Supreme Court rejects appeal over Michigan school's ban on ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ sweatshirts
The Supreme Court is rebuffing an appeal from a Michigan woman fighting a school district’s ban on shirts with the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon,” a jab at then-President Joe Biden with a coded reference to profanity.
The mother of two boys says their First Amendment rights were violated when they were told to take off the sweatshirts she bought them for Christmas in 2022.
A lower court disagreed, finding that the veiled vulgarity of the phrase, which functions as a stand-in for “F-— Joe Biden,” allows schools to ban it.
The woman’s attorneys argued that the decision wrongly gives school officials wide latitude to squelch political speech based on their personal ideas of what is vulgar. The phrase itself doesn’t contain any swear words or sexual implications, they said.
The school district urged the justices to reject the case, arguing that messages with lewd implications have no place in school, even if they touch on political topics. There has been evidence that some students wore clothing that read “Make America Great Again” or had messages supporting President Donald Trump, a Republican who lost the 2020 election to Biden, a Democrat.
https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-michigan-school-supreme-court-d683aeba76e285321c9b38aa6a3271e4Open linkView original on piefed.blahaj.zone
17 replies
For the life of me I can't figure out why young people are right leaning so much. Gen x we hated the wealthy and authority and especially the religious.
When I was in middle school we couldn't wear Levi's 501 'Button Your Fly' shirts because it drew attention to the crotch.
One day, after Pee Wee's Big Arrest, I wore a shirt that said "Hey Pee Wee, Button Your Fly" and I made it all the way to 4th period before I had to turn it inside out. My 4th period teacher asked me who my first 3 teachers were for the day, because she couldn't believe I'd made it that far in the day... and when their names all started with "Mr." she just rolled her eyes and said "Figures."
I had a friend who wasn't allowed to wear his Beavis and Butthead shirt because it said butt on it. So his mom took yellow paint and painted over the "butt" making it Beavis and Head which was hilarious and A-Okay with school staff.
On 9/11/02 I woke up late and forgot about 9/11.
No one would believe my "bad cop, no doughnut" shirt was a coincidence or that anyone would forget 9/11.
My attempts to ask what making fun of bad cops had to do with 9/11 in the first place didn't help, but I got off of school, which was pretty cool...
How could you?! Alan Jackson would be very disappointed.
I forgot about those!
Yeah, I got called out immediately after making the time to take the "scenic route" that morning as well.
But anyways, it is a good example of how context needs to be part of it.
I didn't have any ill intent, but I'd have spent all day explaining that and derailing every class I walked into.
Like, people had been joining up on their 17th birthday and waiting to graduate to deploy for a year by then, someone probably would have tried to fight me.
People don't understand how crazy shit really was right after 9/11.
Students are citizens with rights. But rules about profanity are reasonable measures for good discipline.
If a student wore a You Can't Lick Our Dick button to class, what teacher do?
They are citizens with their rights suspended when they go to school. Otherwise the schools would have to have a warrant to search backpacks/lockers/cars for drugs. Also the students would be able to come and go as they please, because you can't just detain people who have rights.
Incorrect
Many schools do this already, and have for decades
They certainly have the right to. The school may have certain rules around this, including consequences for breaking those rules, but students are not prisoners while they are at school.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985).
The supreme Court ruled kids 4th amendment right to require a warrant was not eligible to be upheld in public schools.
So when a student steps onto the property of a public school that right is suspended until they leave.
As for being able to detain a student they absolutely can within reason. The courts have decided that the rights of a parent extend to the schools to detain a child do to the fact that the parents are not there.
Thus the "right" to go where you want does not truly exist for a minor whether they are on/off a public schools ground.
Kids have "rights" just not the same rights as an adult.
You have cited a court case which addresses one specifically held legal right, but that does not translate into the broad acquiescence of all legal rights as your argument suggests.
You are wrong.
Minors have full citizen rights, but until they reach age of majority, certain rights are held in trust by their presumptive guardians, who are empowered to limit and guide the exercise of said rights until they are considered fully competent citizens. Schools assume temporary guardianship while a student is in their care, which means they have the latitude to determine what is and isn't an appropriate exercise of a minor's rights. "Suspended" might be a bit of an exaggeration but the OP is roughly correct.
None of that negates what I said. And none of that, most certainly, erases the rights of the students.
I’m sorry that you have been fooled into believing otherwise. I suggest you check the laws.
No one argued they don't have rights. I don't see anyone in this entire thread making that argument. What ghost are you shadow boxing with?
Instead of focusing on what people didn’t say, perhaps you should concern yourself with what people did say. Then you would be prepared to participate in the conversation.
These people are morons but trying to ban a sweatshirt is just as dumb.
If they don't have any problems banning books then they should STFU about banned shirts