious and is about learning. And it would keep school staff out of the business of deciding which social, political and religious messages are acceptable and which are not. Despite all the talk about equity these days, we have missed the very fundamental concept of sending children to school without the showcasing the differences between rich and poor kids as expressed in their clothing.
Amen to that.
Uniforms are the way to go.
My youngest daughter appreciated, and was proud of, her required school uniform the year we were in Scotland @ Edinburgh.
In the U.S., about 20% of school districts require uniforms (source linked below).
WIth our kids’ schooling, we found that the requirement of uniforms helped provide for an orderly and disciplined environment conducive learning. I believe that fact is widely accepted to be true, and so it’s a wonder the figure for public school districts requiring uniforms is not higher than 20%.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=50
I am surprised that as much as 20% of districts require uniforms. I expect that catholic schools require uniforms, that most private schools require uniforms.
But I am not personally aware of a single public school that require uniforms.
There are many excellent reasons for schools to require uniforms – including the issues in this case.
A school can preclude ALL political expression, but it can not preclude SOME political expression.
AS of a few years ago, a number of schools in Florida required school uniforms, in particular, in Hernando County, about 50 miles north of Tampa.
While I oppose one size fits all solutions.
School Uniforms are likely a good idea for Most schools.
They are especially a good idea where the student body is diverse politically, socially, economically, …
And where there are problems of self discipline.
“it substitutes profane words for non-profane words.”
Turley once again shows that he needs a copy editor.
The civil trial in Carroll v Trump has started. Carroll has testified under oath that Trump raped her. Trump hasn’t shown up for the trial but is trying to post Truth Social comments about it, contrary to the judge’s order.
Screw the judge. He has a 1A right that doesn’t go away merely because he has been sued.
No doubt you also believe laws against perjury to be unconstitutional restraints on free speech.
Once again, the failure of argument–please identify how one loses 1A rights merely because he or she has been sued . . . . .
If you don’t understand when and why some judicial gag orders are constitutional, nothing is stopping you from looking it up for yourself. I’m not your volunteer tutor.
If you, through the judicial process, obtain information (i.e., via discovery)–of course it is constitutional to issue a gag order with respect to that info–but a gag order just because, and of course it’s constitutional to bar attorneys from making comments given their status as “officers of the court.” So once again, I ask, how does the fact that someone sues you take away your right to free speech–that courts get away with it doesn’t make it constitutional.
The court has the power to restrict the constitutional rights of ONLY Three groups.
The state and state actors – the state has powers not rights.
Those who have been convicted of a crime.
Those who voluntarily place themselves under the power of the court – plantiffs.
Judges have no authority over Civil and criminal defendants – AND THEIR LAWYERS outside the court room.
All orders of the court that violate constitutional rights are unconstitutional.
“the thing speaks for itself”.
If he has something to say, he should say it in testimony. But he’s too cowardly to testify before the jury. And because it’s a civil case, the jury can interpret that adversely.
The judge already rebuked Trump for the social media posts. This judge will not tolerate that kind of BS it seems. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump is held in contempt if he continues to scoff at the judge’s orders.
Thug judge.
You and the Judge are making clear your inner totalitarian.
The Judge has no legitimate power over a defendant outside the court room.
I actually doubt that Kaplan will find Trump in contempt. It is not wise to pick fights you are likely to lose.
Judges get away with being petty and dictatorial – because most of the time most of us pay no attention and do not care.
Kaplan is in the spot light. Personally I would love to seem him hold Trump in contempt for exercising his right to free speech.
This is the perfect case to create the caselaw that affirms that being drug into a court does not diminish your constitutional rights.
Elsewhere Derschowitz has written that it is Legal Error to allow a defamation claim based on an assertion of innocence.
It is an even worse legal error to violate a persons constitutional rights by denying them the right to assert their innocence.
Further BOTH inarguably constitute prejudging the case.
You can not presume that asserting innocense is defamation without assuming their guilt.
You can not restrict someones right to protest their innocence – without assuming their guilt.
Whether you like it or not the risk here is to Kaplan not Trump.
I would expect Trump to go out of his way to provoke the judge – because any reaction by the judge proves the political nature of the case.
Carroll testified “I am here because Donald Trump raped me, and when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen. He lied and shattered my reputation, and I am here to try to get my life back.”
Since such a terrible thing supposedly happened, can she provide the month, day and time of the incident? It must be burned into her brain, but to date I can’t find what almost every truthful person would remember.
Disney has filed a lawsuit against Ron DeSantis, alleging a “targeted campaign of government retaliation” over “protected speech” that “threatens Disney’s business operations” and “violates its constitutional rights.”
No doubt Jim Jordan’s committee on the weaponization of the government will be interested.
The one problem–Disney was given government powers. Those can be taken away.
Disney’s Reedy Creek agreement was not opposed by anyone. It wasn’t until Disney chose to exercise it’s 1st amendment right to criticize the government that DeSantis chose to single out and punish Disney for having the gall to criticize a law that affected their employees.
What Desantis did was an unconstitutional violation of Disney’s free speech right to criticize government without fear of punishment or retaliation. Disney let DeSantis keep going his retaliation binge until it had enough evidence to take him to court. It seems they got exactly what they needed to sue.
“Disney’s Reedy Creek agreement was not opposed by anyone.”
Svelaz lies and keeps repeating the same lies.
The problem for Disney is that the law was changed . . . .
So What ?
You seem incapable of grasping that your argument REQUIRES continuing bad, unconstitutional, even illegal conduct, if you can impughn the motives of those seeking to stop it.
Disney is and remains free to speak out against the law or anything else. – even stupidly.
But AGAIN you can not make a legal act illegal by alleging bad intent.
If I stop someone from murdering others – does it matter what my motives were so long as my action is legal ?
Much of the most vile conduct by government had little opposition at the time.
A lack of opposition to bad conduct at the time does not require the permanent continuation of that bad conduct.
Disney is free to speek about a law – whether it effects its employees or not.
However this law did NOT effect Disney or its employees – that is a LIE.
The law restricted TEACHERS abilities to initiate sexual dialog with students prior to 3rd grade.
Teachers are employed by the State – not Disney.
To the extent that some Disney employees had children their right to indoctrinate their own children was uneffected.
As is typical you confuse – “I do not like X” with “X affects me or restricts my rights”.
The Florida Law does not infringe on ANY rights.
If DeSantis and FL acted to limit Disney’s rights – Disney would easily win this lawsuit.
Florida has acted to remove Disney’s priviledges. They are free to do that.
Doing the right thing – even for wrong reasons is not a violation of someone’s rights.
“The funny thing about this action is that the slogan is not profane. To the contrary, it substitutes profane words for non-profane words.”
As they are not defendants on trial, and we are talking about the school dress code as opposed to the criminal code, that strikes me as playing it too cute by half. Given the context, the slogan is “synonymous” with “F*** Joe Biden. “Hey, Mom, what does “Let’s go Brandon” mean?” To which any decent parent in the know would reply: “Where on earth did you see that?”
Doesn’t work. Code for a curse word isn’t a curse. If you have to try to hard to justify censorship, it’s likely illegal.
As a rule student expression can not disrupt order. It can be prescribed when it interferes with the purpose of schools – to educate.
It also can not advocate for illegal conduct.
Let’s Go Brandon swaetshirts do not violate those limitations.
Students do not have the same free speech rights as adults – and schools and teachers actually have less free speech rights than students.
Students are not adults. Therefore they have less rights.
But students are also not employees – they are not in school by choice.
The state, school board, administration have the same control over the speech of teachers as employers.
But not the same control over the speech of students.
“Given the context, the slogan is “synonymous” with “F*** Joe Biden. “Hey, Mom, what does “Let’s go Brandon” mean?” To which any decent parent in the know would reply: “Where on earth did you see that?”
Steve, that is the wrong lesson. To provide the best correct answer a parent should know and understand the law. Double standards, especially political ones, are wrong. However, a parent doesn’t require to know that or much knowledge surrounding the important things one should know because the sweatshirts were appropriate for the circumstance. If you tell your children not to swear and use curse words, they are already familiar with them. Let’s Go Brandon is nothing more than a political statement using proper words rather than those with four letters. Such political statements are made all the time without swearing.
As they are not defendants on trial, and we are talking about the school dress code as opposed to the criminal code . . .
Of what relevance is that? The school district is clearly engaging in viewpoint discrimination under the false pretext of banning vulgarities when the slogan is not vulgar. It substitutes for a vulgarity, but that is not the same thing as actually being vulgar. That is a distinction that even a simple minded person can grasp. The school district therefore violates the students’ free speech rights and is therefore unconstitutional.
Svelaz is the political hack (an actual Democrat operative) that “argues” that colleges have the right (and even an obligation) to ban conservative speakers and then screams that keeping primers on oral sex among men out of kindergarten is “book banning”. This is the level of discourse among the left, insane, lame, juvenile and so obviously lies as to make the speakers and writers shameless. How else could KJP, their spokesditz, get away with saying that the Republicans are to blame for the border, the drugs crossing the border, crime in our cities and inflation? Just utterly shameless. And this is who Svelaz supports. Creep.
This reminds me of a dispute a few years ago where public school students were forced to remove American flag shirts due to the threats of certain Latino students. Of course, the pusillanimous federal court system left them with no remedy. First and foremost, by definition, the American flag, as a matter of law, should be deemed not provocative. Second, if the school is going to punish the students wearing the American flag decor (and being forced to remove one’s clothing is punishment), then the students threatening violence should have been punished. The administrators here should be prosecuted under 18 USC 242.
When it comes down to it, they should be able to wear anything they want to let people know without a doubt, just how ignorant they are. To still show how willfully ignorant they are after proven documented facts of Trump’s lies and incompetency, even after all this time, is just pure stupidly.
Do you still wear your “I’m With Her” t-shirt, FishCult?
No, he wears the “I stand with Sotomayor’ t-shirt.
Never had one, still have your statue of Putin standing around?
Oh, how cute–the idea that Trump was beholden to Putin–hmmm, who was it that first sold lethal weapons to Ukraine? Who was it that waxed hundreds of Wagner mercenaries in Syria and how kept Nord-2 closed down?
Fishhead, read up on a guy named Joe McCarthy, a man famous for calling everyone Soviet apologists. You know, like you, except you aren’t famous.
McCarthy was right, though.
Not only was McCarthy’s theme right, but he was proven right more than once.
FishCult — Repent and accept Jesus Christ before it’s too late.
You don’t sound like you’ve taken Christ’s teachings to heart.
Your president accused an innocent man of being a drunk driver (the accident that killed Biden’s first wife). He is a despicable liar.
Yo Fishy — Biden wasn’t elected. He was installed, like a toilet.
Fishy — The Big Lie is that Joe Biden got 81 million ‘votes.’ The fact that you still believe it, shows your willful ignorance, aka brainwashing.