← Facts Matter
Loading summary
Transcript3 lines
- [00:00]
A
Moving along now to the topic of free speech. A few years ago, you had an interesting situation. You had two brothers who went to middle school together over in Michigan. They came to class one day, both wearing sweatshirts, hoodies that said, let's go, Brandon on the front. Now, most people know the origin of that phrase and what it actually means, but if for some reason you don't know where it comes from, I'll quickly tell you. Back in 2021, there was a NASCAR event over at Talladega, and a driver named Brandon Brown was getting interviewed by NBC Sports. And during that interview, the crowd in the background was chanting, f Joe Biden. But the reporter, Kelly Stavis, she said that the crowd was actually chanting, let's go, Brandon. All of our partners, oh, my God, it's just such an unbelievable moment.
- [00:48]
B
Brandon, you also told me, as you can hear the chants from the crowd, let's go, Brandon. Brandon, you told me you were going to kind of hang back those first two stages and just watch and learn. What did you learn?
- [01:02]
A
And so after that interview, let's go, Brandon became basically two things at once as a meme. Firstly, it became a euphemism for the other thing that they were chanting. It's a phrase that stands in for vulgarity. But then secondly, the phrase let's go, Brandon was actually a bit more than that. From a certain perspective. It became a satire against the media itself. It was a commentary on how the media basically shapes and spins real world events and controls what the public has access to. The crowd in the background, they were clearly chanting one thing, but the TV reporter in that clip, they said that they were chanting something else, and only because it was televised that the viewers know the truth. So that's sort of the surface level as well as the deeper level understanding of that particular meme. But with all that being true, here's the question. In a school context, is it appropriate? Because schools do naturally have policies against vulgarity and profanity, and they can send kids home for wearing something that's profane. In fact, the dress code for that particular school over in Michigan, it stated that school officials can, quote, can determine if a student's dress is in conflict with state policy, is a danger to the student's health and safety, is obscene, or is disruptive to the teaching and or learning environment by calling undue attention to oneself. However, here's the question. The phrase let's go, Brandon doesn't actually contain any profane words. And if someone reads it and they happen to not know the backstory of that phrase, then it literally doesn't mean anything to them. But the school officials did not see that way, and they ordered the two brothers to remove their sweatshirts while they were in class. They did, under duress. But then the parents filed a lawsuit against the school district, saying that the school violated the Boys First Amendment rights. In February of 2022, two Tri County Middle school students wore sweatshirts to school with the phrase let's go Brandon, A political slogan critical of then president Joe Biden with origins in a profane chant. Even though the political slogan is widely used, multiple members of congress used it during floor speeches. An assistant principal and a teacher was order the boys to remove the sweatshirts. The school district relied on a policy that prohibits profane clothing. But the sweatshirts intentionally avoided using profane language. And asking the students to remove them was a violation of their first amendment rights. Our argument is simple. Students have the right to express their political views in school. School administrators should encourage students to share their beliefs as engaged citizens, not censor them the moment someone finds their message offensive. And one of the aspects to that is the question of who was actually offended by that speech. Because during the actual battle, one of the things that came out was a quote from the principal of that school saying that basically there were no disruptions noted due to the sweatshirts. And so the lawyers for the boys, they were making the argument that it was actually the faculty that found it offensive, not any of the school kids and the students. The two kids here, the two boys, they're being legally represented by the foundation for individual rights and expression, otherwise known by their acronym fire. And in their filing, they actually referenced a supreme court precedent in the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines. And that was a 1969 Supreme Court case that dealt with the question of public school kids wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam war. And as a part of that decision, all the way back in the year 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that, quote, students disagreeing with each other is not only an inevitable part of the process of attending school, it is also an important part of the educational process. Now, the lower courts, the boys actually lost the case. You had a federal judge in the year 2024 rule that the phrase let's go Brandon could reasonably be interpreted as profane as per the dress code in the school. Specifically, you had judge Paul Maloney from the western district of Michigan. He wrote the following in that court order. Quote, 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. Administrators and teachers could prohibit apparel that reads F Joe Biden or uses homophones for profane words such as somebody went to Hoover dam and all I got was this damn shirt because defendants reasonably interpreted the phrase as having a profane meaning. The school district can regulate wearing of let's go Brandon apparel during school without showing interference or disruption at the school. Now, the parents then appealed this decision, but last October, the sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them once again. In a split 2 to 1 decision the the 6th Circuit, they confirmed that the case was covered under the vulgarity exception to the Supreme Court precedent. You had Judge John Nalbadian, who was appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump. He wrote the following as a part of the majority in the case, quote, the Constitution doesn't hamstring school administrators when they are trying to limit profanity and vulgarity in the classroom during school hours. They're not powerless to prevent student speech that the administrators reasonably understand to be profane or vulgar. Basically, the majority of that appellate court was erring on the side of the school administrators. However, the parents for the two boys, they appealed that decision again, this time all the way up to the U.S. supreme Court. And they were asking the court a very simple basic question. Can schools ban sanitized political expression just because somebody could consider it to be profane? And as a part of their petition to the US Supreme Court, the lawyers representing the boys, they wrote the following quote, allowing individual teachers and administrators to decide what is vulgar is unworkable. A political shirt could have first Amendment protection in second period algebra, but not in third period biology. And permitting each teacher to create and enforce their own test for vulgarity is a recipe for viewpoint discrimination. The school district's censorship assumes that students cannot handle seeing even sanitized expressions. But America's next generation is not so fragile and the First Amendment is not so brittle. And indeed, the case does appear to be far reaching enough, evidenced by the fact that the U.S. supreme Court has decided to take it up. Oral arguments are set to happen later this year. In the meantime, though, let me know your thoughts. Should schools allow a phrase like let's go Brandon to be worn on shirts during class, or is it legitimately too distracting and draws too much attention to themselves at the detriment of the class learning whatever the subject is? And perhaps more fundamentally, is the profanity rule as it's currently implemented too broad and gives too much discretion to teachers who are. I mean, let's just admit it, overwhelmingly belonging to one political party over the other. I'd love to know your thoughts. Please leave them in the comments section below. And then also if you want to dig deeper into the specifics of this case, including the arguments for, against, and the the district court ruling, as well as the appellate court ruling. All those core documents will be found down in the description box below, which is of course that description box right below those like and subscribe buttons, both of which you hope you smash so this video can reach ever more people via the YouTube algorithm. And then, until next time, I'm your host Roman from the Epoch Times. Stay informed and most importantly, stay free.