We previously discussed the case of B.A. v. Tri County Area Schools, where two middle schoolers in Michigan were prevented from wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts. However, a divided panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that the school district was within its authority to ban the sweatshirts. The decision, in my view, is wrong, and this could prove a viable case for Supreme Court review, assuming that the plaintiffs will not seek an en banc review.
“Let’s Go Brandon!” has become a similarly unintended political battle cry not just against Biden but also against the bias of the media. It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud and clear chants of “F*** Joe Biden.” Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”
“Let’s Go Brandon!” instantly became a type of “Yankee Doodling” of the political and media establishment.
In this case, an assistant principal (Andrew Buikema) and a teacher (Wendy Bradford) “ordered the boys to remove the sweatshirts” for allegedly breaking the school dress code. However, other students were allowed to don political apparel with other political causes, including “gay-pride-themed hoodies.”
The district dress code states the following:
“Students and parents have the right to determine a student’s dress, except when the school administration determines a student’s dress is in conflict with state policy, is a danger to the students’ health and safety, is obscene, is disruptive to the teaching and/or learning environment by calling undue attention to oneself. The dress code may be enforced by any staff member.”
The district reserves the right to bar any clothing “with messages or illustrations that are lewd, indecent, vulgar, or profane, or that advertise any product or service not permitted by law to minors.”
The funny thing about this action is that the slogan is not profane. To the contrary, it substitutes non-profane words for profane words. Nevertheless, “D.A.” was stopped in the hall by Buikema and told that his “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirt was equivalent to “the f–word.”
Sixth Circuit Judge John Nalbandian was joined by Judge Karen Nelson Moore in holding that, under the “vulgarity exception,” the action was constitutional:
“The Constitution doesn’t hamstring school administrators when they are trying to limit profanity and vulgarity in the classroom during school hours. Again, students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” But neither are school administrators powerless to prevent student speech that the administrators reasonably understand to be profane or vulgar. And so “the First Amendment gives a … student the classroom right to wear Tinker’s armband, but not Cohen’s jacket.” Schools are charged with teaching students the “fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system.” And avoiding “vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse” is one such value. After all, “[e]ven the most heated political discourse in a democratic society requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other participants and audiences.” …
[A] euphemism is not the same as the explicitly vulgar or profane word it replaces. “Heck” is not literally the same word as “Hell.” But the word’s communicative content is the same even if the speaker takes some steps to obscure the offensive word. The plaintiffs concede that a school could prohibit students from saying “Fuck Joe Biden” because “[k]ids can’t say ‘fuck’ at school.” And yet they insist that the euphemism “Let’s Go Brandon” is distinct—even though many people understand that slogan to mean “Fuck Joe Biden.” So it’s not clear that the school administrators acted unreasonably in determining that the euphemism still conveyed that vulgar message.
After all, Fraser—the first case that recognized the vulgarity exception—involved a school assembly speech that had a rather elaborate sexual metaphor instead of explicitly vulgar or obscene words. And yet the Supreme Court had no reservation in holding that the school was not required to tolerate “lewd, indecent, or offensive speech and conduct.” And it was up to the school to determine “what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate.” Because “[t]he pervasive sexual innuendo in Fraser’s speech was plainly offensive to both teachers and students—indeed to any mature person,” the school could discipline his speech despite the absence of explicitly obscene or vulgar words. And so Fraser demonstrates that a school may regulate speech that conveys an obscene or vulgar message even when the words used are not themselves obscene or vulgar.”
In fairness to the majority, courts have been highly deferential to school officials in these areas, particularly in the Sixth Circuit. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court famously declared that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” That may be true, but apparently, they can shed their sweatshirts in Michigan.
Judge John Bush offered a spirited dissent, stating:
“[T]he speech here—”Let’s Go Brandon!”—is neither vulgar nor profane on its face, and therefore does not fall into [the Fraser] exception. To the contrary, the phrase is purely political speech. It criticizes a political official—the type of expression that sits “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.” No doubt, its euphemistic meaning was offensive to some, particularly those who supported President Biden. But offensive political speech is allowed in school, so long as it does not cause disruption under Tinker. As explained below, Tinker is the standard our circuit applied to cases involving Confederate flag T-shirts and a hat depicting an AR-15 rifle—depictions arguably more offensive than “Let’s Go Brandon!” …
The majority says the sweatshirts’ slogan is crude. But neither the phrase itself nor any word in it has ever been bleeped on television, radio, or other media. Not one of the “seven words you can never say on television” appears in it . Instead, the phrase has been used to advance political arguments, primarily in opposition to President Biden’s policies and secondarily to complain about the way liberal-biased media treats conservatives. It serves as a coded critique—a sarcastic catchphrase meant to express frustration, resentment, and discontent with political opponents. The phrase has been used by members of Congress during debate. And even President Biden himself, attempting to deflect criticism, “agreed” with the phrase.
We cannot lose sight of a key fact: the students’ sweatshirts do not say “F*ck Joe Biden.” Instead, they bear a sanitized phrase made famous by sports reporter Kelli Stavast while interviewing NASCAR race winner Brandon Brown at the Talladega Superspeedway. The reporter said the crowd behind them was yelling “Let’s go, Brandon!” She did not report the vulgar phrase that was actually being chanted. The Majority even concedes Stavast may have used the sanitized phrase to “put a fig leaf over the chant’s vulgarity.” That is telling….”
Judge Bush is correct. The opinion constitutes a significant infringement on the free speech rights of students. I readily admit that I am critical of some past cases, including Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), where the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Juneau-Douglas High School could suspend student Joseph Frederick after he displayed a banner reading “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” across the street from the school during the 2002 Winter Olympics torch relay. In my view, the courts have honored Tinker largely in the breach in such cases.
This case, however, involves a sweatshirt without a single vulgar term and a clear political message. It reflects a difference in the default position of both sides. The default in close cases for the majority is with the school’s authority to curtail speech, while the default of Judge Bush is with free speech. As Judge Bush noted:
“Because even offensive political speech demands First Amendment protection, it is inappropriate to delegate unfettered discretion to school officials to characterize the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon!” as vulgar and then regulate it outside the bounds of Tinker. The majority essentially gives school administrators boundless discretion—akin to “I know it when I see it,” Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring)—to redefine facially non-vulgar speech as vulgarity in order to ban it.”
The plaintiffs should appeal this opinion. They have a strong dissent from Judge Bush and a strong free speech case to make either to the full court or the Supreme Court.
Here is the opinion: B.A. v. Tri County Area Schools
Some high school students like to wear gang colors, either for recruitment or a warning.
So we are not allowed to wear LGB shirts to school because they are a euphamism for FJB which itself is just an expression of political anger at Joe Biden’s disasterous presidency.
But we are REQUIRED by those on the left to put graphic novels depicting actual anal sex between teens in school libraries ?
Seriously those of you on the left are self contradictory and absurd.
You have no standards but double standards.
Pussy hats are protected speech in public – but LGB shirts are not ?
“So we are not allowed to wear LGB shirts to school because they are a euphamism for FJB which itself is just an expression of political anger at Joe Biden’s disasterous presidency.”
It’s not a mere expression of political anger. It’s a deliberate insult meant to convey “F$%k Joe Biden”. It’s meant to be a substitute for the vulgar phrase. Skirting the truth by way of semantics does not change that fact.
“But we are REQUIRED by those on the left to put graphic novels depicting actual anal sex between teens in school libraries ?”
Not the same thing. Nobody is forced to read those books at the school and nobody is being forced to read the books out loud in school. Wearing a hoodie out in public for everyone to see is not the same as a book sitting on the shelf that can only be seen by the one person choosing to read the book.
Seriously John, those on the right don’t know how to make distinctions and or use proper equivalencies.
“Pussy hats are protected speech in public – but LGB shirts are not ?”
Yes, because the hats only depict a color and are symbolic of a cause that is not controversial. They are no different than pink ribbons or bracelets used to support breast cancer research with the word “ BOOBIES”. It’s not vulgar or controversial enough to justify banning them.
One is vulgar insult in disguise. The other is a symbol of a cause about women’s rights after the infamous hollywood tape.
In fact the hats you refer to pass all the tests you mention as necessary to allow them in schools.
“It’s meant to be a substitute for the vulgar phrase. “
Yes it is. In the same way “darn” is a substitute for “damn”. Which word is allowed in school, Georgie?
In the same way “shut the front door” is a sub “for shut the f up”
Which phrase is allowed in school george??
In the same way “kiss my grits” is a substitute for “kiss my ass”. Which phrase is allowed in school George?
In the same way POOP and SHlT mean exactly the same thing. Which word is allowed in school George?
Yea, its an insult of Joe Biden. Thanks for finally admitting your problem with it.
And you and i both know that was the school’s problem with it, you’re just too chickenpoop to admit it.
Also You truly need to figure out the difference between synonymous and meaning. I’m sure its a tough concept for a double digit IQ.
Simple, change the name from Brandon to something like, Sandon. Crandon. Landon. Or, use the Japanese text of the name Brandon, ブランドン. When challenged of what it means, say, “Prove it.” Then, wear one that reads, “Let’s go . . .”
The hit TV show Battle Star Galactica, got around the censors when they used the word, “frak.” Everyone knew exactly what it meant but it still was not censored.
Battle Star Galactica 🙀🙀🙀🙀
Winner ⬆️…🏆
It was a great TV show 💖
“The hit TV show Battle Star Galactica, got around the censors when they used the word, “frak.” Everyone knew exactly what it meant but it still was not censored.”
Correct. But…..that was not happening at a school or in class. Right?
If a kid wore a t-shirt with the phrase, “I frakked your mom in BattleStar Galactica” then it would certainly be banned by the school.
No it wouldnt. You just made that up
I strongly disagree. Minors don’t have such constitutional rights.
Furthermore, schools should have strict dress codes, strictly enforced.
During a year in Edinburgh, Scotland, my 2nd grader was required to wear a school uniform jacket which I purchased for 5 British pounds. The jacket had the school logo embroidered over the left pocket. (At the end of the school year, after having the jacket dry-cleaned, I returned it to the school district office for a complete refund.) the rest of the uniform was a blue skirt, white sox and black shoes. My daughter loved her uniform, helping her feel welcomed and fit right in.
When I joined the Army, like EVERYONE else I got my head shaved and a bunch of Battle Dress Uniforms to wear. The purpose of giving everyone the same haircut and forcing them to wear the same clothes is to stifle individualism. The idea is that de-emphasizing individualism promotes greater social cohesion.
I’m surprised YOU support uniforms given their purpose.
I went to a school from 1st – 8th grade that made the decision when I was in 6th grade that everyone had to wear uniforms. Which is fine. We all hated it, there were no refunds, and the single supplier (no idea how the school chose them, but I would imagine they paid the school handsomely to be exclusive) was of piss poor quality. Yet, that did solve the problem of any piece of apparel that was borderline or in the gray area of the dress code. Kids always will push those limits and it takes time away from education having the teachers police it.
However, I am shocked that you claim minors do not have constitutional rights. They absolutely do. We place limits on them for different purposes (an 8 year old doesn’t have a 2nd amendment right), but that does not mean they lose ALL rights. Especially something as important as the first amendment. Speech, religion, etc. must be protected for all citizens, even minors. The Court’s only limit that in narrow circumstances. Which is IDENTICALLY applied to adults in college.
So, while your opinion is yours, it is wrong and mildly alarming.
“During a year in Edinburgh, Scotland, my 2nd grader was required to wear a school uniform ”
With you for a parent, your daughter would probably have been even happier in a uniform like these:
https://www.historytoday.com/sites/default/files/articles/bdm.jpg
Minors don’t have constitutionally protected rights? 🙀?
They most certainly do. Schools have some leeway with first amendment issues but it’s not absolute.
The founding fathers wrote a document, amendments and all, for adults. There is nary a word about children, minors if you prefer. For that matter, not about women either,
Benson has a point. A constitutional textualist would find that to be a plausible argument.
No I wouldn’t. But I do find you to be a moron.
Johnathon used a word that highlights the problem with the school’s action and the court’s decision. Funny. There is funny ha ha. There is funny peculiar. Johnathon’s funny keeps company with language about case precedent that clearly points to funny peculiar, not humor. Let’s go Brandon on student clothing could mean what the crowd said. It could mean condemnation of the reporter for being the mouth piece of the party line of the government qua CCP. What the reporter said was also the acme of stupid. Suppose on the morning of the discipline a history teacher told the class the race crowd uttered an obscenity about President Biden. Is the teacher’s speech also forbidden?
Middle School kids should not be able to run the asylum; some years ago, “bootyliscious” jeans got uniforms instituted at a middle school, as the Brandon shirts should. Hey, at least the kids weren’t forced to sit through some Sexual-Diversity Eroticism Course for their health “education”. If a school allows divisive speech on apparel then they are begging for disruption and legal cases (by “both” sides).
As much as I generally agree with Turley, I think that for the sake of judicial economy the case should end where it now stands. Do we really want the courts to be further burdened by close examination of student messaging on clothing?
The issue is the First Amendment and free speech and therefore a very important case
“In fairness to the majority, courts have been highly deferential to school officials in these areas”. I never understood why schools are often treated as their own sovereign entities, with their own judicial system. Assault another student, get a 3 day suspension instead of a trip to the police station. Refuse to use the proper pronouns, you get detention!
3 days suspension and police report fyi…
This is a clear First Amendment violation. The Sixth Circuit should be disbarred.
If plaintiff’s attorneys cannot or will not continue to pursue this litigation, let’s hope other attorneys step forward to represent this youngster who was denied freedom of speech by school administrators and, then, by federal judges.
So I suppose now that profanity is only judged by the eye of those who are liberal and a judge or are teachers and since they are dealing also in intent they can now read minds. Frankly I see nothing but a funny take on a newscaster who tried to suppress a viewpoint. We are not setting a good example of tolerance, especially if you have a point of view other than liberal progressive. I think the SCOTUS should take this up. It would be a “quickie decision but with profound impact”. You could have a 1 hr discussion of the case with all 9 justices immediately holding up cards with their decision. Sort of like Olympic voting after an event.
You are to optimistic about the liberal justices. KJB and Sotomayor are equivalent to the East German judges of the Olympics from the 1960s, they will vote the way they want with an ends justified ruling almost every time.
“ The funny thing about this action is that the slogan is not profane. To the contrary, it substitutes non-profane words for profane words.”
Well duh! Everyone knows the non-profane words are substitutes for profane words and that is the whole point. Because the slogan is intended to be profanity in disguise. It falls within the vulgarity clause of the school policy. It’s so well known that it is impossible to assume it literally just means “Let’s go Brandon”.
“ However, other students were allowed to don political apparel with other political causes, including “gay-pride-themed hoodies.”
What is political about gay-pride-themed hoodies? There’s nothing controversial or vulgar about gay-pride apparel. How would that be any different than wearing a Christian themed apparel? How about a apparel with profanity written in Japanese or Chinese? Nobody would know it is profanity.
Bold for you to be so wrong an so sure at the same time.
What exactly is it that is wrong? Everyone knows what “Let’s go Brandon” means. That is the point. Does it mean anything different?
Yes – what it means is that the person saying it thinks that Joe Biden was a lousy president.
It is offensive to SOME specifically because it is political.
What it clearly does NOT mean – which F#$K Joe Biden ALSO clearly does NOT mean is to sexually penetrate Joe Biden.
The POINT – which you entirely Miss – as does this IDIOT court, is that it is IRRELEVANT what you THINK something means. Offensive Speech in schools can only be censored if it is FACIALLY vulgar.
Absolutely anything can be implicitly vulgar. If you allow censorship based on implict meaning – you no longer have free speech.
To play Devil’s Advocate, I once saw a bootleg t-shirt with an image on the front of Mickey Mouse giving the finger. No words. Just that image.
I’m curious if you think that image is vulgar. Ignore intellectual property violations.
John Say,
“Yes – what it means is that the person saying it thinks that Joe Biden was a lousy president.”
Nope. Conveniently skirting the truth about the slogan’s real intent, a vulgar epithet against President Biden is not “just saying Joe Biden is a lousy President” is the problem.
It’s not about who finds it offensive. It’s about what its intended meaning is. Which is, as everyone knows, “F$%K Joe Biden”. There is no ambiguity about the meaning. That is why a majority of the court sided with the school.
“The POINT – which you entirely Miss – as does this IDIOT court, is that it is IRRELEVANT what you THINK something means. Offensive Speech in schools can only be censored if it is FACIALLY vulgar.”
You are the one missing the point. It is absolutely relevant what everyone thinks it means, especially students and teachers savvy to its meaning. It’s so ubiquitous that it’s impossible to assume it means anything else. The point of the slogan is to convey exactly what everyone knows it really says. It draws unnecessary attention to the student and is disruptive. Students and teachers without a doubt know what it means. It’s a vulgar slogan and it clearly violated school policy. Keep in mind that even sexually suggestive phrases are not allowed to be worn during school hours no matter how benign the phrase is. Even when it’s not facially a sexual phrase.
“Absolutely anything can be implicitly vulgar. If you allow censorship based on implicit meaning – you no longer have free speech.”
Your over-exaggeration of the consequences is laughable. This censorship only applies to school environments. An elementary school. Students are free to wear whatever profane attire they want outside of school. If a school banned students from wearing such attire even outside of school then you would have a relevant argument. But within school, not so much.
For example, the recent case of a student being told not to wear the Charlie Kirk “Freedom” shirt was permissible due to the disruptive nature of wearing the shirt that was so close to the assassination event and the controversy surrounding it. On any given day before that wearing such a shirt would not have been controversial. But after the assassination and within the hostile environment it would have been permissible to ban the wearing of those shirts at that time.
Schools can avoid these kinds of incidents by universally instituting uniforms and setting dress codes associated with the wearing of the uniform.
“Everyone knows the non-profane words are substitutes for profane words and that is the whole point. ”
Correct, and that is also why this ruling is wrong, as the disenting judge correctly pointed out – LGB is not on its face profane. If anything that is arguabl;y euphamistically profane can be censored – EVERYTHING can be censored.
“Because the slogan is intended to be profanity in disguise.”
No the slogan is intended to be an expression of political disgust with Joe Biden as president.
Just as “F#$K Joe Biden” is – that phrase was NEVER intended to be literally correct.
FJB is barred by the vulgarity exception to the first amendment in SOME contexts because it is explicitly – ON ITS FACE vulgar. It is NOT implicitly or euphemistically vulgar.
“It falls within the vulgarity clause of the school policy.”
And the school policy falls OUTSIDE the first amendment. That is the point.
“It’s so well known that it is impossible to assume it literally just means “Let’s go Brandon”.”
That is correct, but even “F#$K Joe Biden” does not literally mean F#$k joe biden.
You can censor FJB in SOME contexts – ONLY because it is LITERALLY vulgar.
If the phrase was “Frack Joe Biden” or “Kick Joe Biden” or “Shuck Joe Biden” you could not bar it.
Political speech has the MOST first amendment protection. This case only barely has a toenail of a chance in the courts because FACIAL vulgarity can be censored in SOME contexts.
“What is political about gay-pride-themed hoodies?”
You had better hope that a Gay pride hoodie is a political statement – otherwise it is far less well protected by the first amendment. The strongest first amendment protection is LITERALLY for political and OFFENSIVE speech.
“There’s nothing controversial or vulgar about gay-pride apparel.”
Not relevant – but of course there is. The very fact that people feel a need to wear it is Proof that it is controversial.
Even a “puppie pride” hoodie is controversial – some people do not like pets.
“How would that be any different than wearing a Christian themed apparel?”
It would not – and that too is controversial – some people do not like religion or christianity.
“How about a apparel with profanity written in Japanese or Chinese? Nobody would know it is profane”
Correct – it would NOT be Facially vulgar and therefore the school could not censor it.
Even if people KNEW what it meant.
There are three basic tests that NARROWLY apply to SOME offensive speech.
The Obscenity test – and that bars SOME expression in SOME public contexts – that would include schools.
A PUBLIC school could NOT bar a Playboy Bunny tshirt – but it COULD bar a tshirt with an image of a naked woman or a penis under the obscenity standard. Vulgarity falls under the obscenity test – a relatively small set of specific words
are barred – but this is actually falling to the wayside F#$K is so commonly used anymore – even in public it is no longer shocking, and children are so frequently exposed to the term that censoring it accomplishes nothing.
The 2nd test only applies to schools – and that is the disruption standard. That some message is so powerful that it is likely to disrupt classes. That standard too is of diminishing importance – again because we have spent the past 75 years trying to shock people so much that pretty much no speech is shocking or disruptive anymore.
The third test is for speech that advocates for criminal conduct – that would be the “Bong Hits for Jesus” case.
Frankly that case and that test are both wrong and SCOTUS should reverse itself. But whether they eventually do or not it DOES NOT APPLY here.
“ 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.”
Professor Turley ignores the intent behind the slogan. Everyone knows what the slogan really means—even the majority of the judges. What the professor is trying to argue, badly I will say, is for a textualist approach to the slogan. Sure, the words themselves are not profane but, the intended message is and that is the point. It doesn’t matter if the slogan itself is not profane the message behind it is intended to be profane.
I believe even the Supreme Court will side with the schools based on how they handled one case about trademarks—lancu vs. Brunetti. The case involved an acronym that was deemed profane even though it was not technically a profanity. “Friends You Can’t Trust”. FUCT.
What was amusing about that case is even though the spelling of he acronym seems profane it is not literally or technically a profanity but sure sounds like it when it is pronounced. While the acronym is not itself a profanity the the court took great pains to remind the counselors arguing the case not to pronounce it out loud in court because profanity is not allowed in court. They had to spell it out every time the acronym came up. Even the Justices could not bring themselves to pronounce the non-profane acronym because of how it sounds. They all knew it was NOT a profanity, but because it sounded like one when spoken they knew it would literally be spoken as a profanity. The spelling of the acronym was intentionally provocative and everyone knew that pronouncing it would sound out a profanity.
“Let’s Go Brandon” itself may not be profane but everyone knows what it really means. Students know what it means, teachers know what it means, and the principal knows what it means. It is well within the school’s power to restrict the wearing of the sweatshirt as profanity. Yes the wording itself is not profane. But the intent and understanding of what it means is. Therefore it is perfectly constitutional for the school to ban the attire. Students can still wear the sweatshirt outside of school. Banning it only during school hours should be perfectly lawful.
george
Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirt was equivalent to “the f–word.”
___________________________
Only YOU think that. Who was the first person who said (Let’s Go Brandon)
Dustoff, EVERYONE knows what it means. What else does it mean according to everyone?
There is not a person in the universe who believes you’d frame your comments the way you do if “Let’s go, Brandon!” had been coopted by left wingers as a substitute for “Fwck Donald Trump”.
What it means is irrelevant – though you are correct EVERYONE KNOWS what it means – Joe Biden was a lousy president.
What it does NOT mean – what FJB also does NOT mean, is anally penetrate Joe Biden with your penis.
If that is what it ACTUALLY meant – the left would claim it WAS protected speech – or atleast they would if it was a graphical depiction of two teens having anal sex. Barring THAT from a classroom is somehow censorship.
Barring a political slogan – that is not – that is OK.
John Say,
“What it means is irrelevant – though you are correct EVERYONE KNOWS what it means – Joe Biden was a lousy president.”
Wrong again. It is absolutely relevant. Just because you say so does not change reality. You are skirting the truth about the real meaning because even you know what it means.
“What it does NOT mean – what FJB also does NOT mean, is anally penetrate Joe Biden with your penis.”
Non-Sequitur.
“If that is what it ACTUALLY meant – the left would claim it WAS protected speech – or atleast they would if it was a graphical depiction of two teens having anal sex. Barring THAT from a classroom is somehow censorship.”
Again, you use a false equivalence to “prove” your point. Nothing in that statement is rational or relevant.
He attempted to speed read Turley’s article are his last brain scan sadly had excessive white spots!
X is on here early to make her usual contrarian and non-sensical defense of the indefensible. Imagine being married to this nut job.
Hullbobby, so what is YOUR defense? I’m just pointing out the obvious fact that everyone knows what “Let’s go Brandon” means.
As is typical the left fixates on “intent”. Most of our CRIMINAL laws require intentionality. i.e. they require that the Crime was deliberately committed. Not accidentally. Accidentally doing something bad is a TORT, not a crime.
Deliberately doing something illegal is a crime.
Prosecutors often seek to prove, “Means Motive and Oportunity” – because that is what Jury needs to convince them of guilt. But there is no legal requirement to prove “Means Motive and Oportunity” the law REQUIRES that a prosecutor proves the ELEMENTS of the crime as specified by the statute. Intentionality is an implicit and often explicit requirement for nearly all criminal laws.
Motive – Bad intentions ARE NOT.
That is actually extremely important. “intent” involves mid reading, and is HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE.
In the US specifically and more generally in western law – there is no such thing as a crime of ONLY intent.
Nor a crime were any SPECIFIC intent is required.
Every single free speech case that ever was is ALWAYS about speech that Someone is Offended by, and MOST free speech cases are about speech that was INTENTIONALLY offensive.
The purpose of the first amendment is NOT to protect speech that offends no one.
The FACT that the INTENT of those wearing the FJB shirt was to OFFEND fragile left wing nuts such as yourself is EXACTLY why it is protected first amendment speech.
This court and you are about as WRONG as they can get.
FJB is not unprotected by the first amendment, it is actually the MOST protected by the first amendment.
The left are welcome to wear a shirt with “F (orange wig)” for all I care. “Let’s go Brandon” is protected by First Amendment. Take it to SCOTUS.
John Say,
“As is typical the left fixates on “intent”. Most of our CRIMINAL laws require intentionality. i.e. they require that the Crime was deliberately committed.”
Intent is important. Just as context is important. It’s not a crime to wear a clothing with vulgar or explicit obcene images. But it’s against school policy and the Supreme Court has backed schools when it comes to policies.
Your attempt at rationalizing your argument by using criminal law is stupid. You don’t have to go far to understand the intent behind “Let’s go Brandon” to know what it really means and why it’s no appropriate in a school environment.
“The FACT that the INTENT of those wearing the FJB shirt was to OFFEND fragile left wing nuts such as yourself is EXACTLY why it is protected first amendment speech.”
It’s not about offense either. It’s about what is appropriate in a school environment. It has nothing to do with any “fragility” at all. Wearing apparel that is visible to anyone at a school that everyone knows is supposed to be a vulgar epithet against the President is not appropriate in a school environment. Just as mildly sexual images or phrases with clever word play are also inappropriate.
Library books with graphic sexual scenarios are not visible to everyone in the school. It’s only visible to those who choose to read said books. Conservatives’ fragile sensibilities can’t handle the idea that a teenager can choose to read something nobody else is going to in same sense as wearing a t-shirt that everyone can see.
“This court and you are about as WRONG as they can get.
FJB is not unprotected by the first amendment, it is actually the MOST protected by the first amendment.”
Nobody is saying it isn’t. Not even the courts. What they ARE saying is the phrase is inappropriate in a school setting and the slogan, “Let’s go Brandon” which everyone knows means, “F$%k Joe Biden” is inappropriate in a school setting. Schools can control and uphold dress codes and that includes inappropriate messeges on clothing.
“Yes the wording itself is not profane. But the intent and understanding of what it means is.”
Do you wake up every morning hoping to say something dumber than the day before?
What it MEANS is Joe Biden was a lousy President and the media was a gaslighting enabler.
What it does is substitute a non vulgar phrase for a vulgar one. Both phrases MEAN the same thing. That makes them synonymous. So what?? They are not synonymous for “fornicate Joe Biden in the rectum”, you idiot.
“Kiss my grits” is a WELL KNOWN substitute for “kiss my ass”.
Its not vulgar, its meaning is not vulgar, because its literal meaning is not vulgar. Both phrases MEAN I couldnt care less what you think. Which is not vulgar, just like joe biden is a lousy president is not vulgar.
So substituting a non vulgar word like POOP for a vulgar word like SHlT is allowed, because they both mean the non vulgar “feces”.
A fifth grader would understand this.
Now do the burka. It matches this profile. That day is coming, and the religious laws of this country will not be able to hold back what is coming.
Our country has religious laws? Who knew.
WOW. Blame our schools for this mess.
_________________________
“42 percent of liberals said it was acceptable to go beyond peaceful protest even if that meant breaking the law. The number jumps to 60 percent of liberals under the age of 30.”
Blame our schools. Um… “our”, seems you didn’t get the memo you silly redneck.
Learn to read moron.
Hopefully the decision will be overturned. Parochial schools for the most part don’t have these issues, boys and girls must dress in the school uniform. Many public schools in Florida students must dress in appropriate school uniforms. While we’re at it teachers should be required to dress appropriately, no tattoos exposed and no colored hair, like purple, orange, yellow etc.. Get back to basics teach.
and those who don’t abide by your archaic dictates should be … jailed, maybe shot?
Sure. Why not?
Why not? Okay, then why?
Grow up fool.
What planet do you live on margot?
Imagine margot as education minister? Still beating your adult children?
A. At it’s heart, this is a Presidential problem. Why? Because Presidents have more and more been appointing judges based on their race and/or politics. Knowledge of the law is strictly secondary. Such judges see every problem as political and they massage the letter of the law to rule in favor of their political whims. Your skills as a legal masseuse determines advancement.
B. Second in place are the judges themselves. Too many of them failed in private practice and became judges in the various levels of the court system. This is established by the number of judgements reversed, particularly in cases where there is a political component.
C. Third in place are the law schools that simply approve of and teach “activist law,” which means you – the judge decide what’s right and then manipulate the law to establish it in your rulings.
Presidential problem?
Only losers get judgeships? You have a extremely warped idea about judiciary appointments. Command of law is power. Power is political.
That’s why you never understood politics, you have the mind of a child.
Amen!
Read any opinion or listen to any questioning by KJB (and Sotomayor) and your point is made. Liberal giants like Brennan at least made cogent arguments using legal reasoning when being leftists, but today’s liberals have been taught (and rewarded) to not even care about such norms.
By their logic, if your name happens to be Brandon and someone wants to cheer you on, they could be kicked out for saying, “Let’s go, Brandon.” SMH.
The left is anti-free speech. They increasingly conflate issues on purpose to blur this line.
This is nuts. Nothing about these shirts are some-how bad. The Supreme courtt should knock this down hard and insult the 6th.
A legal eagle in action, amazing perception there you uneducated redneck.
Try harder fool.
I think I mentioned on this blog back when the “Let’s go, Brandon!” chant was a thing, the star captain basketball player on our high school basketball team happened to be named Brandon. When I went to the homecoming game, I was amazed to see many of the cars in the school parking lot had “Let’s go, Brandon!” bumper stickers on them. (It’s kinda funny to see those stickers on cars around town years later.)
When I asked around, I learned that some students took it upon themselves to buy a bunch of the stickers and distribute them to other students.
The player named Brandon was well liked. And the small town voted almost 75% for Trump. So even if someone complained to the school board or administrators about the stickers, I doubt they would have demanded the stickers be removed.
A violation of the 1st amendment sure to be overturned on appeal.
Except the appellate court has affirmed. Now it will need either an en banc rehearing, request for certiorari from the Supreme Court, or, in the end, both.
What is amazing is that any public School Board hides behind “free speech” when it is convenient to their causes (LGBTQRSTWXYZ) in particular the Lewd acts by the Trans. How this case plays out will be telling. The problem is there is NO penalty to this that have endorsed this violation of the Constitutional Rights of these citizens!!!!!!
Lewd acts, what lewd acts? Heterosexuals arn’t lewd?
Would you prefer deviant ? As in different from the norm ?
All LGBTQ…… sexuality is deviant – different from the norm.
all sexual fetishes are deviant – different from the norm. Including some found among many conservatives.
Deviance is not inherently wrong, but it IS legitimately subject to more scrutiny.
For most of human existance Homosexuality has been both deviant and considered inherently wrong.
Today it is still deviant, but atleast in much of the west it is accepted as not inherently wrong.
Though I would note for those on the left, that as there is NO foundation for homosexuality – the left will NOT allow us to determine if it is innate or a choice – demanding that it is both and neither, that the acceptance of homosexuality could easily reverse. Declining populations are highly likely to result in political and moral pressure to reproduce – that LITERALLY is a instinctual “survival of the species” drive. I expect that some nations with very low birth rates may recriminalize homosexuality in the future. What fundimental foundation for homosexuality exists that would prevent that ? Hetero sexuality is a REQUIREMENT of nature – the survival of the species.
You can not legislate against it.
My point is that the left has required all of us to deem acceptable a wide variety of sexual deviance’s that have been morally wrong and criminal for most of human history.
But we STILL have a FEW deviances that remain unacceptable – maybe. We still do not tolerate mostly, even on the left adults having sex with children – pedophila. We do not accept bestiality, or necrophilia.
So what is the basis for determining that Homosexuality is morally and legally OK, while pedophilia is not ?
“All LGBTQ…… sexuality is deviant – different from the norm.
all sexual fetishes are deviant – different from the norm. Including some found among many conservatives.”
Who determines what is normal and what isn’t? Homosexuality has been around since biblical times. So has incest, polygamy, slavery, etc. It is not ‘normal’ to those who appoint themselves an authority on morality and norms.
“My point is that the left has required all of us to deem acceptable a wide variety of sexual deviance’s that have been morally wrong and criminal for most of human history.”
Not required. The left has made it a point to acknowledge the existence of certain things that have always been around. Today we think slavery is morally wrong, but in biblical times and as recent as the 1800’s in this country it was deemed a normal part of life.
“So what is the basis for determining that Homosexuality is morally and legally OK, while pedophilia is not ?”
Maybe the basis is understanding and knowing that there are limits that everyone can acknowledge is just not right.
Homosexuality is something opposed by religious zealots because it would require the acknowledgment that God created it since God created everything.
Pedophilia seems to be a part of religious tolerance based on the history of the Catholic church and some evangelical sects. The Catholic Church did not think it was a serious enough moral failure to address the problem they knew was present for decades. Homoexuality was less tolerable than pedophile priests. Evidently the Church spent more effort trying to ignore the problem than acknowledge the harm it was causing.