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).
In the early 1900’s a tee-shirt with “Rosie the Riveter” (women working in men’s jobs) would have been considered obscene or disruptive to the vast majority of voters at that time. Years later, wartime which vitally needed women working in those jobs made the obscene the norm.
In 1950, a tee-shirt showing an interracial couple would been considered obscene or disruptive. Back then a tee-shirt of Clarence Thomas and his wife, or Mitch McConnell and his wife or Kamala Harris and her husband would likely have been banned under such a policy.
While it’s highly unpatriotic for any citizen to publicly disparage any president and Commander-In-Chief, it’s still legal under First Amendment.
Public school officials (government employees) could instead require students wear uniforms without any writing, but obscenity is subjective and can’t be defined – what is obscene to one person may not be perceived that way by others.
JT, you teach young adult law students at GWU. Do you have any idea what it’s like to teach in middle school?… or high school?….without the level of student maturity and decorum you take for granted in your law classes?
Your “free speech” dogma is a recipe for losing control of the atmospherics in a school setting….essentially ceding control to the freaks, militant-cause fanatics, and self-entertaining troublemakers.
We conservatives are currently trying to purge our public schools of mind-numbing ideological proseletizing, and get teachers and students back focussed on core academic learning. What you’re championing is bringing adult-level political rage into the schools. You’re being stupid this time….blinded by your ideological position on free speech — which is geared for mature adults, not developing children.
The Judge called the case correctly, based on common sense.
pbinca,
Sorry the judge got it completely wrong. More importantly he is exactly what we do NOT want on the bench whether right or left.
With respect to you “common sense” approach – Common sense is like “fair” everyone is sure they know what it is, but 10 people have 11 different ideas as to what the common sense solution is.
Courts follow “the rule of law, not man”.
Tinker and later cases established the application of the first amendment to public schools.
This Judge did NOT follow that law.
Left or Right – if you do not Like the constitution or the law – change them. Not by bending judges to your will, but by changing the actual law or constitution.
With respect to “common sense” and schools. The best solution is to end public schools.
Free markets do better with everything. You are both right and wrong concurrently about schools – and the reason you are BOTH is why schools should be private.
All students are not the same. They do not have the same educational needs. Government must – as a correct constitutional requirement treat each of us equally.
Private – free market schools can each offer different approaches for different students.
My kids were both cyber chartered – that will NOT work for everyone. But it works very well for many.
But even cyber charters are not all the same. My daughter started at a cyber charter that was perfect for her – it was “proceed at your own pace”.
But after a few years that had to be ended – because it could not be made to conform to one size fits all state laws that were designed to make charter schools less successful and less effective – someone else’s “common sense” rules.
Private schools can have uniforms and other measures to focus students on their education, not competing over political messaging or fashion.
But even that is NOT the best for ALL schools.
Regardless you are addressing TWO different issues.
The first is whether the judge followed the constitution and the law – and the answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT.
The second is how should students be educated, and in that you are correct that students that are behind on the basics – the 3R’s should not be fixating on politics.
* end public schools, you say? You’re an idiot.
* The esteemed President Biden, commander and chief, gave the slogan its stamp of approval when he agreed and said, let’s go Brandon during a telephone conversation.
The thing itself speaks!
PS. there’s some really good junk under science . Tap the menu bar. Madam Perscod-Weinstein want Webb’s name off the Webb telescope!
Mirror. Mirror on the wall who’s the fairest of us all?
* why was the boy wearing the sweater? Is he conservative? Test it with a red trump ball cap or Trump 2024 sweater. Any other students censored? What were the reasons?
Need more information. Simply turn the sweater inside out and the next day a Trump ball cap. One incident does not require a war. The teacher is biased most likely.
You are incorrect, pbinca. The Constitution is not waived when a middle school teacher cannot control his/her students.
Your point would hold more weight if as indicated in the article regarding the case, other adult political viewpoints weren’t also being present in the school setting (not unlimited to raging about Trump)… You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If those political issues can be plastered on teachers walls, made part of Schools cirriculumn and the like, you have no choice but to allow opinions that don’t go with your political viewpoint.. That is a “fair” interpretation of free speech.
Didn’t know “common sense” was the basis for deciding cases. I thought the Constitution, which to many these days is claimed to be irrational, was the basis on which cases involving the 1st Amendment are decided. I didn’t know that the Federal Court’s responsibility was to decide a standard of speech that is acceptable for adults, but not for teenagers. I learned something I never learned in law school.
While in junior college I discovered the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I wonder what “Let’s Go Brandon!” would look like in Elf Runes?
That is sort of the stupid argument the Judge is making – that “Lets Go Brandon” is the same as “F#$K Joe Biden” except in a different language.
The Judge is ALMOST correct in that. But the Almost is important.
Uranus Liquor does not use any “dirty words” but it is obscene because it has an obscene double meaning and can be proscribed by a school.
“F#$K Joe Biden” uses “dirty words” but does NOT have an obscene meaning – it can be proscribed by a school.
But “Let’s go Brandon” – “means” the same thing (and more) than FJB without using dirty words. It has no obscene meaning, and no obscene words.
It can NOT be proscribed.
If you translated FJB into elvish runes – whether it would be obscene would depend on how you translated it.
FJB could be translated as “make love to Joe Biden” which is NOT what the crowd means, but is an accurate “translation”
or it could be translated as “Reject Joe Biden” – which would be close to what people chanting “FJB” mean.
The judge is wrong for many reasons – but one of that is because FJB does NOT mean “make lover to Joe Biden”, it does NOT even mean engage in a sexual act with Joe Biden, It means something closer to Thoroughly reject joe biden – which is not obscene.
Lets Go Brandon is just an encoded version of FJB without the obscene words. This judge understood correctly that LGB and FJB mean the same thing.
But he MISSED the fact that FJB’s meaning is not obscene – it merely uses an obscene word. LGB has the same (and more) meaning, without the obscene word.
LGB is not the same as a double enterdre.
* oh dear God, you’re right. F word has been perverted, too. It’s meaningless.
When the reporter ‘covered up’ by saying the crowd at the NASCAR event was praising Let’s Go Brandon, that was both a wonderful example of her thinking on her feet and very quickly, as well as the Mainstream Media covering for the crowd’s obvious blasting against Joe Biden, who clearly was/is not a NASCAR favorite at all — clearly those are Republicans, and at the time, Trump supporters
This Judge made an error in judgment, owing I assume that he is not a Trump supporter and has created a bad precedent, which hopefully will be appealed to a higher court.
And to all the kids named Brandon, I’m sorry you can’t enjoy your name any longer —
If I were one of the boys, I would get a T-Shirt with “Trump’s Campaign Is One Big Snafu” and see if that gets rejected.
If it doesn’t then we have a clear violation of political speech on the part of the judge and the school
They already have a clear violation of the first amendment.
Body language experts say CNN interview suggests Harris was ‘uncomfortable,’ ‘hollow,’ ‘insincere’
“Military interrogators, detectives and psychologists use facial expressions and body movement to understand what may be going on in a subject’s head. The Democratic presidential nominee goes into “fight or flight” when she’s uncomfortable and cackles, Greg Hartley said.”
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/body-language-experts-say-cnn-interview-showed-harris-was-uncomfortable
I thought the interview was a disaster. But it does not matter what I think.
What matters is what those on the fence or tenuously supporting Harris think.
If Harris was Articulate, if she was charismatic, I could not vote for her.
I thought it was telling that Harris was given 20 likely questions up front, the interview lasted an hour, she had a favorable interviewer,
and STILL they had to edit it down to 18 minutes to make it look bad rather than Horrible.
But those are MY thoughts, and those do not matter, any more than the fawning of those on the far left.
I beleive it was bad enough to start people questioning Harris – especially given that most everyone already KNOWS that Harris can not think on her feet – which is ONE major part of what interviews and debates are.
Who is it you want in the Situation room when the “schiff hits the fan” ?
Who do you want making decisions that could mean the deaths of tens, hundreds, thousands or millions ?
Someone who facing a difficult question from a reporter sprays out a word salad ? oi stares blankly into space ?
One of the problems the left does not understand is that Presidents make decisions on an infinite number of subjects – they may or may not have time to consult “experts” – but in the real world – “experts” do not actually make decisions. They provide advice (often bad advice as they have no skin in the game).
* Harris had to be the candidate to lay hands on millions in campaign money. The only reason>
Money. Don’t overthink it.
“Are you or your loved ones suffering from illnesses such as TDS, also known as Trump Derangement Syndrome? Do you dismiss or deny the current issues facing our country such as historic inflation, illegal immigration, corporate corruption, World War III escalations and the chronic disease epidemic? Ask your doctor if independence is right for you and enjoy your freedoms once again.”
— Former Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s running mate Nicole Shanahan
That was great, wasn’t it? I owe Ms. Shanahan an apology; when RFK Jr first picked her, I dismissed her as a lightweight former leftist. I was absolutely mistaken:
https://x.com/NicoleShanahan/status/1829291690277966165
Ragnar D – I too dismissed Ms Shanahan. I still do not know alot about her. But I am growing more impressed over time.
Trump has raised this “Unity campaign” – he is also CLEARLY tacking to the center. He has been open about his support for LGBTQ+ rights – he limits his culture war challenging statements to issues such as biological men fighting women. He has shifted towards the center on abortion – rejecting Florida’s 6 week abortion referendum.
It is clear that RFK Jr is going to have a role in a Trump administration. Hopefully Shanahan will too. It is pretty clear Tulsi will have a role too.
Trump either has or is looking for Other disenchanted Democrats.
Trump is going to need LOTS of people in a new administration, and he made mistakes with ALOT of Republicans who have stabbed him in the back in his first Term. There are Plenty of Democrats out there who would be Better choices than some of the Republicans in his first Term.
Trump is trying to make the GOP a bigger tent – incorporating MAGA Democrats. I am all for that.
I do not expect all those choices to prove perfect – but he can do better than his first term.
The press quote spins the sentiment behind what the crowd was saying. The gravamen of the complaint about the quote is the spin. That’s protected. The judge had the case precedents in hand. To get straight and level flight the judge had a choice of going to flaps or trim tabs. The decision chose flaps when trim tabs was the correct choice.
Directing your attention to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that recognized the First Amendment rights of students in U.S. public schools. The Tinker test, also known as the “substantial disruption” test, is still used by courts today to determine whether a school’s interest to prevent disruption infringes upon students’ First Amendment rights. The Court famously opined, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
suppose a kid named Brandon wore one, and the teacher had to call him out into the hall for it and she said lets go Brandon.
Kamalalaland’s answer for the sky high home prices and interest rates caused by printing and spending money??
Print and spend another $25k and give it to every first time home buyer.
You can’t make this shit up.
Diligent immigration enforcement, keeping legal immigration to about 1,000,000 per year will greatly restore balance to supply and demand in housing. 4,000,000 / year is outrageous, and way beyond the residential building capacity. Border policy is one major reason for housing hyper-inflation. Connect the dots.
Free market building capacity is capable of meeting any need. The housing problem is caused by CONSTRICTION of free markets by govenrment and regulations.
All immigration should be legal. There should be ZERO illegal immigration – or as close as we can get.
However the US has a need for atleast 2M immigrants per year – 1M is not sufficient.
No Boarder policy has nothing to do with inflation.
“Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena”
Milton Friedman.
If Money supply is fixed rising prices in ONE area MUST be matched by either falling prices in another or reduced purchases.
You can F#$K up the economy with bad policies other than monetary policy – but there is only ONE cause to inflation – and that is TOO MUCH MONEY.
In this case – The federal government spent WAY TOO MUCH, and the Federal Reserve Bought the debt financing that spending flooding the market with money.
What??? You’re an idiot.
Pretty sure this ad was produced with Natacha/Gigi, Dennis, Sammy, Fake George, Fishwings and David Bensen in mind:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/08/30/rfks_running_mate_nicole_shanahan_are_you_suffering_from_trump_derangement_syndrome.html
I saw this yesterday – Excellent.
Don’t forget Lawn Boy Elvis Bug, the booger eating drunktard.
He might have the worst case.
Schools should require school uniforms, as in Scotland.
When we were in Edinburgh for a year, my 2nd grader loved her school uniform, which was quite inexpensive. She was proud to wear it, a jacket with the school patch and a skirt for girls. Black shoes required.
Hear, hear!
Uniforms, no phones or otherwise distractions, gender-segregation, and discipline.
Again agree, but not the question before the courts.
Racist
I can’t figure out why you said “Racist”. Care to enlighten us?
Nope. Figure it out for yourself.
I conclude that you are self identifying.
As you wish.
I conclude that you arent very bright.
ROFL
Over the past decade there are thousands of comments by JBSay that you and anyone else can review.
While I really do not care all that much about what you or others think about me. I am more interested in whether I can be proud of what I have written.
Regardless, it is there for the world.
I am not hiding as an anonymous poster.
You can question me, challenge me about anyone of the thousands of posts I have made.
No one can ever tell which one of the mostly poor, vapid, stupid anonymous comments are yours.
You do not even have sufficient strength of your convictions to have an identity.
It is weird that those on the left who think they can FORCE everyone else to accept whatever stupid identity they wrap themselves with at the moment are unwilling to post under any identity than anonymous.
You are free to post anonymously. And the rest of us are free not to take you seriously
Fair enough.
I further conclude that you think you are bright but are not.
I seldom read what you say in its entirety, as its often just too tedious. When I do, i see that we often agree.
However, i will say that you are prone to repeating what others have already said. I conclude its because you dont bother to read replies or you just like to read your own writing.
Further, you are just plain wrong quite often, commenting on topics for which you have very little knowledge. Sort of guessing, as it were.
I’ll give an example. You once tried to educate everyone on the operations of a Russian missile submarine. Your conclusions were based on what? A Tom Clancy novel? You went on and on about how this supposed sub was going to empty its missile tubes on the entire US from just off our coast before we could do a thing. I’ve never seen a post so rife with incorrect assumptions and ignorant assertions. If you want, I can post it all again.
So yes, you were very brave to put your name on that ridiculous drivel.
The “racist” comment was sarcasm. Gee, dont you look brilliant again.
—-Waters
“I further conclude that you think you are bright but are not.”
I guess YOU did not read the part where I said that I really do not CARE what you think about my intelligence.
I do not “think”, I KNOW who I am. I am not spraying credentials here. But I have them.
I do not hype my own – because I do not accept credentials that do not reflect REAL accomplishments as actual proof of Real intelligence.
“I seldom read what you say in its entirety, as its often just too tedious. When I do, i see that we often agree.”
Read, don’t.
“However, i will say that you are prone to repeating what others have already said.”
That is true of nearly every post here. We all say much but not exactly the same thing as others – with our own unique spin.
” I conclude its because you dont bother to read replies or you just like to read your own writing.”
False, but why is it important ?
There are way way too many posts here that are just juvenile insult trading.
There are way too many posts – like your remark above, that are attempts to mind read others.
I DO NOT CARE what you think about my intelligence.
I DO NOT CARE what you think about whether I read other posts, or other speculation about things that are FACTS even if you do not know them
My actual intelligence is a FACT – regardless of what I say it is, or what you say it is.
My thinking I am smarter than I am – does not make me smarter.
Your thinking I am not as smart as I am – does not make me less smart.
Your speculating as to what I read or do not read, or why I write – does not change what I ACTUALLY do.
Nor does it change that neither are particularly important.
All logical fallacies are efforts to derail argument from the issues being addressed to something else.
Ad Hominem is the attempt to redirect discussion from the issue to the person making the argument.
This whole STRING of posts is YOUR effort to shift from the topic to arguing about the person.
I am here responding to YOUR post – that has nothing to do with the topic – and is entirely about ME.
I did not make this all about me – YOU did.
“Further, you are just plain wrong quite often, commenting on topics for which you have very little knowledge. Sort of guessing, as it were.”
Then directly address those specific points at which I am wrong.
Saying “:you are often plain wrong” – is worthless. It is an untestable hypothesis. It is also a logical fallacy.
If I have made errors – lets address those. BTW I have made errors here on occasion – and when that is pointed out I correct them. I am not wrong often, but that is a consequence of actual knowledge and the use of logic.
I would further note that a significant portion fo the discussion here is speculative.
We all make predictions – those predictions are almost never correct. I am not going to apologize about predictions, or clear speculation. I think my track record is pretty good, but it is what it is and it speaks for itself.
I will correct actual errors.
If you are desparate to “test my knowledge” of a wide range of subjects – we can do that if you want.
But again why is that important to you ? Why am I so important to you ?
Doesn’t it matter more to determine WHAT is right than WHO is right ?
Rather than attacking me generally – why not address the actual issues.
I would further note – that while I do not expect that you will devote your life to following me and my comments.
As I said post as JBSAY – for about a decade here – and elsewhere in the internet.
If my own intelligence, and scope of my knowledge and experience is so important to you, there is far more than enough about me in my posts not only to establish all of these things – but to find the REAL person and verify the scope of my knowledge etc.
None of us are obligated to conduct deep background investigations into other posters – though apparently some here are fascinated by that. Regardless if you actually want to KNOW the things about me that you keep speculating on – that information is available to you.
“I’ll give an example. You once tried to educate everyone on the operations of a Russian missile submarine.”
I do not recall every post I have ever made, so it is possible that I have posted about a Russian missile submarine.
But I do not recall any such post.
“Your conclusions were based on what? A Tom Clancy novel? ”
Again I do not recall this discussion. As to my knowledge of the general area.
Yes, I have read nearly every Clancy book – and Clancy has a great deal of accurate knowledge cleaned from close contact with those in the military and the government in the areas he writes about – of course he is dead now.
But that is far from the only source of my knowledge. I have been fascinated by submarines my entire life.
I have forgotten more about every submarine wreck there ever was than most people know.
I live near where Robert Fulton was born. I have studied the Hunley. Besides Clancy I have read a significnat portion of the fiction and non-fiction about submarines.
Oh, and did I mention that At various times I have worked as a Govenrment defense contractor, and I have participated in the development in a SMALL way for systems such as AEGIS.
“You went on and on about how this supposed sub was going to empty its missile tubes on the entire US from just off our coast before we could do a thing.”
Again I do not recall this ever. Regardless the fundamental US strategy during the Cold war was to eliminate the bulk of Russian Boomers as they pass through the GIUK gap and to Track the few that the USSR was able to keep out in the rest of the world.
Whether we are talking about Russian missle submarines or just Russian nuclear technology more generally.
There is the huge unknown of how much of it will actually work in the even of an all out nuclear war.
I would ask you – how much of it needs to work to make a nuclear war a REALLY REALLY REALLY bad idea ?
Regardless, IF a Russian Missle sub managed to get within several hundred miles of the atlantic or pacific coasts,
and IF the missles in that sub work, and IF The US is not so closely tracking that sub that it can take it out at the first hint that it is going to launch. We would have very very little time and very little that we could do.
Trump parked a couple of AEGIS cruisers off North Korea early in his term. From the instant North Korea launched a missle until it was too late for AEGIS to do anything about it, is a bit longer than 2minutes. After that any US defense would be by the ABM’s in Alaska and California, and they have about a 50:50 track record and can really only protect the continental US – not Japan, probably not Hawaii.
Is every bit of my remarks above PERFECTLY accurate ? Certainly not. Is it generally accurate ?
It is highly likely that for a large variety of reasons – including capable US defense systems that in the event of an all out nuclear war between the US and Russia, that only a tiny percent of Russian SLBM’s would get through. It is also near certain that some would.
Regardless your hypothetical is an undetected SSBN parked off the US east coast preparing to launch.
Please tell me how that is going to work out ?
US SSBN’s are the most important part of the US nuclear deterance triad. I do not think the Russians were EVER nearly as good.
But even the Russians are not so bad that nothing will get through.
Or do you want to take that gamble ?
“I’ve never seen a post so rife with incorrect assumptions and ignorant assertions. If you want, I can post it all again.”
Again I do not recall this post. But it is not a topic I am ignorant of .
Any attempt to speculate on a Russian SSBN attack on the US MUST involve a great deal of assumptions – some of which will be incorrect.
IF there is a Russian SSBN off the US coast and IF it is being closely tracked by a US SSN and IF that SSN has very agressive rules of engagement and IF it is close enough and gets sufficient warning that a launch is imminent, then the Russian SSBN can be taken out before it launches.
How many million people do you want to bet that all THOSE assumptions are correct ?
“The “racist” comment was sarcasm.”
Most everyone who has posted on tghe internet learns quickly that sarcasm – especially in short posts is nearly impossible to detect – especially when we know NOTHING about the poster – such as an anonymous poster.
If S. Meyer post sarcastically those who know SM will likely detect that.
There are no clues that tell us that an anonymous post is sarcasm or not.
* let me say I’m an ordinary joe blow. I expect laws to be readable by even me and should be able to turn a questionable sweater inside out without lawsuits and the sky is falling.
Law for lawyers just isn’t it. Opine must be jargon for opinion but it sounds clever and jurisprudence makes me sound even smarter.
John
Thanks for proving my point with that tedious, self absorbed post. And i dont CARE whether you CARE or not. LOL
However, I have corrected you several times in the last few months, and not once did you acknowledge you were wrong or make a correction. So thats horse shit. Ostensibly you were too busy moving on to your next long winded rant.
I didnt read the whole horse shit post above, especially the lecture, but lets address your fantasy.
As i pointed out before, the very premise of your conjecture was ignorant fantasy. That there might be a Russian missile boat embedded in the task force off the Florida coast and visiting Cuba. Not only no, but HELL NO. So yes, I am willing to take that “risk”, because it is non existent fantasy. The risk from an intercontinental ballistic missile submarine does not require proximity. In fact, it abhors proximity. I gave you all the reasons. Go back and read it. Or remain ignorant and convinced you know something.
Waters
Posting under an identity is not especially brave. it merely gives people a basis for determining the credibility of the past.
As I noted in your claim that your “racist” post was sarcasm – how can anyone know ? The post was anonymous.
How do you tell sarcasm from literal posts ? ALWAYS from the context. There is no context for a one word anonymous post.
* anonymous indicates it’s a dangerous world. I approve.
I dont CARE whether you could tell or not. I dont even care that you misinterpreted it.
But since you once again seem daft, the “bravery” comment was facetiousness, which would preclude the need for you to say this:
“Posting under an identity is not especially brave.”
Bwahahahahahhhaha
Waters
You have made a number of vague and some slightly less vague critiques of alleged errors on my part.
I do not recall the Russian SSBN off the US coast post you are refering to.
I do not know what it is that I allegedly said that you take offense to.
Regardless, Absent a great deal of details that we are unlikely to know – any examination of such a scenario involves LOTS of assumptions.
I would however note that we CAN calculate the probability of each of those assumptions being correct – or correct enough to matter.
Regardless, you have attacked a post that I allegedly made fixated on assumptions – when all hypotheticals MUST involve assumptions. And you have done this without identifying the post or the allegedly false assumptions.
Again I will be happy to defend or correct anything I have actually posted.
LMAO
Didnt you already say this once?
Tedious.
Just FYI, I know ALL of the details of submarine warfare, and i didnt get it from a novel or encyclopedia.
To “Nope. Figure it out for yourself.”
You sound like Kamala Harris. Are you Kamala?
Are you Joe Biden?
You know I’m not Joe Biden. He’s sleeping on the beach in Delaware.
Supposedly, school uniforms are racist. Not sure if the comment was in jest or not.
They should – There are many arguments and benefits to school uniforms.
but that is not the question before the court.
The State of Michigan allows political expression on students cloths.
There is no context in which Government can allow speech but also restrict specific viewpoints.
Or we could fix this correctly by getting Government out of education.
Private schools can have uniforms or not, Can allow political expression or not. Can engage in viewpoint descrimination or not.
And with an actual free market for education parents can make decisions regarding what school their child attends in the same way they do with everything else in their lives – by weighing what values are important to them against what they can afford.
So many constitutional issues that the courts deal with are caused by the fact that Government is involved in so many things that are not its job.
The cemetery employee, who has declined to press charges, was trying to make sure those participating in the wreath-laying ceremony earlier this week were following the rules, which “clearly prohibit political activities on cemetery grounds,” the Army spokesman said.
“This employee acted with professionalism and avoided further disruption,” the statement said. “This incident was unfortunate, and it is also unfortunate that the ANC employee and her professionalism has been unfairly attacked.”
The employee was WRONG.
Government can not restrict people from doing something based on its guesses at to their motives.
The ANC empoloyee violated the first amendment.
ANC can NOT restrict political activities. It can have viewpoint neutral rules.
It can bar wreath laying entirely.
It can limit the number of people in attendance.
It can restrict the hours in which wreaths can be layed.
Even beyond the first amendment – with only very narrow exceptions – Government can Bar an action or allow an action.
It can not bar an action based on the reasons for that action.
Government can not allow people to drive on the roads – but bar republicans, or bar people who are traveling to a protest.
That you and the ANC employee and the Arm,y spokesman do not understand this is very disturbing.
No charges were going to be filed – as these would result in an immediate 42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights
As well as potential criminal action 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law
“ Government can not restrict people from doing something based on its guesses at to their motives.
The ANC empoloyee violated the first amendment.
ANC can NOT restrict political activities.”
It’s a federal law that restricts campaign or political activity at ANC. It’s legal.
The government can restrict actions. Not speech.
“It’s a federal law that restricts campaign or political activity at ANC. It’s legal.”
Then you should cite the federal law so that its constitutionality can be challenged.
“The government can restrict actions. Not speech.”
Again you are clueless about the constitution – I know the left misunderstands the Citizens United decision – but it is just one of a long serious of decisions that says that you can not restrict free speech especially free speech through the back door.
You can not restrict political speech by restricting the money necescary to buy political adds or to conduct political speech.
You can not restrict political speech by restricting political activity.
There is BTW federal law that restricts “political activity” – it restricts the political activity of government employees while on the job or while using their government titles. That law does not preclude private political activity – even of government employees.
I used CU above – but there are myriads of other decisions. Government infringement on the expressive ACTIVITY of erotic dancers is fairly limited.
* it’s trespass and the trespass can happen anywhere if it’s a mind trespass. Erotic dancers can dance the night away in private. Ideas are things.
Political speech is open to all. Political speech is a machine. Paper in and paper out…
Was the shirt Political and did it use an euphemism instead of actual obscenity? The shirt might have said don’t vote Biden instead of the euphemism. Would that be okay? Yes.
Don’t trespass with obscenity even with euphemisms. Wasn’t it lost with hustler and Falwell without restricted commerce of obscenities? Wasn’t it lost with pride parades and WH lawn parties and Easter trans day?
It’s all unprincipled left and right.
You post is not very clear, but it is pretty clear you have a very strange idea what Tresspass is.
Another arrow to this nonsense about “federal law” restricting “political activity”
As a rule government can NOT make whatever it wants illegal.
As defined by blacks a crime is an ACT that violates a public law forbidding a violation of the rights of others.
Government is NOT free to make anything it wants into a crime.
This is one of the problems with many of the Trump lawfare cases. Trump did not violate anyone else’s rights.
* can the government restrict commerce? Abortion? Isn’t commerce being restricted and not the act itself? Abortion pill? It’s commerce. There’s a pill to sell. Mifepristone will be free shortly subject to no restrictions nor an ability to restrict. Free abortion pills is a euphemism because the origin of it was money.
Right or left…
The principle is safe soldiers. Soldiers perished because of an incompetent political machine. The photos weren’t political at ANC. The photos were about dead soldiers. There’s millions of photos of ceremonies and services.
How about some Afghanistan soldiers at ANC taking photos with captions about–> hooray! It’s a good day? Is that political?
“can the government restrict commerce?”
Government can not restrict commerce. See the contracts clause of the constitution.
It can restrict the violation of the rights of others as part of commerce. Government can punish fraud as an example.
I would further note that nearly all a priori law is wrong and likely unconstitutional.
Put differently Government can Say “you will be punished for Actual harm to others”.
It can not say – you are prohibited from doing something that might harm others.
We punish people for murder or attempted murder, not for wishing other people dead.
“Abortion? Isn’t commerce being restricted and not the act itself? Abortion pill? It’s commerce. There’s a pill to sell. Mifepristone will be free shortly subject to no restrictions nor an ability to restrict. Free abortion pills is a euphemism because the origin of it was money.”
I have very little Idea what you are saying.
Regardless, Government has no business restricting our freedom to choose what we wish to ingest.
For your further information – the Wreath was laid at the grave of one of the soldiers killed in Biden’s disasterous afghan withdraw.
Trump was invited to do so by the family of that soldier.
I provided you with Blacks law dictionary definition of a crime. There are MANY things important about that.
ONE is that motive or intention is not mentioned. While juries want to know WHY someone did something.
Criminal acts are crimes REGARDLESS of intent or motive. An Act either violates the rights of others and is a crime,
or the act does not in which case it is NOT a crime. You can not make a non-crime into a crime by combining it with bad intent.
The ACT in this case was laying a wreath at Arlington – that is clearly a legal act.
You can not make it illegal by saying – you can not do so with a political intent.
We regularly see the President, Vice President and others At Arlington and other military cemeteries honoring those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the country. That ACT is legal – regardless of their intent. If any of these people we see on the news honoring soldiers in cemetaries were doing so for non-political reasons – they would do so completely in private and you would not hear about it on the news.
Every single time you see anyone on the news at Arlington it is POLITICAL. ALWAYS.
All you are doing is proving that you and the clueless ANC employee are morons that have no understanding of the law or the constitution .
Myriads of people complain about the abysmal state of our education – You and the ANC employee are PROOF of the problem.
I have no idea how old you are or where you were educated or how much education you have – and your posting as anonymous so I have no reason to beleive you. Nor do I know these things about the ANC employee.
What I do know is that Neither of you has a clue about the foundations of government, the limits of government, the social contract the constitution, what constitutes a crime and why.
You believe that you can just make up laws out of thin air. Not just that this alleged Federal law exists – but you are incapable of understanding that if it actually existed it would have to be incredibly limited or it would be unconstitutional. Nor do you understand that the definition of crime in Blacks is not arbitrary. Crime is defined as a violation of the actual rights of another to preclude government from making crimes out of anything – such as your hurt feelings.
* maybe it was just a “wrong doing” [sic] and not a crime.
It was neither.
“It’s a federal law that restricts campaign or political activity at ANC.”
Its another horse shit lie from another ignorant lefty.
The law restricts political activity DURING ceremonies and memorial services.
Further, taking pictures is not “political activity”.
So, as John Say said, you can either take pictures or you cant. Thats all the tules can say legally.
I do not know what the law says – no one has provided it.
But if it restricts “political activity” – it is unconstitutional.
As I noted, the law can restrict the political activity of a government employee while they are at work, or when they are using their govenrment title. It can not restrict private political activity. That is unconstitutional.
Everything done at Arlington that is covered by the press is POLITICAL.
“I do not know what the law says – no one has provided it.”
Yes I have several times. And i stated what it says.
I dont state opinions and purport them as facts. And I am careful to NEVER be wrong on the facts.
The regulation is 32 CFR 553
Memorial services and ceremonies at Army National Military Cemeteries will not include partisan political activities.
The penalty for violating is removal from the grounds and possible ban from future entry.
Filming and taking pictures is NOT political activity. It is not disruptive behavior (the intent of the law) and is done ALL THE TIME.
The cemetery has its own RULES about photography and its purpose, but it cant be enforced in real time because how would one know the PURPOSE?
The “political activity” occurs when the pictures get posted on a campaign website. Biden used a 10 year old photo of himself in section 60 in a campaign ad. That was against the intent of the Arlington rules and could be sanctionable just like Trump’s campaign (banned from re-entry) But gee, no one cared then.
* Big Harris is a candidate, too. What if it had been Harris and not Trump? She is still VP.
They can all jump in the lake! Acceptable? Euphemism for go to Hell. The lake? The lake of fire…
and it burns burns burns that ring of fire, that ring of fire.
How many votes for Trump among those high schoolers? Probably mail ins…
She was biased.
Tinker was decided in the late 60’s. At that time the public use of vulgar words was almost non-existent.
Many may argue that is a good thing. But the fact is we no longer live in that era.
Vulgarity is now a common part of the language. Nearly everyone uses it. Many people can not complete a sentence without a scatalogical reference. Nor is this restricted to adults – children use vulgarity and it is not even shocking anymore to do so.
Again I think many of us would prefer to go back. Regardless that is not happening.
The prohibition against obscentity – in schools and elsewhere is based on the tendency of obscenity to be disruptive.
What has become common place loses its power to be disruptive.
While the claim that Lets Go Brandon shirts can be banned as obscene is ludicrously stupid – and a fig leaf being used to bar political expression that is disfavored by the school, it is still probably time for the courts to significantly weaken or obliterate the ability of government to restrict obscenity/
* ” vulgarity is part of the culture” ?
Part of, part? Vulgarity is the sum total of the culture now.
The kid can turn the shirt inside out and wear it. If it had said, Trump 2024 that would also be unacceptable?
As if children aren’t being exposed to porn in school libraries.
Pick your battles.
P{pretty sure we agree.
Using your example
If the left is going to allow pornography in the library, then it can not restrict students from wearing shirts that say FJB much less LGB
Just another reason that government must get out of education.
This would be a non-issue if the school was private.
School A could ban republican messages,.
School B democrat ones.
Or better still private schools could ban ALL messages.
Or better yet require school uniforms.
There is far too much in a school that distracts from education.
While it is not possible and lot legitimate to try to put schools students into a bubble,
it si still legitimate to minimize WHILE IN SCHOOL ay outside distractions – that includes not merely politics by all outside messaging, competition over attire reducing as much as can be done easily the distractions from education. But that can only be done by private schools.
Public schools can require uniforms.