We previously discussed the case of a student (known as “D.A.”) in Michigan who was ordered to remove his sweater with the popular phrase “Let’s Go, Brandon.” We now have a ruling from U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney in the Western District of Michigan. In D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools. Judge Maloney rejects the free speech claim and rules that school officials can punish a student for wearing a “Let’s Go Brandon” T-shirt. I believe that he is wrong and that the case sets a dangerous precedent.
“Let’s Go Brandon!” has become a familiar political battle cry not just against Biden but also against the bias of the media. It derives from an Oct. 2021 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. In the first such incident, D.A. removed the sweater only to reveal a teeshirt underneath with the same slogan. He was then told to go get a teeshirt from a school official to remove both clothing items.
The school ordered the removal of the clothing as obscene and in violation of the school code. However, other students are allowed to don political apparel supporting 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.”
Judge Maloney ruled that:
A school can certainly prohibit students from wearing a shirt displaying the phrase F*** Joe Biden. Plaintiffs concede this conclusion. Plaintiff must make this concession as the Supreme Court said as much in Fraser … (“As cogently expressed by Judge Newman, ‘the First Amendment gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinker’s armband, but not Cohen’s jacket [which read {F*** the Draft}].'”) The relevant four-letter word is a swear word and would be considered vulgar and profane. The Sixth Circuit has written that “it has long been held that despite the sanctity of the First Amendment, speech that is vulgar or profane is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection.” …
If schools can prohibit students from wearing apparel that contains profanity, schools can also prohibit students from wearing apparel that can reasonably be interpreted as profane. Removing a few letters from the profane word or replacing letters with symbols would not render the message acceptable in a school setting. School administrators could prohibit a shirt that reads “F#%* Joe Biden.” School officials have restricted student from wearing shirts that use homophones for profane words … [such as] “Somebody Went to HOOVER DAM And All I Got Was This ‘DAM’ Shirt.” … [Defendants] recalled speaking to one student who was wearing a hat that said “Fet’s Luck” … [and asking] a student to change out of a hoodie that displayed the words “Uranus Liquor” because the message was lewd. School officials could likely prohibit students from wearing concert shirts from the music duo LMFAO (Laughing My F***ing A** Off) or apparel displaying “AITA?” (Am I the A**hole?)…. Courts too have recognized how seemingly innocuous phrases may convey profane messages. A county court in San Diego, California referred an attorney to the State Bar when counsel, during a hearing, twice directed the phrase “See You Next Tuesday” toward two female attorneys.
Because Defendants reasonably interpreted the phrase as having a profane meaning, the School District can regulate wearing of Let’s Go Brandon apparel during school without showing interference or disruption at the school….
The court does not explain what will constitute a “reasonable interpretation” of non-profane words as profane. It is not clear if the same result would be reached by an agreement among students as to the hidden meaning of some other common expression akin to the code of “as you wish” in The Princess Bride. Judge Maloney seems to think that, so long as there is a profane meaning for some, there is a right to bar the expression.
Judge Maloney offers a tip of the hat to free speech before eviscerating its protection:
This Court agrees that political expression, the exchange of ideas about the governance of our county, deserves the highest protection under the First Amendment. But Plaintiffs did not engage in speech on public issues. Defendants reasonably interpreted Let’s Go Brandon to F*** Joe Biden, the combination a politician’s name and a swear word—nothing else. Hurling personal insults and uttering vulgarities or their equivalents towards one’s political opponents might have a firm footing in our nation’s traditions, but those specific exchanges can hardly be considered the sort of robust political discourse protected by the First Amendment. As a message, F*** Joe Biden or its equivalent does not seek to engage the listener over matters of public concern in a manner that seeks to expand knowledge and promote understanding.
The court’s narrow view of the content of this speech is, for me, jarring and chilling. The “Let’s Go Brandon” slogan is more than just a substitute for profanity directed at the President (which itself has political content). It is using satire to denounce the press that often acts like a state media. It is commentary on the alliance between the government and the media in shaping what the public sees and hears.
Judge Maloney relied heavily on the Court’s 1986 decision in Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser which dealt with a nomination speech of student Matthew Fraser for a friend running for high school vice-president. The speech made juvenile illusions to sex like “I know a man who is firm—he’s firm in his pants, he’s firm in his shirt, his character is firm—but most … of all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm.”
The Court ruled that “it is a highly appropriate function of a public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse.” It added that “schools, as instruments of the state, may determine that the essential lessons of civil, mature conduct cannot be conveyed in a school that tolerates lewd, indecent, or offensive speech and conduct[.].”
The Plaintiffs accepted that the school could prohibit a sweatshirt reading “F**k Joe Biden.” While the Court had found that “F**k the Draft” was protected for adults in Cohen v. California, it ruled that schools are different and stated in Fraser: “As cogently expressed by Judge Newman, ‘the First Amendment gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinker’s armband, but not Cohen’s jacket.”) (citing Thomas v. Bd. of Educ., Grandville Cent. Sch. Dist., 607 F.2d 1043, 1057 (2d Cir. 1979)).
However, the Plaintiffs cited other lower court decisions striking a balance in such cases. For example, in B.H. v. Easton Area School Dist. the Third Circuit in a similar case ruled that:
Under Fraser, a school may also categorically restrict speech that—although not plainly lewd, vulgar, or profane—could be interpreted by a reasonable observer as lewd, vulgar, or profane so long as it could not also plausibly be interpreted as commenting on a political or social issue.
This was obviously commenting on a political or social issue, but the court declined to follow the ruling from another circuit on the question.
I disagree with the decision as sweeping too far into the regulation of political speech. Notably, politicians have used the phrase, including members of the House of Representatives despite a rule barring profanity on the floor. On October 21, 2021, Republican congressman Bill Posey concluded his remarks with “Let’s go, Brandon.” It was not declared a violation of the House rules.
In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I criticize what I refer to as “functionalist” interpretations of free speech that have allowed endless trade offs in barring or allowing speech. By protecting speech for its positive function in society, it allows for greater censoring of low-value as opposed to high-value speech.
My view of free speech as a human right is not absolute and I recognize the need for schools to maintain civil discourse. However, the decision by Judge Maloney reflects the slippery slope of functionalism in more narrowly defining the protection of free speech. The default of Judge Maloney is to limit speech even when it is not overtly profane and concerns a major political controversy.
In my view, the school is engaged in unconstitutional speech regulation under a vague and arbitrary standard. The discretionary authority recognized by Judge Maloney sweeps too deeply into protected speech for high school students and offers little clarity on what is permissible political commentary.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
But everybody’s doing it Mom…
Italian city bans ‘Godfather,’ mafia souvenirs because it ‘humiliates’ the locals
By Alex Mitchell
Published Aug. 30, 2024, 1:58 p.m. ET
https://nypost.com/2024/08/30/lifestyle/italian-city-bans-godfather-mafia-souvenirs-humiliates-locals/
* It’s low value speech clogging courts. What really frosts cupcakes is It’s a double standard for the Right v. Left in public schools.
I believe this fact settles it against the demoncrat court’s verdict:
“Notably, politicians have used the phrase, including members of the House of Representatives despite a rule barring profanity on the floor. On October 21, 2021, Republican congressman Bill Posey concluded his remarks with “Let’s go, Brandon.” It was not declared a violation of the House rules.”
With all the uppity left wing screechers in Congress, and them not objecting and striking from the record, even the mega spinners and whiners felt powerless to stop the phrase, so that settled it for We The People.
The court should be overturned, based upon precedence of We The People have already spoken on the matter though our representatives.
What the house or representatives allows is not binding on schools.
The issue the court fixated on is whether Lets Go Brandon is obscene – it clearly is not. The phrase it indirectly derived from F#$K Joe Biden contains an obscene word. But it is NOT an obscene expression. The court refered to cases that barred “Uranus Liquor” – which contains no obscene words but is still an intentional reference to obscene acts. FJB is NOT a reference to an obscene act – very few of us get a mental image that is obscene from the FJB phrase. Lets Go Brandon MEANS exactly the same thing as FJB. What is does NOT mean is anything Obscene.
We bar obscentiy because it is jarring an disruptive. But the commonplace use of obscentity has destroyed the shock value of obscenity.
F$%K just does not shock or disrupt like it used to.
Further most uses of F#$K increasingly have no connection to obscentiy at all.
If someone steals your Parking Space – you may yell “F$%K You”.
That is a strong expression of anger. It is not a direction to perform an obsecene act.
Uranus Liquor does not contain any obscene words, – But it is a deliberately reference to obscene acts.
FJB contains an obnscene words But is not a reference to an obscene act. It is purely an expression of political anger.
Just like shouting “F#$K” when you hit your thumb with a hammer.
Lets Go Brandon is purely an expression of political displeasure
Censoring it is political viewpoint discrimination and government is universally barred from doing that.
Even if Schools could ban ALL political expression – they would NEVER be permitted to bar political expression based on viewpoint.
“Uranus liquor”. Never encountered that one before. It’s pretty good, thank you for expanding my vocabulary of vulgarities. Regarding “F$%K You”, while I do agree it has lost quite a bit of impact over the years by virtue of becoming commonplace, I do not entirely agree with your contention that it no longer has any connotations wrt intercourse. I think that many people use it as analogy, with the understanding that the prospective act to which it refers would be highly non-consensual, i. e., forcible rape.
I did not argue that F#$K is never obscene. Just that it is no longer ALWAYS obscene.
* you’re arguing the degradation is complete. You are correct. The degradation is complete. The use of obscenity has now become meaningless .
Lol. Turls, there are dress codes throughout schools in America. Hell, back when I was playing basketball I was threatened with expulsion for my hair being too long in games. That and the mini beaded dreads my girlfriend put in. And I’m a white guy. And this was public school.
Of course, this was in the 70’s. But Catholic schools all had dress codes and girls skirts were actually measured against being too short. ANY tee shirt with words that upset administration could get you sent home for the day. So of course I took advantage of that policy to get kicked out and I’d hook up with friends to spend the day jumping off the chair lift at A Basin above treeline and skiing crazy ass powder. You could do it ten bucks back then and I’d sell a couple ounces of dirt mexican bud to pay for it.
The issue is not dress codes. Students can be barred from wearing Hoodies or tshirts – if those prohibitions are uniformly applied without regard to any message or none at all;.
That is NOT the case here.
Schools have more ability to restrict speech than Government normally does.
But as was established with Tinker, they can not preclude political expression that is not disruptive of classes.
This case is a CLEAR instance of viewpoint discrimination. The school has allowed political messages that it condones, while banning messages that it does not. That is NEVER permitted.
The only relevant question in this case is whether the “Lets Go Brandon” is “obscene”.
While the origin of the “Lets Go Brandon” message is an MSM reporter deliberately or ignorantly misconstruing a NASCAR crowd chanting “F#$K Joe Binden” as “Lets Go Brandon”, which is what the school is relying on to reach obscenity, That fails for multiple reasons.
All the examples the court cited of obscentiy by substitution were efforts to use acceptable words clear standins for Obscene ACTS.
The FJB chant that the LGB Shirts refer to even though it uses an obscene word is NOT a litteral reference to an obscene act it is a references to strong political displeasure. The LGB slogan even though it was created by a reporter misconstruing a purely political message that contained an obsecene word, soes not contain an obsence word and it does not attempt to refer to an obscene at – it is a PURELY political expression of displeasure. It is no different from the black armbands in Tinker.
This is a loser case.
It is also an excellent example of a court engaging in politically directed reasoning.
When a judge is willing to warp their brain the law and the constitution this much on an issue of expression like this.
They are not qualified to be a judge.
You’re dense.
Think big picture, Johnnie. If schools can regulate hair, clothing, etc. They can certainly regulate speech on that clothing.
ATS that is a ludicrously Stupid argument.
“Schools can bar murder, therefore they can bar anything” ? Really ? That is your argument.
The ability of government to regulate speech is EXTREMELY narrow.
There is SLIGHTLY more latitude for Public (Government) Schools – but more than 50 years ago SCOTUS deciding in Tinker that Schools CAN NOT bar political expression that is not disruptive.
Further Where Public schools have ANY choice regardless what they can allow and what they can prohibit, They can not exercise that choice to engage in viewpoint discrimination.
In this case a government entity has allowed democratic political messages.
Even if it had the power to completely bar political messages – which a PRIVATE school can,
The district is constitutionally forbidden on selectively barring messages based on political viewpoint.
This literally the most absolute restriction on Government censorship that exists.
The argument you attribute to me isn’t my argument.
Schools have always had the right to monitor clothing and physical appearance. A kid a couple years ago, a black kid, was made to cut his hair on the spot in order to take part in a wrestling match. His hair was his ‘free speech’.
Of course you’re not cranked off about that. This ‘brandon’ situation is just trumpists being the pussies they are and stamping their feet in a tantrum because their aggrieved white nonsense doesn’t take precedence over everyone else.
You’re a liar. That was you that said that, Lawn Boy
Coward spastic and liar.
You can not even think clearly about your own remarks.
This is not about cloths or physical appearance.
Bazillions of times SCOTUS has said the Constitution bars viewpoint discrimination by govenrment
The ONLY issues here is the censorship of a political viewpoint.
What if the Student had Written Lets Go Brandon on his Arm ? Would that change anything – NO!
Regardless READ THE ARTICLE – Michigan State law – reflected in this districts dress code ALLOWS students to express their views with their attire.
The Only Question before this judge was is “Lets Go Brandon” obscentiy. It is clearly NOT.
Yes, “trumpists” are according to you “pussies” who also engaged in a violent insurection on January 6th.
Make up your mind. Either “Trumpists” are “pussies” that you need not worry about, or they are dangerous threats to democracy.
The left used to be good at messaging – now you are stumbling all over yourselves.
I don’t see the contradiction. The Trump zealots who marched to the Capitol to “Stop the Steal” are fantasizers, following the lead of their Fantisizer-in-Chief. They fantasize total victory over their opponents (“own the libs”), but have no realistic plan for how to achieve it. And, except for a few romantic, foolish ones, they would shrink from a shooting war. Remember, these people grew up immersed in first-person-shooter video games — a make-believe world where they “got their way” expediently. Better they had grown up like my generation, where we played with other kids every day, and learned how to negotiate away conflict.
So, yeah, Trump and his cult are fantasizers steeped in self-aggrandizement as brave warriors facing down a mortal enemy. But in the real world, where you engage with people non-violently to resolve conflict, they are underdeveloped boy-men….pussies.
“I don’t see the contradiction.”
Of course you do not – your not capable of even first order thinking
“The Trump zealots who marched to the Capitol to “Stop the Steal” are fantasizers, following the lead of their Fantisizer-in-Chief.”
False and irrelevant. The first amendemernt protests ALL speech – not merely speech YOU think is true.
“They fantasize total victory over their opponents (“own the libs”), but have no realistic plan for how to achieve it.”
Again – so what – that is also exactly what those on the left do. Until a month ago Democrats were trying to swallow the fantasy that Biden could win.
Regardless, I could give a schiff WHO wins, I care WHAT those with power will DO with that power.
With AS LITTLE as possible being the preference.
“And, except for a few romantic, foolish ones, they would shrink from a shooting war.”
Again the massive contradictions that you seem unable to grasp – Either J6 was a violent insurection by people willing to tangle with armed police – certainly not shrinking from conflict. Or it was a mostly orderly and nonviolent political protest.
You can not claim that Trump supporters both violently confronted authority and would shrink from any such confrontation.
“Remember, these people grew up immersed in first-person-shooter video games — a make-believe world where they “got their way” expediently.”
Weird claim – do you have evidence that Trump supporters make a disproportionate number of first person shooter gamers ?
Most of these type pof distinctions are age rather than politics based. And young people – even young white males have the lowest levels of Trump support.
This really just sounds like your making things up.
You have made your decisions about Trump supporters from the outside without knowing them.
“Better they had grown up like my generation, where we played with other kids every day, and learned how to negotiate away conflict.”
There is a great deal of evidence that changes in child rearing are negatively impacting younger generations.
There is support that younger people – especially those whose lives are primarily online are less able to deal with conflict and more prone to anxiety and depression.
But it is ALSO true – and has been pretty much forever that younger people are significantly more inclined to lean left.
It has ALWAYS been true that as people participate more in the REAL world – as they complete school, avoid crime, avoid having kids before they marry, avoid marriage before they can support a family, get a job – any job, and then work towards a better job.
Work towards living in their own home rather than their parents. Work towards owning a home, …..
That all these markers of engagement and understanding of reality ALSO lead towards more conservatism and less leftism.
That directly contradicts your claims. You say you are older – from a different generation – but you lean left, and that suggests you really have not grown up, that you have not come to understand reality.
I would also note that nearly all J6ers were middle aged and UP – many were grandparents – that is not the generation steeped in first person shooters. I would further note that a disproportionate portion of them were current or former law enforcement or military.
All of this is precisely why the left is terrified of them.
These are NOT the children who protested the vietnam war.
These people are much more like the people who conducted the Boston Tea Party or the minutemen of Lexington and Concord.
And that is what the Left has been affraid of since the Tea Party.
When middle america starts to protest – change is inevitable.
When people with jobs and mortgages and kids and even grand kids start to protest – change is inevitable.
“So, yeah, Trump and his cult are fantasizers steeped in self-aggrandizement as brave warriors facing down a mortal enemy.”
Your the one who seems to be in the fantasy world. As noted – the J6ers – are NOT the First person shooter children you fixate on.
They are adults – blue collar workers, people with jobs and families. They are the complete antithesis of what you describe.
All this suggests that it is YOUR connection to reality that is thin.
I and many others have asked – Why you the media the left should be beleived about the 2020 election -0 given all the lies that the left has been caught in. But here you are talking about Trump supporters and J6ers and CLEARLY it is YOU that are living a fantasy.
If you have no clue about something that is well known and easy to find out – Why should you beleived when you claim that what those who you CLEARLY do not know believe is fantasy ?
“But in the real world, where you engage with people non-violently to resolve conflict, they are underdeveloped boy-men….pussies.”
Adults do try to resolve conflict without violence, and they tend to be better at that than younger people.
But it is magical thinking to beleive that all conflict can be resolved without violence. It can not – look to Ukraine, look To israel. Look top the american revolution. Look to WWI and WWII. To the Civil War.
We would all prefer that conflict get resolved without violence.
But non-violence is a value not a principle – and REAL adults KNOW that.
The Boston Tea Party was a “Tantrum” thrown by people tired of their freedom being trampled.
Lexington and Concord was a”tantrum” over government restrictions on freedom.
The reason that we have a constitution that protects our rights is to avoid having to use violence to protect our rights.
“when a long train of abuses and usurpation [or individual rights], pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government”
Either the courts will refrain from this unconstitutional nonsense abusing peoples rights.
Or eventually we will exercise our right, it is our duty, to throw off such Government
“The argument you attribute to me isn’t my argument.”
Lets assume that is correct.
Then this is over, and these students must be allowed to wear LGB shirts OR the district must ban all sweatshirts and tshirts.
Either this is about cloths and appearance – and you lose.
Or it is about free speech – and you lose.
We are attributing an anti-free speech argument to you – because it is your argument and because it is the only one available.
If this was about cloths AND the district prohibited sweatshirts and tshirts, The court would have ruled “no sweathsirts or tshirts, case dismissed”
This is not about cloths it is about speech. Read the case, Read the article, Read your own comments.
* The standard, the principle is adultery. Principle v. Unprincipled
Yes, FJB or LGB is obscene or unprincipled behavior described using words, acronyms.
Simple. It’s an absolute admission that unprincipled speech and behavior is the principle.
There’s no further argument.
Trumptards are against anything anyone else is for.
So your argument for Censoring speech that offends you is being made with speech that is deliberately offensive ?
“Own Goal”
Cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrat Marxist Useful Idiots and pedophiles ALWAYS self identify to their fellow perverts using their dog whistle code word “Trumptards”.
Weird how these Lyin’ Like A Proud Biden culls claim that everybody else is for President Daddy-Daughter Inappropriate Incest Showers – but roughly half the population showed their disapproval for The Pedophile In Chief by voting for Trump instead.
You’re one them clever Trumptards.
Catholic schools are private, the first amendment applies to Government.
There are always messy constitutional issues when Govenrment is taking on an act that is not something that requires govenrment – such as education.
That results in all kinds of tricky problems like this. If this case was about a private school – that school is perfectly free to engage in viewpoint discrimination. But a Public school can not.
Who cares?
Do you feel better now?
Your friend Turls isnt reading it, dum dum.
This situation represents the failure parents. Schools do much more “parenting” these days because don’t say that is not appropriate for school. Both sides. The principal should have called the parents into school and told them to do their job.
Censoring political expression is not the school engaging in Parenting.
While we have real issues of failure in parenting in this country – it is not and never has been the role of the school to step in and engage in parenting, or even the judgement of the parenting of others.
The purpose of schools is education. They have never been especially good at core education – which is their only legitimate purpose.
They have proven absolutely disasterous at most everything else they have engaged in.
Despite the failures of parenting we have today – the failure of schools to educate is MUCH larger.
Even in this case – the actions of the district and the decision of the judge is the Government impramatur on Bullying those whose speech offends you.
Is that really what you want schools and our courts to be teaching ?
“The purpose of schools is education. They have never been especially good at core education – which is their only legitimate purpose.
They have proven absolutely disasterous at most everything else they have engaged in. ”
Absolutely agree. Not to mention that for decades, public schools have been aggressively working to poach the responsibilities of parents, and to prevent the latter from effectively fulfilling those responsibilities, in order to turn out good little Marxists.
Thank you.
I would further note that – the FAILURE of government to do the job of parents is NOT NEW.
Almost 50 years ago I read “weeping in the playtime of others” which is non-fiction FROM THE LEFT documenting the abysmal job that government does when it choses or less frequently MUST raise children whose parents have failed.
A child who was sexually abused by a parent is MORE LIKELY to suffer further sexual or physical abuse in the custody of the state, in foster care or otherwise parented by government than if it was left with the abusive parent.
Do not get me wrong – there are some AWFUL parents out there. But only the worst of the worst are worse than what occurs when Government takes over. Charles Manson was raised by the state.
Nor am I looking to pi$$ all over many (not all) people who work in the government or in foster care, caring for kids with really $hitty parents.
The presence of good people does not change how overall horrible a job government has done.
Even jobs that Government MUST do – such as punishing those who commit crimes, government does abysmally poorly.
Government is not good at anything – that is the natural consequence of the government ability to use FORCE and its insulation from free markets.
We should never allow govenrment to do anything that can be done without government.
It is hilarious that these people used to think they were somehow ‘counter culture’, or ‘rebels’. Give me a break. The most counter culture and rebellious thing one could do in 2024 is oppose the modern left, and not a whisper from these leftist fascists. Give me a break. You all sold your souls. I previously used to think you were intelligent and egalitarian, but you have shown are the biggest bunch of tools this world has ever seen when the rubber hit the road. Sure, a t-shirt is crime. Again i reference Tipper Gore and her early censorship efforts, something *the left used to oppose*.
The modern left is a caricature of sanity and fairness. Go blow, all of you that still maintain these delusions. The rest of us will continue to make the world a better place without you and your idiocy. Thinking we will somehow be cowed by your junior high antics is equally hilarious, with or without fair elections. Again, go blow.
From the moment I understood what Homosexuality was I have supported equal rights for people with different sexual orientations.
As that equal rights movement gained successes, I slowly became disillusioned as the very people whose equal rights I had fought for shifted to becoming oppressors as they gained power.
This is why I am libertarian and not liberal or progressive. Even 60’s liberalism has always had an undercurrent of “I know What is best for everyone and will use whatever government power I might have to impose that on all by force”.
You can not use the power of government to coerce people to change their views or to punish them for their views – just because you are offended by their views.
Just as you must be free to speak, to buy groceries, to drive the same roads as everyone else if you are gay.
You have the same rights if you are a nazi, a communist,
pro-life, heterosexual, or conservative.
You may not use the power of government to punish other peoples views – no matter how much they offend you.
You may not use the government to restrict someone’s ability to express those views.
You may not use the power of government to try to change someone’s views.
If you do not understand that – whether you are on the right or the left you are immoral and you are engaging in EVIL.
Is a minor a citizen with rights? Can a minor vote or own a gun?
Well, yes and no. Yes they can vote, nothing keeping them from it in most states where no form of ID is required and even the dead in the cemetery fill out most voter rolls, but the popular myth of the most secure elections in history says no they can’t vote.
and
No they cannot own a gun, but depending upon how one defines “own”, in as much as possession is 9/10’s of the law, minors can certainly have a gun to rob, loot, carjack, and conduct all manner of mayhem. So yes, but mostly only in Democrat run cities.
Minor’s are citizens and they have rights.
We allow more government restrictions on the rights of minor’s.
We restrict them from voting,. owning a gun, contracting with others.
Buying alcohol or pornography. Making medical decisions without adult supervision, ….
We do not EVER allow government to engage in viewpoint discrimination.
Not with adults, not with minors.
In the relatively few instances that government can censor people – whether adults or not, Government is BARRED from viewpoint discrimination. And ESPECIALLY political viewpoint discrimination.
Is it actually that hard for you to understand why that is required ?
If Government was free to censor political views – the modern left would not exist.
The actions of HUAC and Joe McCarthy, the blacklists the efforts to punish people for leftist views were found to be both constitutionally and morally WRONG.
There is absolutely no difference between firing a teacher for having attended a communist party gathering and silencing a student whose Tshirt says “Lets Go Brandon”.
Private parties, private schools can engage in viewpoint censorship.
I can say “You will not talk about Trump in my house”.
But Government CAN not do the same.
Schools are permitted as quasi p[private actors – as employers and as educators – which contra the left is NOT a government function.
It is a private function that government sometimes performs, to engage in SOME censorship that other government actors CAN NOT.
But Government can NEVER censor political expression by viewpoint – NEVER. It should be obvious to all why not – the power of government to control political expression leads rapidly to authoritarianism.
Schools MAY limit speech that disrupts education – I would note that is an OBJECTIVE not subjective standard.
Schools MAY restrict actual obscenity.
They MAY restrict carrying signs in the halways.
But ANYTHING they allow – they MUST allow for ALL viewpoints.
This case is a dead bang loser.
“We allow more government restrictions on the rights of minor’s.”
To me, that is justified only if the intent (and effect) is to support parents in raising their children to become productive citizens. IMO, the moment government steps beyond that narrow threshold, it forfeits all moral authority to restrict the rights on minors.
Children and also those who are mentally incompetent are a special catagory that we do not have good answers for.
Look at our historic treatment of mental health issues. Whatever we did in one generation that we called enlightened, the next generation – not without cause called barbaric.
We have locked them up in institutions. We have released them and many become homeless alcoholics and drug addicts, and we have sent them to prison as they commit crimes.
The good news with children is that as incapable of making their own decisions and looking after themselves they are when they are born, ultimately they become adults and are free to manage their own lives. The middle is a mess and there is no perfect answer to what rights do children have over their own lives and when.
But those who can not manage their own lives who are NOT children are a problem we have no answer to.
This BTW is a major flaw that the left constantly screws up.
Many problems DO NOT have perfect solutions.
I will be happy to discuss the problems of drug addition, mental health and homelessness with anyone who is not claiming to be able to SOLVE these problems.
I am libetarian – I was very disappointed when Oregon re criminalized drug use.
Apparently the people of Oregon thought that decriminalizing drug use would make the drug problem go away.
I would eliminate all our drug laws – from the FDA and CDC right through to laws regarding selling and using “illegal” drugs.
But I am not stupid – all that accomplishes is moving an intractable problem out of the sphere of criminal justice.
It does not make drug addicted homeless people go away. It just changes the role of law enforcement – nothing else.
Regardless, many of the problems we have – either have nop answers, or at the very least have no perfect answers or one size fits all answers.
The left does not understand that.
Free markets left to their own – to the extent that the science and technology of the moment allows iterativelyh improve all these intractable probnlems
But they do not make them go away.
Government makes them worse.
“Government makes them worse.”
Exactly. Removing government entirely from the equation would constitute a vast improvement. At that point we would probably enjoy the latitude to take enough time to find the best possible private sector methods of dealing with the remaining problems.
In much of the country minors can own guns.
Regardless, this case is not about minors, and it is not even about schools.
The schools Dress code is:
“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.”
“However, other students are allowed to don political apparel supporting other political causes including “gay-pride-themed hoodies.””
That FACT is the END of this case.
It is irrelevant whether Schools MAY censor speech. No matter how free a school may be to censor the one form of government censorship that is absolutely barred by the first amendment in all circumstances is VIEWPOINT discrimination.
Once the school allowed SOME political views to be expressed – it must allow ALL political views to be expressed.
As they say in Texas,
Joe Biden ~ “Bless his heart”
I just wanted to note that in Judge Maloney’s opinion that Professor Turley linked to it discusses in detail plaintiff arguments that Professor Turley mentioned (for example the third circuit opinion) and other ones — see pages 20 through 25 of the opinion.
Under Morse v. Frederick this is the correct decision. The lower court is bound by Supreme Court case law. One might not like the case law, but that is the way it is.
Morse v Frederick dealt with material encouraging illegal drug use.
On the other hand, Tinker prohibited a school from barring students from wearing things in opposition to the Vietnam War.
“One might not like the case law, but that is the way it is.”
The judge in this instance was blatantly wrong.
This case is about obscenities, not political message. Schools can ban obscenities.
Is ‘Brandon” an obscenity? Will a kid named Brandon have to change his name? How about ‘fricking’? How about ‘darn’?
It was clearly a non-obscene political expression. The judge can’t be removed but the school officials can be and the locals should get on it. One easy thing to do is say no more school bonds until the tyrannical school official steps down or is removed.
Meanwhile, I hope there is an appeal. The judge’s arbitrary and capricious decision was likely based on politics. Or maybe he is just stupid.
I suspect your support for this outrageous decision is political rather than an objection to ‘obscenity’.
Its not obscene, moron
The law barring obscenties is weakened when the obsecenity is political, and in this case we do not have an actual obscenity.
This decision is an attempt to shoe horn the extension of case law allowing banning obsenity to homophones and double entendres.
LGB is not a homophone. It merely shares the same cadence, and has a phrase containing an obscentiy that itself MIGHT have passed constitutional scrutiny.
To Ban “Lets Go Brandon” the court MUST find that the phrase not merely derives from and expresses the same snetiments as FJB but that it is indirectly but clearly advocating for performing a sexual act on Joe Biden. Even the original FJB phrase is not actually a direct reference to an obscene act, it is an expression of political anger.
MAGAs are incels….old man might be all the action they can get.
What a pathetic response. You know you have lost the argument when you have to resort to such a juvenile response. And when you think about it, MAGAs are generally married, heterosexual couples, with children. Unlike our gender fluid, pedo, groomer leftists who seem to get caught with child porn or even having sexually rape young boys. And that is a fact.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-lgbtq-center-leader-arrested-in-child-sex-sting/ar-AA1n8cM8
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/princeton-grad-lgbtq-activist-who-led-queer-alumni-charged-with-possession-of-child-porn/ar-BB1kHl7K
There are statistics strongly supporting the claim that Conservatives have more children than those on the left.
I do not think the evidence that child sexual abuse is more common among the LGBTQ community.
But what is absolutely true is that many fo the societal changes that the LGBTQ+ community wants WILL result in an epidemic of child sexual abuse. MTF Trans people are NOT more prone to be pedophiles. But Pedophiles are absolutely possitively going to seek out ANYTHING that gives them better access to children. Whether it is priests or Scout leaders, are Trans teachers.
If you restructure society such that there is greater ability beyond parents to discuss sex with ever younger children you will get an epidemic of child sexual abuse.
A significant portion of my wifes clients are sex offenders and many of them abuse children. They come from all political persuasions.
What connects them all is the access to children amplified by the ability to engage in sexual discussions and activity with children.
Pedophilia is a potent compulsion. I have no doubt that a MAGA to the hilt pedo, will reidentify themselves as MTF trans to get a job as a teacher to gain access to children in a world in which they will be able to raise sexual matters with children with limited stigma.
The most potent force we have exposing peodphilia – and even that is not all that strong, is the understanding of all involved – including the children that even the preliminaries are WRONG, If you start engaging children in sexual discussions at ever earlier agaes and you change societal norms to say that is acceptable. You will create a feeding frenzy for pedophiles.
What an oblivious to reality response.
The rates at which people marry, stay married, and have children are significantly higher on the right than the left.
If you want to be trusted – don’t make up stupid claims with no basis in reality.
All that does is make you look stupid. and untrustworthjy.
Please cite the Constitution for any passage that causes a lower court to be bound by Supreme Court “case law.”
Understanding that it is not a lower court, was the Supreme Court of 2022 bound by the illicit, partial, corrupt, and unconstitutional “case law” decided by the Supreme Court of 1973 in Roe v. Wade?
Let’s suppose a previous decision was as corrupt as the high criminals, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Abraham Lincoln et al.; is any court bound to that corrupt “case law?”
Yes. If a decision is corrupt we are still bound by it. We saw this in Trump v Anderson and Trump v United States.
And, as is typical, you failed to cite the Constitution. Why? Because you can’t; because you et al. are making —- up as you go along. The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional (Labor Dept. WTF is “labor?” labor is not a thing even – unions are criminal organizations whose sole point of leverage is violence and property damage). Antitrust is unconstitutional nonsense, the relevant answers being competition and “taking” of the 5th Amendment. Etc.
Wrong as usual sammy.
Sammy that would be incorrect.
Morse – which was wrongly decided was about the rights of adult students – Morse was 18 at the time, to engage in political speech OUTSIDE of school that the SCHOOL argued advocated to illegal conduct.
In Morse the speech was oputside oif school – the case should have been dismissed.
Morse was an adult – over 18 – the case should have been dismissed.
“Bong Hits For Jesus” is not clearly advocating for illegal conduct – the case should have been dismissed.
It was political speech – the case should have been dismissed.
Advocating for things that are illegal is STILL protected speech or we could jail all democrats for supporting open borders.
The case should have been dismissed.
REGARDLESS, Morse does not apply at all here.
The issues in this case hing on completely different FACTS.
The CORE to this is the districts dress code provision barring obscenity. That is pretty much the only issue in this case.
“Lets go Brandon” is inarguably political speech – the district and the state ALLOW political speech in school that does not disrupt education.
That means no carrying signs through the halls and in classroom and no shouting out political slogans to disrupt school.
The argument that “Lets Go Brandon” is obscene is absurd. Frankly even “F#$K Joe Biden” which is a sort of ancestor for LGB is itself arguably protected speech in schools because the prhibition against obscentity is severaly weakened when the speech is political
The courts argument is that a phrase that is definitely political and contains no obscene words, and is NOT some double entendre for obscene acts that
has as an ancestor a different phrase that has an obscene word but is NOT actually a reference to an obscence Act – FJB is an expression of anger,
it is not a suggestion that anyone actually FJB.
It would be a very close call whether under the Michigan dress code an FJB Tshirt would be permissible. Expecially if the obscene word was F#$K rather than F U C K.
LGB is not even a close case.
This has been the strategy of the left for a long time. A person they don’t like says something completely innocuous. Then they either reinterpret the words or take it completely out of context to mean something else. The classis is Trump’s comment that there are good people on both sides. Then the reinterpreted meaning is used to try and cancel that person.
The meaning of “Let’s go Brandon” is very clear in this context. What other meaning do you think it had? The kid has a friend named Brandon and he is showing support?
It means he is not a fan of joe biden and his policies. Thats all it means, moron.
It is also poking fun at the left wing nut media.
Sammy metamucil thinks it means the student wants to have sex with joe biden.
Idiot.
Sammy: “The meaning of “Let’s go Brandon” is very clear in this context. What other meaning do you think it had?”
+++
One obvious meaning pointed to in Professor Turley’s comment [which you apparently didn’t read] is ridicule of the obviously dishonest corporate news business. It was, after all, one of the news imbeciles who originally gave life to the expression.
The sentiment is political and the judge’s corrupt decision is political.
The meaning is crystal clear. The meaning is that Joe Biden has been a disaster.
Even the original FJB would be allowed in a district that allowed broad political messaging
This is typical left wing nut reasoning – reading the law broadly as applied to those you do not like and narrowly to favor those you do.
https://www.mynamestats.com/First-Names/B/BR/BRANDON/chart-state-stats.svg
This a totally asinine ruling. Under this interpretation, the school could quite literally ban ANY slogan as obscene including Merry Christmas and God Bless America.
Timely…
“Reporter Who Asked Kamala A Question Charged With Hate Crime”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The presidential race took a sobering turn this morning, as a reporter who asked Vice President Kamala Harris a question was arrested and charged with committing a hate crime.
https://babylonbee.com/news/reporter-who-asked-kamala-a-question-charged-with-hate-crime
I suggest the following teeshirt for the student:
“Joe Biden is pure stinking evil. Censor that, Morons.”
Federal Judge Rules Against Free Speech in Elementary Schools
District Court Judge David Carter delivered a crushing blow against free speech rights in elementary schools in an outrageous case out of Orange County. Principal Jesus Becerra at Viejo Elementary punished a seven-year-old girl named B.B. in the lawsuit for writing “any life” under a “Black Lives Matter” picture. Judge Carter issued a sweeping decision that said that she has no free speech rights in the matter due to her age and that the school is allowed to engage in raw censorship. He is now being appealed.
The message from the school seems to be that black lives matter but free speech does not. The school found a kindred spirit in Judge David Carter.
Judge Carter ruled that B.B. has no free speech to protect due to her age, but that “students have the right to be free from speech that denigrates their race while at school.”
Judge Carter added that “an elementary school … is not a marketplace of ideas… Thus, the downside of regulating speech there is not as significant as it is in high schools, where students are approaching voting age and controversial speech could spark conducive conversation.”
The court leaves a vacuum of protected rights that he fills with what seems unchecked authority for the school: “a parent might second-guess (the principal’s) conclusion, but his decision to discipline B.B. belongs to him, not the federal courts.”
La visión estrecha que tiene Carter de la libertad de expresión y su visión expansiva de la autoridad estatal no es nada excepcional.
https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/bb-v-cusd-opening-brief.pdf
*I could agree with the case of the sweater with the popular phrase “Let’s Go, Brandon” if it were a private school, in my case and that of my daughter who studied in Private Catholic Schools only the sweater from the institution was allowed, but in a public school it is something I cannot understand in USA.
“Judge Carter added that “an elementary school … is not a marketplace of ideas…”
That is certainly true of schools in our current era in which the Marxist philosophy of the NEA and AFT dominates curricula.
Carter misses the fact that while Schools can engage in censorship – they are STILL barred from viewpoint censorship.
If they allow ONE view – they MUST allow others – any school that allows BLM must allow All Lives Matter.
The claim that a school is not a market place of ideas is actually absurd – schools exist to expose kids to knowledge they do not have.
But even if Carter wore correct on that -= he is still wrong – Government MAY NOT engage in viewpoint discrimination.
This should have been a slam dunk.
It is extremely disturbing that the american Left has changed so much that Democratic Judges do not grasp as unconstitutional things that the entire left would have FORCEFULLY opposed, along with most of the country a few decades ago.,
John– “schools exist to expose kids to knowledge they do not have.”
+++
Is that why they exist? Doesn’t seem like. Judging by their results they exist to crush curiosity and graduate ignoramuses. Okay, but we could produce halfwits for a fraction of the cost.
Once a kid going barefoot to a one room school where a lady taught pupils of all ages could grow to be the man who wrote the Gettysburg Address and now, at the cost of billions, we produce kids who struggle to read the Gettysburg Address and don’t understand it even if they can read it.
Public education is a huge pile of cash that draws grifters like a pile of sugar draws ants. The reason for its existence is getting a share. Education is just a crumbling facade.
“Public education is a huge pile of cash that draws grifters like a pile of sugar draws ants.”
To me, a more apt analogy would be to a huge pile of another substance that tends to draw flies.
So, “Let’s Go Brandon” is now the legal equivalent of using the “F” word in the Western District of Michigan. American Jurisprudence at its finest Jonathan.
Interesting First Amendment opinions. https://www.facebook.com/100001857818043/posts/pfbid02BPGoPNM6qtE7cM74DYmFpfjc1gPRFYxDR8hs1ELDFAqB61XhxNcX6TmDZV4HCthUl/?mibextid=WaXdOe
Dumb ruling. I think people have the right to brandish the “Brandon” meme. In fact it’s a good thing. When they freely label themselves as the low class MAGA trash they are they’ve saved me from engaging with their r*t*rdation.
Awww poor wittle baby, does the phrase hurt your precious little feewings?
No, it didn’t hurt his feelings. He’s just a Marxist, they have no feelings. They just want control, as long as they’re the one’s in control. They’re happy to kill or jail you to get it. How can your feelings be hurt, when they have no problem informing on their own families to the government? That’s who you’re dealing with.
LOL, Trumptards are hilarious.
LOL, Trumptards are hilarious.
LOL indeed… who would think that a Soviet Democrat Marxist Useful Idiot and pedophile would post with a username that would allow people to identify which Soviet Democrat pedophile they are?
They just make sure they use their Soviet Democrat dog whistle and code word “Trumptard” to identify they’re supporters of The Pedo In Chief, President Daddy-Daughter Inappropriate Incest Showers.
There’s a couple of these cowardly Anonymous pedophile Soviet Democrats posting with their code word “Trumptard” this morning, looking for their fellow Anonymous pedophiles.
One sentence and you make it perfectly clear what is wrong with this ruling, and why you are the one short on intelligence.
How dare you shame the differently abled? Just because you think President Zombie and VP Word Salad are intelligent life is no reason to demean tardy people. They’re just a little late.
Low class libturd trash ^^^^
Interpreting “let’s go Brandon” as profane is silly, the opposite of reasonable. But hey liberals don’t like the phrase which is the real standard used in the case. The court just pretends to use a reasonable-interpretation standard.
There is no Constitutional Right to not have your feelings hurt.