We previously discussed how schools were making students remove sweatshirts reading “Let’s Go Brandon.” I have argued that the shirts should be treated as protected speech. However, United States District Court Judge Christopher Boyko just delivered another blow to free speech in rejecting a claim for such protection, at least as the basis for injunctive relief, in Conrad v. Madison Local School Dist—Bd. of Ed.
In the prior Michigan case with the sweater shown below, Judge Paul Maloney in D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools (W.D. Mich.) ruled that a “Let’s Go Brandon” T-shirt could be the basis for punishment:
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.
Again, I strongly disagreed with that decision. However, it has now been replicated in Ohio.
In his complaint, C.C. details how he was wearing a shirt with the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” on November 25, 2024, underneath a flannel shirt. He alleges that teacher (and registered Democrat) Krista Ferini was bothered after spotting the shirt and ordered him to “button that up. I know what that means.” C.C. did so, but later, he was in a classroom that lacked air conditioning, so he took off his flannel shirt. That is when allegedly Ferini proceeded to write him up for the infraction. Principal Andrew Keeple then instructed C.C. to wear the flannel the rest of the day and never to wear the shirt to school again.
C.C. defied that order and wore the shirt again in January of 2025. While no one else complained, Ferini was reportedly irate and again wrote up C.C. Keeple declared that C.C. had once again violated the school’s dress code and that the shirt constituted a vulgar expression even though it contained no vulgar terms. He stated that further discipline would follow if C.C. continued to wear the shirt.
On March 24, 2025, C.C. wore the t-shirt again. While no one complained, he received a detention from Keeple. C.C. was disciplined on two other occasions for wearing the shirt.
The court ruled:
“While this case presents serious questions of student free speech versus a school’s interest in protecting students from vulgar and profane speech, the Court finds Plaintiff has not met his high burden to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits by clear and convincing evidence. While the D.A. case was on summary judgment and presented facts that are different than those before this Court, Defendant’s burden on summary judgment was a preponderance standard which is a lesser burden than Plaintiff’s here. Moreover, that case presented fact issues going to the reasonableness of the school’s interpretation. Here, as Defendants point out, Plaintiff acknowledges in his Verified Complaint that “Let’s Go Brandon” is a euphemism for F*#% Joe Biden. “In school speech cases where a school limits or restricts a student’s expression, courts must determine whether the school’s interpretation of the expression is reasonable.” “The student’s expression must be considered in the proper context but the student’s motivation or subjective intent is irrelevant.”
Given the strong interests of both sides, the unique characteristics of speech in a school setting, the finding by at least one court in this circuit that the school’s interpretation of the phrase as vulgar was reasonable, and the acknowledgment in this case by Plaintiff that the phrase is a vulgar euphemism, the Court finds Plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits to support injunctive relief. This does not mean Plaintiff cannot win on the merits of the claim as discovery will likely provide clearer evidence on the reasonableness of the interpretation. But given the high standard for injunctive relief, the Court finds against Plaintiff….”
“Let’s Go Brandon!” has become a similarly unintended political battle cry not just against Biden but also against the bias of the media. It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud-and-clear chants of “F*** Joe Biden.” Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”
“Let’s Go Brandon!” instantly became a type of “Yankee Doodling” of the political and media establishment.
This teacher was clearly put out over the political messaging of the shirt. However, we should encourage students to be politically aware and expressive. Moreover, if schools are allowed to extrapolate profane meaning from non-profane language, it is hard to see the limits on such censorship.
So what if students now wear “Let’s Go Krista” shirts? How many degrees of removal will negate the profane imputation. Does that mean that the use of “let’s go” in any shirt is now prohibited?
C.C. and his family should continue to litigate and, if necessary, appeal this worthy case in the interests of free speech for all students.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Can’t help but wonder if a kid wearing an anti-Biden shirt is the biggest problem facing that school. The teacher and school administration are very clearly a bunch of sensitive dopes. The kid’s shirt intruded upon their safe little progressive cocoon. From Kindergarten through retirement, they never depart from their safe haven. It is why they fear parents so much, and why there are so many incidents of female teachers inappropriately interacting with teenage or preteen boys. Who’s got time to teach?
I agree with Prof. Turley. “Let’s Go Brandon” is ambiguously interpreted as either a protest or a laugh directed at the news media, a laugh or a protest directed at President Biden, or as an endorsement of the actual vulgar crowd protest. It now acquires the allure of a protest against moralistic public school autocrats’ declaring their personal tastes as a limit on the boundaries of protected speech.
OMG the TDS is strong with this loon.
***********
Radio host Charlamagne Tha God suggested Wednesday that if President Donald Trump accepts a Boeing 747-8 reportedly being gifted to the United States, slavery could make a comeback in America.
All that is relevant regarding “Lets Go Brandon” is whether it is disruptive speech.
Given that it is on an article of cloths – it is not an interruption of classes.
That means that it is protected unless it is speech so shocking and offensive that even in writing it is disruptive – i.e. that it is profanity.
It clearly is NOT profanity.
It MAY be arguable that it is a euphamism for profanity – but that is NOT enough.
The purpose of euphemisms is to remove the shock.
Yes the judge is interpreting what a person thinks, and that is not a good thing or constitutional. Let’s Go Brandon sometimes means Let’s Go Brandon even if it is a form of sarcasm.
#. Go back and watch Stanley Kubrick’s movie adaptation of Arthur C. Clark’s, 2001 a Space Odyssey. HAL and AI? The date is heeby jeebies?
The dems are very seriously cracked. It’s bizarre. Everything is based on revenge or how does it feel thing. The American elderly with SS , the handicapped with SS are in danger because these people see them as wounded and easy prey. You really are close to suspension of habeas and Marshall law. Good moral character as what? Judges helping criminals escape, senators flying to Guatemala?
Watch the movie…
you are a nutjob.
10 days ago Ben Cohen interview with Tucker Carlson aired, dissing on the Defense Industrial Base.
Today He was arrested with six others on suspicion of crowding, obstructing or “incommoding,” which means inconveniencing or distressing others, according to Capitol Police. …
What he’s saying: Cohen said in a post on X on Wednesday, “I told Congress they’re killing poor kids in Gaza by buying bombs, and they’re paying for it by kicking poor kids off Medicaid in the US.” …
Didn’t take long for the tentacles of the Defense Industrial Base to catch up with Ben.
Video:
https://vod.foxnews.com/media/v1/pmp4/static/clear/694940094001/176bcfba-1071-4956-9ddd-4036abbb1097/99588c88-0d48-446e-9ce1-54787c505ea1/main.mp4
Ben & Jerry’s co-founder arrested protesting Senate hearing: ‘RFK kills people with hate’
Ben Cohen was among seven arrested after they disrupted the hearing, Capitol Police say
By: Alec Schemmel – Fox News ~ May 14, 2025
[Link] foxnews.com/politics/ben-jerrys-co-founder-arrested-protesting-senate-hearing-rfk-kills-people-hate
Ben of Ben & Jerry’s Exposes the Motives Behind War With Russia & the Politicians That Sold Out
Chapters:
1. The Russia/Ukraine War Is Totally Unnecessary
2. Weapons Manufacturers Lobbying Congress
3. The New Anti-War Party
4. The Pro-War Propaganda
5. Will We Go to War With Iran?
By: Tucker Carlson – TNC ~ May 5th., 2025
[Link] tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-ben-cohen
another nutjob. whew!
Ben & Jerry’s…. Yeah we should trust what these to loons think.
here’s an idea: from henceforth, all Democrats within our borders must behave according to Republican social, ethical and intellectual standards or shall be tied to chairs and forced to listen to yesterday’s offering of our National Anthem by the Saudi’s National Band………….. omg!!!! Talk about punishment!! Bless their hearts…..
that was me cindy bragg
I’ll see my aunt cindy soon. Jimmy “sale” free to those an item to remembrance by.
OT
“We have a black pope!”
– Sunny Hostin
__________________
The Catholic Church proves itself a grand fraud by executing an awkward, arbitrary, non-religious, and political act of affirmative action in appointing an African-American Pope—by DNA nonetheless.
Child abuse and communistic affirmative action: Exactly how much deceit and perfidy can the church perpetrate and sustain?
Child abuse and communistic affirmative action:
*********************
That sure sounds like our Government run schools.
Turn the t shirt wrong side out and go back class. Then there’s the crips and bloods. Then choose sides. Get into a knife fight and stab another boy for sitting in the wrong seat.
Go to a private school.
School uniforms would be the best solution. But if a school is not going to require uniforms, it can’t suppress speech based on political disagreement with the message. That’s a First Amendment violation. As Scotus has said many times, when students enter a public school, they do not leave their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.
Ya, knives and guns, too.
Public school is an illegal monopoly engaged in antitrust operations.
People must be allowed by the USC to purchase education privately and opt out of local collectivist education.
Education choices must be made in the free markets of the private sector.
Public school has clearly failed to provide adequately and qualitatively and serve the needs of talented individuals.
This case serves as a reminder the speech freedom comes with responsibilities that place practical limits on self-expression, especially when it comes to ad-hominem attacks. Schools have a responsibility to exert control over their cultural norms, toward the goal of a non-hostile learning environment. Jonathan has never been a middle-school or high school principal, and seems to be aloof to that level of responsibility for atmospherics.
But, he’s spent countless hours in court, and knows a Judge has the same responsibility to make the proceedings fair and orderly. Consequently, the Judge has discretionary, moment-by-moment power to uphold rules of conduct. If not, the combattive lawyers would inject chaos and intimidation. A school principal faces an even dicier situation, where s/he cannot personally witness the goings on.
Because humans are so clever, a strictly rule-based approach to norms can never work because it cannot anticipate the guile of those feeling limited by the rules.
A referee in a sporting event is better equipped with rules, but nonetheless needs instantaneous authority to intervene to stop attempted gaming of the rules.
If “Let’s Go Brandon” isn’t gaming the rule against profanity, then what is?
Anonymous – you sound like you’ve been indoctrinated at the Soviet Snowflake University for Prudes. Gaming the rule against profanity? Really? Are you actually serious? Literally nobody was bothered except the registered Democrat teacher who didn’t like someone saying anything bad about Joe Biden. She was bothered that her comatose president was being disrespected, and that is all.
A referee in a sporting event is better equipped with rules
The teacher and principal were the farthest thing in the world from a neutral referee. They were bothered because their beloved comatose president was not being praised. This is the kind of mentality that teaches kids they can’t be creative or individualistic, but have to become robots who conform to big brother. F–k that!
If not, the combative lawyers would inject chaos and intimidation.
Perhaps, but that has nothing at all to do with this case, involving a kid wearing a “let’s go Brandon” T-shirt. There is no reasonable argument that such a T-shirt injects chaos and intimidation into the school. It’s funny, basically innocuous, and not at all intimidating. What the school did was not only despicable, it violated the First Amendment, and this wayward judge should be emphatically reversed on appeal.
Oldman
Heck our Government schools can’t even tell our kids if they are a male or female.
Talk about nuts!
What about the BLM posters in school hallways with raised fists? Take them down?
“This case serves as a reminder the speech freedom comes with responsibilities that place practical limits on self-expression, especially when it comes to ad-hominem attacks.”
False. Free speech does not come with responsibilities – otherwise it would not be free speech.
It does however come with consequences – but ONLY private ones.
Left wing nuts such as your self post stupid nonsense and as a CONSEQUENCE most others do not see you as credible.
But with FEW exceptions GOVERNMENT can not impose consequences for speech.
Only private actors. That is literally what the first amendment means.
Private schools could do as you claim. Public schools can not – this is why government must be severely limited. Because the rules that government must conform to are different from those of private actors. Public Schools and private schools do not and can not have the same rules or norms. Everything would be much simpler if government just removed its nose from places it does not belong – like education.
But if it MUST do so, then it MUST follow the constitution.
This decision is blatantly unconstitutional.
” Schools have a responsibility to exert control over their cultural norms”
Absolutely positively NOT.
Government has ZERO legitimate role in culture.
The role of govenrment is limited to negative morality – “thou shalt not kill”.
Not culture, not positive morality (charity).
“toward the goal of a non-hostile learning environment.”
More nonsense. Those attending school – public or private are entitled to protection from actual violence. Learning itself is often “hostile”.
This “non-hostile” nonsense is why we have a nation of people increasingly incapable of dealing with reality. Dealing with people who disagree.
“Jonathan has never been a middle-school or high school principal, and seems to be aloof to that level of responsibility for atmospherics.”
Principles are FIRST and FOREMOST responsible to assure that students LEARN.
Something our schools are extremely poor at.
One of the things students must learn is how to function in a world where others do NOT share their values – or “cultural norms”. It is NOT the principles job to protect students from conflict.
It is to teach them how to deal with it. How to deal with people who disagree.
“But, he’s spent countless hours in court, and knows a Judge has the same responsibility to make the proceedings fair and orderly. ”
There is zero requirement for fairness in courts. No two people even agree on fairness.
Courts are obligated to follow the constitution and the law, and the rules of judicial procedure.
That is the standard – it is entirely rule based.
It is also radically different from most everything else we deal with – including schools DELIBERATELY – because Courts have the power to infringe on your rights.
They can confiscate your property, they can take our liberty, then can take you life.
These powers are why the courts MUST meticulously follow the rules – right down to the letter.
Rules we have spent thousands of years devising.
“If not, the combattive lawyers would inject chaos and intimidation.”
That is precisely what most court procedings are – ADVERSARIAL – the courts are required to follow rules – not to preclude conflict, but to confine that conflict to the domain that thousands of years of experience lead us to know is most likely to lead to the truth.
” A school principal faces an even dicier situation, where s/he cannot personally witness the goings on.”
You seem to just make $hit up.
Neither the judges nor the jury nor the lawyers “witnessed” what the court is adjudicating.
In fact if any of them had witnesses the conflict – they would be barred from any rule besides witness in the court. You have literally inverted things.
“Because humans are so clever, a strictly rule-based approach to norms can never work because it cannot anticipate the guile of those feeling limited by the rules.”
And yet it is a strict rules based approach that is ALWAYS required when govenrment is involved.
Because it is only a strict rules based approach that protects our rights.
You correctly note that humans are clever – that includes teachers, principles, police officers, prosecutors, attorney’s, judges, and jurors.
It is FAR more dangerous to have those in government try to be “clever” – as government is force – the power to take your property, your freedom, or your life.
It is not cleverness among students or ordinary people that we must worry about.
It is gaming things by those in govenrment – and this case is the perfect example.
“A referee in a sporting event is better equipped with rules, but nonetheless needs instantaneous authority to intervene to stop attempted gaming of the rules.”
Actually not. Referee’s enforce the rule. If a team or player is “gaming the rules”, that is dealt with by the sport cahnging the rules to address that. It is NOT left to the discretion of referees.
“If “Let’s Go Brandon” isn’t gaming the rule against profanity, then what is?”
It is many things – including gaming the rules.
What it is NOT is speech that is not protected by the first amendment.
We allow restrictions on profanity because profanity is shocking and disruptive.
Arguably profanity has become so common place that it is no longer shocking and disruptive, but that is an independent issue.
It is NOT accurate to say “Lets Go Brandon” is a euphamism for “F#$K Joe Biden” – even though it derived historically from chants of “F#$K Joe Biden”. “Lets Go Brandon” is an expression of disdain for then President Biden – it would therefore be political speech – the most protected form of speech.
But lets say that LGB is a pure euphamism for FJB – that it means almost exactly the same thing.
While that is false, lets assume it.
What is a “euphamism” – it is a means of expressing something “shocking and possibly disruptive” STRIPPED of the shock and disruption. When we use euphamisms for things like death we do so to avoid shock and disruption, to communicate something unpleasant without the unpleasant connotations.
The FACT that LGB is a euphamism means that it is protected speech unless the actual words of LGB are profanity – because a euphamism is by definition a substitute for another word or expression STRIPPED of its shock and disruption.
The teacher who got upset by LGB on a shirt had to CHOSE to be offended.
That is their problem not the students – and again – why this is protected speech.
Offensive speech is ALWAYS protected – that is the purpose of the first amendment – particularly politically offensive speech.
We have created a FEW very narrow exceptions to the protection for speech.
Those exceptions are for speech that incites violence and there are very specific requirements for that so that GOVERNMENT can not “game the rules” – because the danger of gaming the rules comes from GOVERNMENT not individuals.
We further have allow restrictions on Profanity in SOME contexts – such as schools and in public broadcasts.
Where we bar profanity – we do NOT bar “euphamisms” – as that would actually severely limit expression.
F#$K Joe Biden is in some contexts not permitted.
Make Love to Joe Biden is permitted in ALL contexts.
F#$K Joe Biden has EXACTLY the same denotation as Make love to Joe Biden.
But it has a different Connotation. Euphamisms have the same denotation but different connotations.
Regardless, your argument like that of the judge is typical left wing nut garbage that atttempts to control the thoughts of others by attempting to control their speech.
A significant part of your argument rests on the claim that you are entitled to a world free of conflict – that is NONSENSE. Humans – in fact most of nature needs conflict to survive and thrive.
You question is probably rhetorical, but I’d suggest that For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge might be a better example of “gaming the rule”
FJB?
Foxtrot
Juliet
Bravo
(This is current NATO version)
OR
Fox
Jig
Baker
(This is historically correct for 1943 WW II. )
OR
Frank
John
Boy
(Police Alphabet)
Back in the day… we wore t-shirts that had “1000101” or “1011001010” in high school.
no one complained. The math teachers who got the joke just rolled their eyes.
But hey, we were teens.
What do you expect?
One has to wonder how a liberal teacher and a liberal court would rule if it were a disparaging statement against Trump?
They would love it and enforce the First Amendment. Only when they don’t like the political message do they say the First Amendment doesn’t apply.
The teacher, the principal, and the judge all need to go back to high school and take civics – and pay attention this time.
The teacher also needs a course in self-discipline, as she appears to be a little child throwing a tempter tantrum anytime someone says something she doesn’t like.
It reminds of this. 🤦♂️
“Teacher CRASHING OUT over Trump” – Asmomgold Clips (YouTube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2OSQ-vrEgI
From the description of the video: “The teacher criticized President Trump’s executive order to release water in California. The teacher was placed on leave the day following the incident.”
While this case presents serious questions of student free speech versus a school’s interest in protecting students from vulgar and profane speech . . .
Suggesting “Let’s go Brandon” is vulgar and profane is the very definition of mentally ill. None of the words are vulgar or profane, either in isolation or when read together. Just because they may evoke a different expression which is profane doesn’t make them profane. This is complete craziness, there is no other truthful way to describe it.
For example, “Oh sugar!” is not profane.
Referring to one’s “backside” is not profane.
“Darn!” and “Dang!” are not profane.
“He drove like a bat out of heck” is not profane (yes I once heard someone say that)
I’m sure you can think of many more examples.
A euphemism is something that has the same denotation as another word or phrase but not the same connotation.
When the court accepted that Lets Go Brandon was a Euphamism the case should have been over.
F#$K is barred in SOME public contexts.
Make love is NOT.