I have previously written about D.A. v. Tri-County Area Schools, one of the worst free speech decisions to come out of the appellate courts in years. In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a school ban on high school students wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts. Sixth Circuit Judge John Nalbandian was joined by Judge Karen Nelson Moore in a deeply flawed holding that, under the “vulgarity exception,” the action was constitutional. The Supreme Court needs to grant review in this case and reverse this obnoxious decision.
As previously discussed, “Let’s Go Brandon!” has become a similarly unintended political battle cry not just against Biden but also against media bias. 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 wear political apparel supporting other 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.”
The district court showed an equally dismissive view of the free speech rights of these students, including that the phrase could “reasonably be interpreted” as profane. That was upheld by the Sixth Circuit in its 2-1 decision.
Judge John Bush offered an excellent 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….”
The Sixth Circuit 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.
FIRE has filed the petition below, and hopefully, the justices will add this case to the docket.
Here is the petition: Petition for Writ of Certiorari – D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools
“Let’s Go Brandon” is a type of euphemism, a “minced oath,” e.g., gosh, heck, darn. The very purpose of a minced oath is to express frustration or outrage *while avoiding profanity*.
Those who claim that a minced oath expression is profanity are evading the reality of a perfectly valid form of speech.
Calling ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ a ‘minced oath’ like ‘gosh’ or ‘darn’ is like saying a middle finger is just a ‘creative way to point at the sky.’
Everyone—the kids, the teachers, and the judges—knows exactly what that ‘minced oath’ is actually saying. You aren’t ‘avoiding profanity’ when you use a phrase that was literally invented to hide a stadium full of people screaming the F-word. You’re just using a ‘code’ for it.
Under the Fraser standard, schools don’t have to play your word games. If the phrase is a well-known stand-in for vulgarity, it’s vulgar. Period. Claiming it’s ‘clean’ just because it’s spelled differently is the kind of logic that only works if you think the rest of us can’t read between the lines.
Folks, please note that George has no legal knowledge or background.
He doesn’t know what he writing.
Neither do you, but at least I understand and recognize the distinction between the Tinker and Fraser standards. You clearly don’t.
Interested to know hat your legal and educational that qualifies you to comment on constitutional cases and issues? Thanks.
Neither does the Supreme Court.
Roe v Wade was “settled law” for 50 years.
“If the phrase is a well-known stand-in for vulgarity, it’s vulgar.”
You’re repeating the same fallacy.
A minced oath, *by its nature*, “is a well-known stand-in for vulgarity.” Your desire is to evade the distinction between the two expressions.
You’re trotting out the same, shopworn Leftist MO: If it serves your end, you feel justified in calling “mild” salsa “hot” salsa.
And yet there remains the stubborn reality that there is a *fundamental* difference between the two — and between a minced oath and the profane version.
Sam, your ‘salsa’ analogy is as weak as the ‘minced oath’ excuse you’re hiding behind. A school isn’t a grocery store; it’s a place where kids are supposed to learn how to be respectful.
You can call a ‘coded F-bomb’ a ‘minced oath’ all you want, but the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals already saw through that game. They ruled that when a phrase is widely known to stand for a swear word, it is vulgar in a school setting.
You aren’t ‘avoiding’ profanity; you’re just using a secret handshake to say it. If a kid uses a ‘PG’ word to shout an ‘R-rated’ insult, the school has every right to shut it down. Claiming it’s ‘clean political speech’ just because you swapped a few letters is like saying a middle finger is ‘clean’ because you aren’t using your voice. Everyone knows what you’re doing, including the judges.
Of course you admit the people in power in this instance did not like the message because they are woke. Schools DO have to play the “Constitutional rights” game, it’s the LAW. of course you would be against those rights X cause you are a dummy
It’s hilarious that you’re lecturing me on the ‘LAW’ while ignoring the actual ruling from the 6th Circuit. Apparently, in your world, ‘Constitutional rights’ means students get a magic pass to wear coded F-bombs as long as they’re owned by the ‘anti-woke’ crowd.
The judges—who I’m guessing have slightly more than my ‘two brain cells’—explicitly ruled that the Fraser standard applies here. That means schools can ban vulgarity even if it’s wrapped in a political flag.
You’re not fighting for ‘rights’; you’re fighting for a loophole that lets kids swear at their teachers as long as they use a secret handshake. If following a 1986 Supreme Court precedent makes me a ‘dummy,’ then what does that make someone who thinks ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ is high-level legal discourse? Stick to the bumper stickers, because the Case Law is clearly way over your head.
If you’re still have difficulty comprehending here’s a way to verify the source.
“ In B.A. v. Tri-County Area Schools, the 6th Circuit ruled that school officials may prohibit student speech containing vulgarity, even when cloaked in political innuendo or euphemism. The court specifically stated on page 11 of the opinion that “in the schoolhouse, vulgarity trumps politics,” holding that the Fraser standard applies to such cases. Read the full ruling at 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.”
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0282p-06.pdf
Rainbow LGBTQBLABLAHBLAH teachers and lessons and cartoon queer books in schools are far more offensive than “Let’s go Brandon”
In my view, the core problem here is not high doctrine but basic even handedness. Once a public school allows student political messages on clothing, it has no constitutional warrant to pick and choose which side may speak. You cannot permit Pride and other cause based messaging, then single out “Let’s Go Brandon” for suppression because an administrator dislikes its viewpoint or finds its politics impolite. That is not a neutral rule of decorum, it is viewpoint discrimination.
If a district genuinely believes politics has no place in the schoolhouse, the honest answer is a content neutral policy: no political messages from anyone, on any side, during the school day. Short of that, students in a free society must learn to walk past messages they dislike without expecting the government to erase them.
Olly, you’re making the same mistake Turley is: you’re dressing up a vulgarity in a suit and calling it ‘political speech.’ This case isn’t about the message; it’s about the medium. The court correctly bypassed the Tinker standard because this isn’t a debate over policy—it’s a Fraser issue. The school didn’t ban a political idea; they banned a well-known euphemism for a middle finger. Schools have a clear legal right to restrict vulgarity to maintain a civil learning environment, and a ‘coded’ F-bomb doesn’t get a pass just because it’s aimed at a politician.
It is clear you are neither a lawyer nor a scholar, and we are all better for it.
Yes, you can dress up vulgarity with euphemism. Further, political speech has an even higher bar for freedom of speech than others. This clears all legal standards to date. The Supreme Court would need to overturn decades of precedent in order to affirm this 6th Circ. opinion. Such a decision would have the effect of students shedding their rights at the schoolhouse door.
Remember, X, 1984 was a cautionary tale, not a how-to guide.
Again, like Turley and Olly, this is not about political speech. It’s about vulgarity. It’s already been established that schools can regulate prohibit vulgarity, even as a euphemism.
Tinker is not the standard for this case. Fraser is. Do you understand the difference?
“Do you understand the difference?'” Again, georgie learns by copycatting what others have said to HIM?
I love that you’re upset because I’m ‘copycatting’ the facts. I guess when you have zero legal legs to stand on, the only thing left to do is complain about the person pointing at the floor. Maybe if you spent less time worrying about who I’m quoting and more time reading the Fraser standard, you wouldn’t keep losing these debates to a ‘copycat’.
Seriously George, do you understand? You’re not a lawyer. Just a common troll.
In my view, you are treating “vulgarity” as if it were a free‑floating label instead of a rule that has to be applied even handedly. Schools absolutely can restrict genuinely lewd or profane language, but once they allow political and cause based messages on clothing, they cannot single out only one side’s slogan and rebrand it as “just a coded F bomb.” Some people find the American flag vulgar and the Pride flag acceptable, others the reverse. If the process rests on individual impressions instead of a clear, objective standard that any teacher or substitute can apply the same way, it bakes bias and variation into the system and guarantees exactly these kinds of constitutional fights.
Olly, you’re still trying to play ‘make-believe’ with the dictionary. Comparing a political flag to a secret swear word is like comparing a ‘Stop’ sign to a ‘Middle Finger.’ One is a symbol; the other is a gesture meant to be rude.
The school didn’t ‘rebrand’ the shirt as a ‘coded F-bomb’—the people who invented the chant did that. You’re acting like the principal just woke up and decided it was mean, but the 6th Circuit pointed out that the entire world knows exactly what that phrase is hiding.
Under the Fraser standard, schools don’t have to pretend they’re ‘confused’ by your code words. They have an objective rule: No vulgarity. Using a ‘PG-rated’ version of an ‘R-rated’ chant is still vulgar. If you can’t tell the difference between an American flag and a ‘coded’ F-word, maybe you’re the one who needs a ‘clear, objective standard’ for how to act in public.
Let’s apply X’s coded message standard to other messages:
The Rainbow flag is similarly coded for anal sex, and should be banned as well.
How can pupils follow what the teacher is saying, when thoughts of anal sex fill their heads?
Exactly. That’s precisely the point you’re illustrating, Michael. If “coded” meanings are enough to strip a message of protection, then the standard ends up covering almost anything, and enforcement just tracks which causes the adults in the room happen to like.
Wha, precisely the point? Olly are you saying you’re gay?
Olly, you’re acting like the principal is just ‘guessing’ that the shirt is rude. But it’s not a mystery—everyone with an internet connection knows that phrase is a code for a swear word.
You’re trying to say that if we ban one ‘secret’ swear word, we’ll eventually ban everything. That’s like saying if we ban kids from saying ‘WTF’ in class, we’ll eventually ban them from saying ‘Hello.’
The Fraser standard is very clear: Schools can stop vulgarity. They aren’t ‘rebranding’ the message; they are just calling it what it is. A ‘coded’ F-bomb doesn’t become ‘clean speech’ just because you like the person it’s aimed at. If a kid can’t say the actual word in class, they shouldn’t be allowed to wear a ‘secret code’ for it on their chest, either.
You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue and why you want to apply the Tinker standard instead of the correct one, Fraser.
X, you are skipping over the exact limit Fraser itself draws. Fraser lets schools bar lewd or indecent modes of expression, but it explicitly noted that the sanctions there were “unrelated to any political viewpoint.” Here, the school did not adopt a neutral “no euphemisms for the F‑word, ever” rule and apply it to every context. It allowed other sharp, cause‑based and partisan messages, then used “vulgarity” as the label for only one side’s politics.
If “everyone knows what it means” were enough by itself, then any symbol that a particular faction reads as “coded” for something ugly could be suppressed the same way. That is not how a content‑neutral civility rule works, that is how viewpoint discrimination is laundered through Fraser. I am not saying students have a right to drop F bombs in class. I am saying that once a public school opens the door to political slogans, it cannot constitutionally enforce “no coded vulgarity” only against the messages its officials already dislike.
Olly, you’re still trying to argue that ‘F*** Joe Biden’ is a political viewpoint, but the law says it’s just a vulgarity.
You claim the school isn’t being ‘neutral,’ but they are: they allow political messages that are civil and ban ones that are coded swear words. If a student wore a shirt that said ‘F*** Trump,’ it would be banned under the exact same rule. Your ‘viewpoint discrimination’ argument is just a fancy way of saying you want a special hall pass for your favorite insult.
The Sixth Circuit already saw through this ‘laundry’ metaphor. They ruled that a ‘sanitized fig leaf’ for the F-word is still an F-word. If you can’t tell the difference between a political flag and a secret middle finger, maybe you’re the one who needs to go back to school to learn about ‘civility’ and ‘self-government.’
Comparing a Pride flag to a ‘coded’ F-bomb is like saying a ‘No Smoking’ sign is actually a secret code for arson. One is a symbol of a group of people; the other is a verbal mask for a swear word.
The 6th Circuit didn’t ban the shirt because it was ‘political’—they banned it because everyone knows it’s a placeholder for profanity. Unless you can find a video of a stadium full of people using the Rainbow flag to scream a specific four-letter word, your comparison is just a desperate attempt to ignore the Fraser standard.
Schools are allowed to teach ‘civility,’ and that includes telling kids they can’t use ‘secret’ swear words to insult people. If thoughts of ‘anal sex’ fill your head every time you see a rainbow, that sounds like a personal problem, not a constitutional one.
OLLY,
Well said.
Had a friend in high school who wore a button on her jean jacket that read, “Who farted?” One of the assistant principal’s made her remove it. So, then could she have worn a button that read, “Who experienced a unexpected instance of gastrointestinal decompression?” (Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary)
😂
Gosh all fishhooks, you go to grass.
Schools have long disallowed shirts deemed vulgar or disruptive. There is a difference between a shirt that says “Vote Pedro” and one that says “Go to Hell, Pedro”
Vote pendejo, Joe.
Olly as usual your response always misses the issue. Even handedness is not a legal concept on a national basis, strangely, guessing it’s your lack of legal experience, you add “basic”-ness, indicates you’re trying hard to sound smart. That word negates everything you wrote afterwards. Don’t give up you day job.
The exact phrase Olly wants is “content-neutral.”
That’s what I suggested in my original comment in this thread.
OLLY,
What you are suggesting, would of been common sense some twenty years ago.
However, today you cannot wear a shirt that says “Let’s Go Brandon,” but there are schools that in the elementary library a student can check out a graphic novel, depicting two boys performing oral sex on each other.
And we clearly have activists teachers and administrators who openly promote a, as you would put it, jersey but refuse to even acknowledge the other side of an issue.
Case in point: https://jonathanturley.org/2026/03/06/virginia-democrats-move-to-require-teaching-jan-6th-as-an-insurrection/
As the good professor points out, the SC should weight in on the side of free speech. The parents should demand a content neutral policy. The students need to learn there are other points of view they may not agree with and they do not have the right to have a emotional melt down if they see a message on a article of clothing they do not like. People are entitled to their opinions.
For now.
Upstate, that’s exactly why I keep pushing for a content neutral standard instead of feelings based enforcement. Right now we have the worst of both worlds. A student can’t wear “Let’s Go Brandon,” but the same system shrugs at material or messaging that many parents see as far more explicit or one sided. That is not civility, it is selective enforcement.
I almost hate to bring this up, but it goes to the heart of forming children for self government. Either we teach students that in a free republic they will encounter messages they dislike and must respond with argument, not censorship, or we train them to expect authorities to sanitize the public square for them. If schools won’t allow viewpoint neutral rules, then at least they should stop teaching the second lesson while claiming to prepare citizens for the first.
OLLY,
I agree. But we are in a society now that favors “safe spaces” and it is okay for (so-called) grown adults to give into their ID and throw temper tantrums like a six year old.
The upside is there are parents, a growing number of them, who are pushing back against wokeism, progressiveness, and actively looking for things like school choice and are seeing the need for civics in the classroom. That and a return to teaching the basics and not student activists.
There is a “tunnel” principle at work here. When children face something uncomfortable, you cannot always carry them around it. You often have to let them walk through the tunnel and discover that it was not as bad as they imagined. Over time, they learn that they can handle adversity without an adult clearing the path for them. In a political context, that means learning to pass messages they dislike in the hallway and still focus on math, instead of being trained to expect a permanent emotional escort service from the authorities.
Olly, your ‘content-neutral’ argument is a masterpiece of unintentional comedy. You’re basically demanding a ‘neutral’ rule that would legally force schools to allow every coded F-bomb, racial slur, or sexual insult, as long as the student claims it’s a ‘political battle cry.’
The irony is that you’re lecturing us on ‘forming children for self-government’ while defending a phrase that was literally invented to bypass civil debate. You can’t claim to be worried about ‘sanitizing the public square’ while championing a phrase the 6th Circuit explicitly called a ‘sanitized fig leaf’ for vulgarity.
If you actually wanted a ‘viewpoint neutral’ standard, you’d have to be okay with a student wearing a shirt that says ‘F*** the Police’ or ‘S*** Happens’ in a 5th-grade hallway. But let’s be real: you don’t want a neutral rule. You want a special exception for your favorite ‘jersey’ because you’ve decided this specific vulgarity is ‘clean.’
The Fraser standard exists specifically to stop the ‘coarsening’ of society that you and Turley usually spend your time complaining about. You can’t mourn the death of civility in one breath and then demand schools let kids wear ‘secret’ middle fingers in the next. Pick a lane, Olly.
Now do “it happens” in 5th grade.
Upstatefarmer, It’s always fascinating to see the ‘common sense’ defense used to ignore a hundred years of legal precedent. You’re trying to turn a dress code violation into a culture war over library books, but the law doesn’t work like a ‘What About-ism’ checklist.
The 6th Circuit didn’t ban the shirt because anyone had an ‘emotional meltdown’; they banned it because Fraser (1986) says schools can restrict vulgarity. You’re arguing for a ‘content neutral’ policy that would literally force schools to allow any coded profanity as long as it’s political. By your logic, if a kid wears a shirt that says ‘F— the Police,’ the school has to allow it to avoid ‘bias.’
As for your library book grievance—last time I checked, a student choosing to open a book in a library isn’t the same as a student wearing a coded F-bomb in the middle of a mandatory math class. One is a choice; the other is a walking middle finger to the school’s duty to teach civility.
Maybe if you spent less time hunting for ‘activist teachers’ and more time reading page 14 of the 6th Circuit ruling, you’d realize that ‘vulgarity trumps politics’ in a K-12 hallway. But hey, don’t let a little thing like the Supreme Court’s actual standards get in the way of a good grievance.
Schools have long been the place where the Culling takes place. It is where the tracking of Individuals begin. Should you wear a shirt with “Let’s Go Brandon!” the Student(s) are put onto a list in that category (Checkbox ☑), Every aspect of the Students behavior is monitored and recorded in some measure and a track record established (Your Profile).
For example the simplest is: What Number in your Class did you graduate with? Were you the Valedictorian No.#1 or the bottom of your class No.#X? ☑
Did you play Sports? ☑
Were you on the Student Counsel? ☑
Were you a Freak or a Jock? ☑
Did you ‘Party’ (Did you inhale)? ☑
Etc… ☑
Etc… ☑
Etc… ☑
… Etc.
Society needs Brain Surgeons as well as Garbage Collectors. The ‘Culling’ operation sets the Theme-for-Life, and it isn’t a fair process either. People are subject to the events of the Era, to wit the atmosphere can be very detrimental to the conditions of their development.
It’s tough being a Kid, yet alone being monitored (now worse than ever) 24hrs. a day with modern surveillance that records your very thoughts (Texting, Social Media, … they have accessed the inside of Your Mind). It’s very doubtful that anyone will have a perfect score ☑ by the time they arrive to Adulthood and they put you on the Treadmill.
The issue the SCOTUS should take on is the ‘Tracking Surveillance Profiling’ of the National School Systems and its marriage to Data Centers. The “Let’s Go Brandon!” Students are now Blockchained in Forever with this incident, Literally it will follow them around all their lives like a Ball-and-Chain (Ball-and-Blockchain ☑)
There’s No Room the Breath.
In case I don’t see ya, Good afternoon, Good evening, and Good night.
Joe Biden’s football career ended after his first semester at UDel, when he notched up a 1.9 GPA. Joe went on to graduate right at tbe bottom quartile of his class.
Admitted by some miracle to Syracuse Law, Joe survived a 1L plagiarism scandal to graduate 8th from the bottom.
Let’s face it, Anerica elected a dumb jock President.
EXTENSIVE SOCIAL MEDIA USE IS HAZADOUS TO YOUR MENTAL HEALTH.
I receive regular Justia updates in 6th Circuit cases. The 6th Circuit decision in this particular case seems to somewhat of an anomaly when compared to the overall body of their work. Or maybe my reading of the 6th was flawed. Still, if Tinker stands, then I think that the school district erred.
Regardless, it will be interesting to see how Kagan, Sotomayer, and Jackson decide this case
They are not applying the tinker standard. They are applying the Fraser standard. Tinker has nothing to do with this case.
You have a lot of non-credibility for being a non-lawyer George. Just saying.
X –
And this is neither “lewd” nor “vulgar”. It is clean political speech. Therefore, this passes the Fraser test.
You would’ve had a better argument under Tinker that it materially and substantially disrupts. You’d still be wrong, but at least you’d be consistent.
As always, thank you for posting. You remind every conservative why voting is so important, because despite your 2 brain cells fighting for 3rd place, you still go out and vote. It’s how we ended up with Lets Go Brandon to begin with.
It’s adorable that you think a coded ‘F-bomb’ qualifies as ‘clean political speech’ just because it’s spelled with different letters. By that logic, I could call your argument ‘complete and total shift’ and you’d have to pretend I was talking about gearboxes.
The 6th Circuit—you know, the actual judges—disagreed with your ‘clean’ assessment because they possess the cognitive function to recognize a euphemism. Under Fraser, schools don’t have to be ‘consistent’ with your personal feelings; they just have to keep the environment decent.
As for my ‘two brain cells,’ they’re currently doing a victory lap because they managed to grasp a 1986 Supreme Court precedent that you’re still struggling to read. But please, keep explaining how a ‘sanitized’ swear word is high-minded political discourse. You’re doing a great job proving exactly why our national literacy rates are in the basement.
Maybe, then, they should have used Tinker. Regardless, SCOTUS will need to address Tinker – uphold, distinguish, or throw it out
“it will be interesting to see how Kagan, Sotomayer, and Jackson decide this case”
There appear to be cases up for SCOTUS review that are so blatant that even the three Dem justices (as well as the posturing idiot Chief Justice) do not dare oppose the obvious conclusion. I suspect this case will be on of those. My best guess is 9-0 in favor of overturning the 6th District.
Consider this. A national ban on vulgarity would mean NOT ANOTHER WORD from Hollywood.
The issue is the use of vulgarity in schools. Even euphemisms for vulgarity can be regulated by schools. That’s the point the court made.
Hey George look, a real lawyer commented, and with humor. And all you could is castigate him. Your jealousy know no bounds George.
Real lawyer? Doubt it. A real lawyer would not make such an asinine comment.
So you admit you are not a lawyer stating in your asinine comment, that “A real lawyer would not make such an asinine comment.”
To be a lawyer one has to have a sense of humor. You fail.
No it can’t.
But I respect your ability to be wrong over and over and over again. It shows a real commitment to ignorance.
Turley argues that “Let’s Go Brandon” is protected because it is political. But under Fraser, the Court ruled that “vulgarity trumps politics” in schools. Even if a message is political, a school can still ban it if the way it is expressed is considered vulgar or offensive.
Turley also claims the phrase is “sanitized” because it doesn’t use the actual F-word. The 6th Circuit used Fraser to explain that a euphemism (a “secret” or “polite” version of a swear word) is still reasonably understood as vulgar. The court noted that a school doesn’t have to wait for a student to use a “dirty word” to protect the learning environment.
In short, Turley is arguing a Tinker case (disruption) in a Fraser world (decency). He is treating a K-12 hallway like a public street corner, which the Supreme Court has explicitly said is the wrong way to look at student speech. It seems he wants to have it both ways.
Wow George, you already produced 2,412 words this morning and not made an iota of sense. A Pulitzer for you dude.
Perhaps it did not make sense to you because your ability to read beyond 8th grade is difficult. Do you even know the difference between the Fraser standard the Tinker? Someone already pointed this out. If it still does not make sense to you then you’re the problem.
Perhaps it did not make sense to you George. You admit to NOT being a lawyer, so the margin of error in your legally obtuse comments is as wide as the Atlantic Ocean.
Serious question, why don’t you get a law degree if you’re so smart? No desire, you say. I guess your basement is pretty warm and cozy and mommy brings you hot chocolate.
Never claimed to be a lawyer. Margin of error? Nobody thinks you are smart enough to understand half of what is said in Turley’s columns.
LOL! You think I’m in a basement. Cute.
I still haven’t heard anything of substance coming from you.
I still haven’t heard anything of substance coming from you. Really. If you’re so smart, parse the comments again.
What’s it like in your basement, naked pictures everywhere, stacked beer can, smelly undies etc.
Just so you know, we rent.
Turley does this with specific intent, knowing full well the majority of his readership will not comprehend the nuance. This is standard Turley practice 101. He’s not interested in the objective and impartial examination of facts and seeking good-faith arguments for both sides of an issue. What he IS interested in is selling his books…
So, if a crowd were to chant “Go To Hell Biden” and it’s reported as “Go Tell Biden” then put on a shirt it’s vulgar or crude ?
“Let’s Go Brandon” is not used as vulgarity. The crowd was making a political statement and not a vulgar epitaph.
ATTENTION MODERATOR: I have a comment held in moderation, since it uses the word that is key to this issue. There is no way I could have written that comment without using that word. Please release it from moderation.
Seriously, now we have to be inundated with your vulgarities too?
Professor Turley writes whole books complaining that Americans are too rude and that ‘rage’ is ruining our country. He even scolded politicians recently, saying there is nothing ‘American’ about using bad language.
But now, he is angry because a school won’t let a student wear a ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ shirt. Let’s be honest: everyone—including the kids in that school—knows that phrase is just a secret way of saying the ‘F-word.’
Turley usually says schools should teach kids to be polite and respectful. But here, he’s arguing that a school can’t stop a student from wearing a ‘coded’ swear word just because it’s a political joke. He can’t have it both ways. You can’t complain that the world is getting too mean and ‘coarse’ on one page, and then demand that schools allow students to wear insults on the next.
If Turley actually cared about the ‘civility’ he writes about, he would support the school’s right to keep the classroom professional. Instead, it looks like he’s just picking a side because he likes the politics of the shirt.
Have you read Turley’s books? Of course not.
George, your constant rage is fatiguing us. Could you maybe comment on the NYT or WP please.
Anonymous, how would you know if i have read his books or not? What an odd thing to claim. Perhaps you should make an argument instead of trying to read minds.
So, you’re saying you can’t read? Sorta got that.
Oh ya, that mind reading thing, heard you’re really good at that., “George the clairvoyant”, has a nice ring about eh?
Piggy Crimewave’s o ring mouth needs to be obliterated with fat Japanese egg plant.
Ideally, the Court will grant cert. and issue an opinión and judgement reversing and remanding for trial. One that can be read as “What do you not understand about NO. THE N, the O, or the two letters in combination?” Then, the advice from the school’s lawyers would be settle this case with an apology and a settlement that mitigates the hit on the taxpayers. And get us unemployed off the fee meter the sooner the better.
Turley’s argument is misleading because it frames a vulgarity issue as a purely political one to avoid the Fraser standard. While he correctly cites Tinker for political speech, the 6th Circuit found that ‘Let’s Go Brandon’—as a recognized euphemism for a profane chant—falls under the school’s authority to prohibit lewd or vulgar language. By labeling it a ‘political battle cry,’ Turley ignores that the Court has long held that vulgarity ‘trumps politics’ in a K-12 setting.
Furthermore, while Turley’s opposition to the ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ (Morse) ruling is consistent with his general ‘pro-speech’ stance, his critique here is legally flawed. In Morse, the Court allowed a ban on speech promoting illegal drug use; here, the 6th Circuit is simply affirming a school’s right to enforce its dress code against profane euphemisms. Everyone—including the students—knows exactly what the phrase is substituting for. To claim a school can’t regulate a code-word for the ‘F-word’ because it’s ‘political’ creates a loophole that would effectively end any school’s ability to maintain a civil learning environment.
+100
Misleading? Only because you couldn’t understand it?
So much irony in your comment, hilarious. Why don’t you add your perspective instead of lobbing cheap useless retorts?
Those cheap useless retorts serve a purpose George, they reflect your cheap useless retorts.
So you’re admitting you can’t compose anything more complex than cheap useless retorts. Gotcha. Thanks for letting us know.
I”ll have you know its take a lot of work to produce useless retorts. In your case, we don’t even try.
hey aren’t you getting off subject? We’re waiting for more brilliant insight, or are you expended for today?
You’re just admitting you’re lazy. It tracks.
Sensing a teensy weeny bit of animosity George.
You just wasted 5 hours an 5,335 words today and not made a single intelligible point. Guess its cause you’re not a lawyer.
Hey, your mom know you’re here?
Again neither are you, but you keep telling us how clueless you are every time you post. If this were a competition to the bottom you are clearly in the lead. Congrats.
Oh look, a constitutional lawyer.
Free speech for me, but not for thee.
Andrew Buikema and Wendy Bradford are in a way “soft fascists” that smile while they strip away civil rights. They will always have their justifications, but the actions always happen in one direction: to protect the far left and the leftwing’s delicate sensibilities. The school was on the front lines of the fight pushing fascism, and black-robed fascists stepped right up to support it.
It’s not vulgar. However, I can see how students might be distracted by the sweatshirts.
Ironically, there is no evidence of that in Turley’s synopsis. Instead, it is the teachers and administrators who are creating the disruption.
If an adult had done that, its free speech, but if a kid does, its a potential SCOTUS case.
The point is that the court held it IS vulgar, because it deliberately evokes a vulgarity in the reader’s mind. The school would also have banned a shirt bearing the brand name “FCUK”. And it would have banned one that said “F*** Donald Trump”. It’s all about the specific word, whether it’s spelled out in full or transparently masked.
Ah the court, the adjudicator of all things proper and tasteful. And they’re assuming everyone within eye and ear reach of any media source knew what it indicated. And schools, the national indoctrination camp for minors.
If Maplethorpes Piss Christ is accepted as art for public display then Let’s Go Brandon on a tee shirt at school should be easily accepted.
Interpretation of the meaning of a play on words is subjective to the reader. Just like artwork.
You answered your question: ART.
For public display, not at a school. Vulgar art is still inappropriate for a school environment.
Prove it.
“I can see how students might be distracted by the sweatshirts.”
But they couldn’t possibly be distracted by the shirts permitted to be worn by other students supporting a plethora of leftist, woke causes, right? Idiot.
The Supreme Court hasn’t got anything better to do? If “Pride” shirts aren’t worn to gain attention, why are they worn? Back in the 90s my kid wore a “Buck the Irish” shirt, which also has no offensive words in it, but was asked to turn it inside out. It was probably closer to offensive than Let’s Go Brandon. Buck was referring to the Ohio State Buckeyes, but I can see where that would carry more concern than Let’s Go Brandon. Schools don’t seem to mind agreeing to keep transgender issues from parents, or have drag queen story hour for pre school, but they are disturbed by these shirts. If Itks a progressive leftist cause, it remains. If it is the opposite, out it goes.
One of the biggest gaslights by the liberal media ever. They deserved to be mocked. The right of free speech does not end at the schoolhouse door.
other students were allowed to wear political apparel supporting other causes, including “gay-pride-themed hoodies.”
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.”
The ‘teaching’ profession has reached new depths of depravity. Drag queens, homosexual instruction, child sexual grooming, coerced transitioning kids and sexually assaulting kids.
Public School Teachers Have A Serious Child Sex Abuse Problem
https://www.stopchildabuse.org/en/news/public-school-teachers-have-a-serious-child-sex-abuse-problem
Bet SCOTUS turns this down just because it is minors in school and they buy the argument ‘students’ are the wards of bureaucrats while on school property!
Nope. If that’s what the majority really think, then they should accept the case and overturn Tinker. But there doesn’t seem to be a majority for that. This case is about whether the shirt in question is more like the Tinkers’ armbands, which are protected speech in schools, or whether it’s more like Cohen’s jacket, which is not.
whether it’s more like Cohen’s jacket, which is not…. but you’re not a lawyer in that, or are you?
Right!… and the amazing thing is that to-day the F-Bomb is being ‘..shouted from the rooftops’ everywhere you turn… I see several new videos every day on social media of loose canon Leftists screaming the F Bomb in the faces of ICE agents and at everything and everyone else, whether in person or digitally… the discourse has become appalling and energy draining.. yet this also supports that the language is indeed a staple in ‘Free Speech……..
Yes, that word is ubiquitous in our society, as the court recognized in Cohen. However there is one place where it is still not acceptable, and that is at school. Schools can and do ban that word. Had Cohen worn his jacket at a school rather than a court, he would have lost his case.