A student known only as “D.A.” was told last spring by Assistant Principal Andrew Buikema and teacher Wendy Bradford at the Tri County (Michigan) Middle School to remove his “Let’s Go Brandon!” hoodie. The school’s dress code states that school officials can “determine [if] a student’s dress is in conflict with state policy, is a danger to the students’ health and safety, is obscene, [or] is disruptive to the teaching and/or learning environment by calling undue attention to oneself.” Western District of Michigan Judge Paul Maloney ruled that the teacher and the principle were within the standards articulated by SCOTUS in in Tinker v. Des Moines in banning the hoodie.
“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,” Maloney wrote. (The district had banned shirts with the phrases “Fet’s Luck” and “Uranus Liquor” on them.) Maloney added that administrators and teachers could prohibit apparel that said“F#%* Joe Biden,” for example.
“Because Defendants reasonably interpreted the phrase as having a profane meaning,” Maloney said, “the School District can regulate wearing of Let’s Go Brandon apparel during school without showing interference or disruption at the school….”
The judge is right. Prof. Turley, whose analysis Ethics Alarms usually concurs, is wrong this time, and so is FIRE. He argues in part,
The lawsuit filed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) makes a compelling case that the schools acted in an unconstitutional fashion in censoring the political message.
“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!’”…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.”
That seems a strikingly biased and selective enforcement of the policy….As the Supreme Court stated in Iancu v. Brunetti (2019), “viewpoint discrimination is an egregious form of content discrimination and is presumptively unconstitutional.”
…While the district may find lower court judges who would support the district, it should lose this case as a denial of protected speech. What is so troubling is the message being taught here by the district. It is one of arbitrary enforcement and speech intolerance. It is precisely why we are seeing a generation of speech phobic students entering higher education. They have been taught since elementary school that speech is harmful and they do not have to tolerate the opposing views of others. My guess is that it is the teachers, not the students, who are most offended by anti-Biden sentiments.
No, Prof. Turley, the funny thing is that is that the slogan is obscene (not “profane.”) Does anyone believe that a student intends “Let’s Go Brandon!” as a statement “against the bias of the media”? If so, I am Marie of Rumania. From the very beginning of the “Let’s Go Brandon!” saga, the phrase has been used as code for “Fuck Joe Biden!” (Ethics Alarms has discussed this (like here, item #2), as well as the fact that using codes for “fuck” are the same as saying or writing “fuck.” A school has many good reasons for not allowing students to wear apparel saying “Fuck the President of the United States,” or “F— Joe Biden,” or “F-word Joe Biden.” The shirt in question isn’t “viewpoint discrimination,” it’s barely-coded obscenity in a school environment.
Prof. Turley is a First Amendment absolutist, and I respect that, but in this case that bias has made him stupid. “Let’s Go Brandon!”means “Fuck Joe Biden!” and everyone knows it, certainly the kid wearing the message. “Fuck Joe Biden!” is not appropriate speech in a classroom. It is unethical for a student to broadcast it in school, and well withing Tinker for a school to stop him from doing it.
It’s as simple as that.
Ethics Alarms 
Disappointed in FIRE and Bill Jacobson and Prof. Turley. A no brainer. They blew it.
How about a – Kameltoe Has Got to Go, t-shirt?
Nothing profane about that.
No, it’s not appropriate for a classroom, it’s absolutely a coded obscenity and it’s also political speech.
So the issue is really about a subjective scale of what constitutes coded obscenity and political speech. For example, in AM G’s classroom it’s inappropriate but in my classroom it’s a-okay and the inspiration for classroom discussion. I know a teachable moment when I see one…🤠
I think that’s right. It is nearly impossible to define obscenity. When SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart was asked to describe his test for obscenity in 1964, he responded: “I know it when I see it.” Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964). SCOTUS has tried to formalize a standard but it has created more confusion than clarity.
jvb
I’ve always taken it as mocking the media for transparently covering for Biden. Crude mockery, perhaps, but pointedly using their dishonesty against them.
That’s how it originated. Instead of reporting accurately that some members of the crowd were cursing Biden, the reporter played it off like they were cheering a race car driver named Brandon.
Since that time, however, the phrase, “Let’s Go Brandon” has become code for the original uncivil chant.
I am not sure that coded messages that on their face are hardly obscene can be automatically be categorized as obscene.
There is no doubt that Let’s Go Brandon was a statement made by a newscaster to camouflage the yelling in the background. However, the message has become simply an anti-Biden sentiment voiced by a student probably reflecting parental opinions that have been inculcated in the teen.
No one can actually believe that it advocates the forced coitus with Biden.
in my opinion to be obscene the language itself must be defined as obscene or the act is obscene and explicitly intended.
Obscenity is hard to define and if the word Fuck is deemed obscene then every utterance heard within the school must face disciplinary action. That would include faculty and administrators who also tend to include the word in their daily lexicon.
I have to side with professor Turley on this because I have a hard time believing the school administrator considers the words to translate to something obscene when they tend to ignore the actual word daily. Because they do not discipline students for using the actual word then I can only conclude they find it obscene because it is a political opinion that they do not favor.
Follow-up: What happens when students show up in Gay pride regalia or simply rainbow wear. Some classrooms incorporate imagery of LGBTQ lifestyles to promote diversity. Many associate gay pride with gay pride parades that are often populated with highly sexualized attire to accentuate their lifestyle. These people would find any LGBTQ related materials or clothing obscene for the association with what they see at gay pride parades.
I would not ban this even though some may find any attire or fashion accoutrements promoting gay lifestyles obscene. One persons obscene is not obscene to others.
The above is provided to give readers a better understanding of my thinking on this matter.
Are the students allowed to use other generally impolite language while in school? Are they typically prohibited from saying “fucking” this, or “God damn” that in class under the current rules, but ignored if they say “friggin'” or “gol dang”? If so, the case for banning the shirt’s euphemism as obscenity seems weak. I might support disallowing it under a rule that forbids any politically-related or social issue messaging, advocacy, or commentary as potentially disruptive. Though that still bothers me on principle, schools (particularly grade schools) need some leniency to maintain the ability to do their teaching job without undue distraction and interruption. That still leaves some grey area…rainbow shirts, NRA logos,…? I don’t envy the school administrators.
I suspect the administrations would treat anything written down differently than verbal utterances. Legally, is there a difference between writing “Let’s Go Brandon” on your text book and saying it out loud? Both are ‘speech’, right?
I tend to agree with Turley on this one. He is an absolutist, but I tend that way as well.
I also would not envy school administrations on these matters, especially if they are trying to be even-handed (rare as that might be).