Evidently it's now okay to ban facially ordinary speech if someone else >perceives it to be vulgar. The spiral continues apace.
https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-michigan-school-supreme-court-d683aeba76e285321c9b38aa6a3271e4
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to a school >district's ban on shirts with the phrase "Let's Go Brandon".
The phrase is a jab at former President Joe Biden with a coded reference to >profanity. A Michigan mother of two says the school's ban is a 1st Amendment >violation. The school told her sons to take off the sweatshirts she bought >them for Christmas in 2022.
Lower courts upheld the ban, finding the veiled vulgarity of the phrase allows >schools to ban it. It functions as a stand-in for "Fuck Joe Biden".
. . .
Evidently it's now okay to ban facially ordinary speech if someone else perceives it to be vulgar. The spiral continues apace.
https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-michigan-school-supreme-court-d683aeba76e285321c9b38aa6a3271e4
WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to a school district's ban on shirts with the phrase "Let's Go Brandon".
The phrase is a jab at former President Joe Biden with a coded reference to profanity. A Michigan mother of two says the school's ban is a 1st Amendment violation. The school told her sons to take off the sweatshirts she bought them for Christmas in 2022.
Lower courts upheld the ban, finding the veiled vulgarity of the phrase allows
schools to ban it. It functions as a stand-in for "Fuck Joe Biden".
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 was evidence that some students who wore clothing that read "Make America Great Again" or had messages supporting President Donald Trump were also told to take them off.
[Did the school prohibit students from wearing clothing supporting Democrat candidates/issues also? My gut says no.]
On 10/5/2026 6:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Evidently it's now okay to ban facially ordinary speech if someone else
perceives it to be vulgar. The spiral continues apace.
https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-michigan-school-supreme-court-d683aeba76e285321c9b38aa6a3271e4
WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to a school
district's ban on shirts with the phrase "Let's Go Brandon".
The phrase is a jab at former President Joe Biden with a coded reference to >> profanity. A Michigan mother of two says the school's ban is a 1st Amendment
violation. The school told her sons to take off the sweatshirts she bought >> them for Christmas in 2022.
Lower courts upheld the ban, finding the veiled vulgarity of the phrase
allows
schools to ban it. It functions as a stand-in for "Fuck Joe Biden".
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 was evidence that some students who wore clothing that read "Make
America Great Again" or had messages supporting President Donald Trump were >> also told to take them off.
[Did the school prohibit students from wearing clothing supporting Democrat >> candidates/issues also? My gut says no.]
If, in principle, we support the concept of "community standards", which
is inherently bound to subjective enforcement, then I see nothing
outrageous here. The Biden shirt is vulgar, and the MAGA one political.
On Oct 6, 2026 at 8:40:39 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/5/2026 6:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Evidently it's now okay to ban facially ordinary speech if someone else >>> perceives it to be vulgar. The spiral continues apace.
https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-michigan-school-supreme-court-d683aeba76e285321c9b38aa6a3271e4
WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to a school >>> district's ban on shirts with the phrase "Let's Go Brandon".
The phrase is a jab at former President Joe Biden with a coded reference to
profanity. A Michigan mother of two says the school's ban is a 1st Amendment
violation. The school told her sons to take off the sweatshirts she bought
them for Christmas in 2022.
Lower courts upheld the ban, finding the veiled vulgarity of the phrase >>> allows
schools to ban it. It functions as a stand-in for "Fuck Joe Biden".
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 was evidence that some students who wore clothing that read "Make >>> America Great Again" or had messages supporting President Donald Trump were
also told to take them off.
[Did the school prohibit students from wearing clothing supporting Democrat
candidates/issues also? My gut says no.]
If, in principle, we support the concept of "community standards", which
is inherently bound to subjective enforcement, then I see nothing
outrageous here. The Biden shirt is vulgar, and the MAGA one political.
Again, the question that the media leaves unanswered-- not because they're incompetent but because they have an agenda of their own, one suspects with good reason-- is whether they prohibited the Trump-wear due to it being political but allowed Democrat-wear. Just as the schools that allow the students to pour out into the streets to protest ICE would never allow them to
do the same thing to protest *against* illegal immigration or abortion or for gun rights. The school admins that allow teachers to festoon their classrooms with BLM posters, gay pride flags, and the flag of the Soviet Union would never allow a conservative teacher to hang the Gadsden flag or a MAGA poster or even a poster simply quoting the 2nd Amendment.
The one-sided censorship-- the state picking and choosing what viewpoints are approved and allowed and which ones are not-- is the real issue here and one that is never highlighted or discussed by the media when these stories come up.
Evidently it's now okay to ban facially
ordinary speech if someone else
perceives it to be vulgar. The spiral continues apace.
https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-michigan-school-supreme-court-d683aeba76e285321c9b38aa6a3271e4
WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to a school district's ban on shirts with the phrase "Let's Go Brandon".
The phrase is a jab at former President Joe Biden with a coded reference to profanity. A Michigan mother of two says the school's ban is a 1st Amendment violation. The school told her sons to take off the sweatshirts she bought them for Christmas in 2022.
Lower courts upheld the ban, finding the veiled vulgarity of the phrase allows
schools to ban it. It functions as a stand-in for "Fuck Joe Biden".
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 was evidence that some students who wore clothing that read "Make America Great Again" or had messages supporting President Donald Trump were also told to take them off.
[Did the school prohibit students from wearing clothing supporting Democrat candidates/issues also? My gut says no.]
On 10/6/2026 12:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 6, 2026 at 8:40:39 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/5/2026 6:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Again, the question that the media leaves unanswered-- not because they're >> incompetent but because they have an agenda of their own, one suspects with >> good reason-- is whether they prohibited the Trump-wear due to it being
Evidently it's now okay to ban facially ordinary speech if someone else >>>> perceives it to be vulgar. The spiral continues apace.
https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-michigan-school-supreme-court-d683aeba76e285321c9b38aa6a3271e4
WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to a school >>>> district's ban on shirts with the phrase "Let's Go Brandon".
The phrase is a jab at former President Joe Biden with a coded
reference to
profanity. A Michigan mother of two says the school's ban is a 1st
Amendment
violation. The school told her sons to take off the sweatshirts she bought
them for Christmas in 2022.
Lower courts upheld the ban, finding the veiled vulgarity of the phrase >>>> allows
schools to ban it. It functions as a stand-in for "Fuck Joe Biden". >>>>
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 was evidence that some students who wore clothing that read "Make >>>> America Great Again" or had messages supporting President Donald Trump >>>> were
also told to take them off.
[Did the school prohibit students from wearing clothing supporting
Democrat
candidates/issues also? My gut says no.]
If, in principle, we support the concept of "community standards", which >>> is inherently bound to subjective enforcement, then I see nothing
outrageous here. The Biden shirt is vulgar, and the MAGA one political. >>
political but allowed Democrat-wear. Just as the schools that allow the
students to pour out into the streets to protest ICE would never allow them >> to
do the same thing to protest *against* illegal immigration or abortion or >> for
gun rights. The school admins that allow teachers to festoon their
classrooms
with BLM posters, gay pride flags, and the flag of the Soviet Union would >> never allow a conservative teacher to hang the Gadsden flag or a MAGA poster
or even a poster simply quoting the 2nd Amendment.
The one-sided censorship-- the state picking and choosing what viewpoints >> are
approved and allowed and which ones are not-- is the real issue here and one
that is never highlighted or discussed by the media when these stories come >> up.
Without closer examination anyway, I don't think the mainstream media
has a corporate agenda beyond thriving financially.
On Oct 6, 2026 at 8:40:39 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/5/2026 6:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Evidently it's now okay to ban facially ordinary speech if someone else >>> perceives it to be vulgar. The spiral continues apace.
https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-michigan-school-supreme-court-d683aeba76e285321c9b38aa6a3271e4
WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to a school >>> district's ban on shirts with the phrase "Let's Go Brandon".
The phrase is a jab at former President Joe Biden with a coded reference to
profanity. A Michigan mother of two says the school's ban is a 1st Amendment
violation. The school told her sons to take off the sweatshirts she bought
them for Christmas in 2022.
Lower courts upheld the ban, finding the veiled vulgarity of the phrase >>> allows
schools to ban it. It functions as a stand-in for "Fuck Joe Biden".
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 was evidence that some students who wore clothing that read "Make >>> America Great Again" or had messages supporting President Donald Trump were
also told to take them off.
[Did the school prohibit students from wearing clothing supporting Democrat
candidates/issues also? My gut says no.]
If, in principle, we support the concept of "community standards", which
is inherently bound to subjective enforcement, then I see nothing
outrageous here. The Biden shirt is vulgar, and the MAGA one political.
Again, the question that the media leaves unanswered-- not because they're incompetent but because they have an agenda of their own, one suspects with good reason-- is whether they prohibited the Trump-wear due to it being political but allowed Democrat-wear. Just as the schools that allow the students to pour out into the streets to protest ICE would never allow them to
do the same thing to protest *against* illegal immigration or abortion or for gun rights. The school admins that allow teachers to festoon their classrooms with BLM posters, gay pride flags, and the flag of the Soviet Union would never allow a conservative teacher to hang the Gadsden flag or a MAGA poster or even a poster simply quoting the 2nd Amendment.
The one-sided censorship-- the state picking and choosing what viewpoints are approved and allowed and which ones are not-- is the real issue here and one that is never highlighted or discussed by the media when these stories come up.
On 2026-10-05 6:57 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
Evidently it's now okay to ban facially
Facially? Did you mean to say "factually"? I have no idea what "facially ordinary speech" is....
ordinary speech if someone elseI remember a girl in my residence that sometimes work a sweatshirt that said:
perceives it to be vulgar. The spiral continues apace.
https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-michigan-school-supreme-court-d683aeba76e285321c9b38aa6a3271e4
WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to a school
district's ban on shirts with the phrase "Let's Go Brandon".
The phrase is a jab at former President Joe Biden with a coded reference to >> profanity. A Michigan mother of two says the school's ban is a 1st Amendment
violation. The school told her sons to take off the sweatshirts she bought >> them for Christmas in 2022.
Lower courts upheld the ban, finding the veiled vulgarity of the phrase
allows
schools to ban it. It functions as a stand-in for "Fuck Joe Biden".
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 was evidence that some students who wore clothing that read "Make
America Great Again" or had messages supporting President Donald Trump were >> also told to take them off.
[Did the school prohibit students from wearing clothing supporting Democrat >> candidates/issues also? My gut says no.]
"University of Tuktoyaktuk
Tuk U"
(Tuktoyaktuk is a very small aboriginal community in the Far North of
this country along the coast of the Arctic Ocean; they don't have a university but a lot of T-shirts mentioning the imaginary university
have been sold.)
On Oct 6, 2026 at 1:37:14 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-05 6:57 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
Evidently it's now okay to ban facially
Facially? Did you mean to say "factually"? I have no idea what "facially
ordinary speech" is....
No, I used the right word. Facially ordinary speech is speech that is inoffensive on its face.
ordinary speech if someone elseI remember a girl in my residence that sometimes work a sweatshirt that
perceives it to be vulgar. The spiral continues apace.
https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-michigan-school-supreme-court-d683aeba76e285321c9b38aa6a3271e4
WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to a school >>> district's ban on shirts with the phrase "Let's Go Brandon".
The phrase is a jab at former President Joe Biden with a coded reference to
profanity. A Michigan mother of two says the school's ban is a 1st Amendment
violation. The school told her sons to take off the sweatshirts she bought
them for Christmas in 2022.
Lower courts upheld the ban, finding the veiled vulgarity of the phrase >>> allows
schools to ban it. It functions as a stand-in for "Fuck Joe Biden".
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 was evidence that some students who wore clothing that read "Make >>> America Great Again" or had messages supporting President Donald Trump were
also told to take them off.
[Did the school prohibit students from wearing clothing supporting Democrat
candidates/issues also? My gut says no.]
said:
"University of Tuktoyaktuk
Tuk U"
(Tuktoyaktuk is a very small aboriginal community in the Far North of
this country along the coast of the Arctic Ocean; they don't have a
university but a lot of T-shirts mentioning the imaginary university
have been sold.)
A few years back some intramural basketball team in the Midwest made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin' Whities" to show white people how having their race used as a team mascot was offensive when it's done with Indians. Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying "Fightin' Whities" merchandise and wearing proudly. The team eventually had to
start putting social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still selling them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white people from using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of 'progressives' like that.
On Oct 6, 2026 at 1:22:52 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 10/6/2026 12:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Oct 6, 2026 at 8:40:39 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 10/5/2026 6:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Again, the question that the media leaves unanswered-- not because they're
Evidently it's now okay to ban facially ordinary speech if someone else
perceives it to be vulgar. The spiral continues apace.
https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-michigan-school-supreme-court-d683aeba76e285321c9b38aa6a3271e4
WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to a school
district's ban on shirts with the phrase "Let's Go Brandon".
The phrase is a jab at former President Joe Biden with a coded
reference to
profanity. A Michigan mother of two says the school's ban is a 1st >>>>> Amendment
violation. The school told her sons to take off the sweatshirts she bought
them for Christmas in 2022.
Lower courts upheld the ban, finding the veiled vulgarity of the phrase
allows
schools to ban it. It functions as a stand-in for "Fuck Joe Biden". >>>>>
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 was evidence that some students who wore clothing that read "Make
America Great Again" or had messages supporting President Donald Trump
were
also told to take them off.
[Did the school prohibit students from wearing clothing supporting >>>>> Democrat
candidates/issues also? My gut says no.]
If, in principle, we support the concept of "community standards", which >>>> is inherently bound to subjective enforcement, then I see nothing
outrageous here. The Biden shirt is vulgar, and the MAGA one political. >>>
incompetent but because they have an agenda of their own, one suspects with
good reason-- is whether they prohibited the Trump-wear due to it being >>> political but allowed Democrat-wear. Just as the schools that allow the >>> students to pour out into the streets to protest ICE would never allow them
to
do the same thing to protest *against* illegal immigration or abortion or >>> for
gun rights. The school admins that allow teachers to festoon their
classrooms
with BLM posters, gay pride flags, and the flag of the Soviet Union would >>> never allow a conservative teacher to hang the Gadsden flag or a MAGA poster
or even a poster simply quoting the 2nd Amendment.
The one-sided censorship-- the state picking and choosing what viewpoints >>> are
approved and allowed and which ones are not-- is the real issue here and one
that is never highlighted or discussed by the media when these stories come
up.
Without closer examination anyway, I don't think the mainstream media
has a corporate agenda beyond thriving financially.
Then it's just a random coincidence that every mainstream media organization save one has a hard-left bias?
On Oct 6, 2026 at 1:37:14 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-05 6:57 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
Evidently it's now okay to ban facially
Facially? Did you mean to say "factually"? I have no idea what "facially
ordinary speech" is....
No, I used the right word. Facially ordinary speech is speech that is inoffensive on its face.
ordinary speech if someone elseI remember a girl in my residence that sometimes work a sweatshirt that
perceives it to be vulgar. The spiral continues apace.
https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-michigan-school-supreme-court-d683aeba76e285321c9b38aa6a3271e4
WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to a school >>> district's ban on shirts with the phrase "Let's Go Brandon".
The phrase is a jab at former President Joe Biden with a coded reference to
profanity. A Michigan mother of two says the school's ban is a 1st Amendment
violation. The school told her sons to take off the sweatshirts she bought
them for Christmas in 2022.
Lower courts upheld the ban, finding the veiled vulgarity of the phrase >>> allows
schools to ban it. It functions as a stand-in for "Fuck Joe Biden".
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 was evidence that some students who wore clothing that read "Make >>> America Great Again" or had messages supporting President Donald Trump were
also told to take them off.
[Did the school prohibit students from wearing clothing supporting Democrat
candidates/issues also? My gut says no.]
said:
"University of Tuktoyaktuk
Tuk U"
(Tuktoyaktuk is a very small aboriginal community in the Far North of
this country along the coast of the Arctic Ocean; they don't have a
university but a lot of T-shirts mentioning the imaginary university
have been sold.)
A few years back some intramural basketball team in the Midwest made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin' Whities" to show white people how having their race used as a team mascot was offensive when it's done with Indians. Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying "Fightin' Whities" merchandise and wearing proudly. The team eventually had to
start putting social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still selling them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white people from using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of 'progressives' like that.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 95:58:37 |
| Calls: | 221 |
| Files: | 21,513 |
| Messages: | 85,872 |