The ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney in the Western District of Michigan regarding the case of a student wearing a "Let’s Go Brandon" T-shirt has sparked controversy. The judge rejected the free speech claim, allowing school officials to punish the student for the slogan. This decision, in my opinion, sets a dangerous precedent.
The phrase "Let’s Go Brandon!" originated from an interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown, where NBC reporter Kelli Stavast misinterpreted chants of "F*** Joe Biden" as "Let’s Go Brandon." The phrase has since become a rallying cry against media bias.
In this case, a student was ordered to remove his sweater with the slogan by school officials, claiming it violated the dress code. However, the slogan itself is not profane but a substitution for profane words. The judge’s ruling allows schools to prohibit clothing with messages that can be reasonably interpreted as profane, even if they are not explicitly so.
While the judge acknowledges the importance of political expression, he argues that the slogan in question does not constitute speech on public issues but as a personal insult towards a political figure. This ruling raises concerns about the limits of free speech in schools and the interpretation of seemingly innocuous phrases as profane.
Analysis of Free Speech and Political Commentary in Schools
The court’s interpretation of speech involving the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” raises important questions about the boundaries of free speech. The controversial slogan, often used as a substitute for explicit profanity directed at the President, serves as a form of political commentary and satire. It challenges the role of the media in shaping public perception and questions the alliance between government and the press.
Judge Maloney’s reliance on the Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser case from 1986, which dealt with a student’s sexually suggestive speech during a school event, sets a precedent for restricting offensive language in educational settings. The court emphasized the importance of promoting civil conduct and discouraging lewd or indecent speech.
While the court acknowledged that schools have the authority to regulate speech, the decision to prohibit a “F**k Joe Biden” sweatshirt raises concerns about the limits of political expression. The comparison to previous cases, such as Cohen v. California, highlights the complexity of balancing free speech rights with the need for maintaining a respectful environment in schools.
Contrary to the court’s ruling, other circuits have recognized the value of allowing speech that comments on political or social issues, even if it may be perceived as offensive. The decision to restrict the “Let’s Go Brandon” slogan appears to impose a restrictive standard on political speech in educational settings.
As highlighted in the book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” the regulation of speech based on its perceived value or impact can lead to censorship of important political discourse. The need to uphold civil discourse in schools should not come at the expense of limiting students’ ability to engage in meaningful political expression.
Overall, the case raises important questions about the balance between free speech rights and the regulation of offensive language in educational settings. Judge Maloney’s decision to restrict the “Let’s Go Brandon” slogan reflects a cautious approach to protecting civil discourse, but may also infringe on students’ right to engage in political commentary.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
Loading…