"Students Sue After Michigan School District Forces Them to Remove 'Let's Go Brandon' Sweatshirts"

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression reports on the lawsuit, in which FIRE's lawyers represent the student:

Today, two students represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sued their Michigan school district for viewpoint discrimination after they were forbidden from wearing apparel critical of President Joe Biden.

"Criticism of the president is core political speech protected by the First Amendment," said FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick. "Whether it's a Biden sticker, 'Let's Go Brandon' sweatshirt, or gay pride T-shirt, schools can't pick and choose which political beliefs students can express."

In Feb. 2022, two Tri County Middle School students wore sweatshirts to school with the phrase "Let's Go Brandon," a political slogan critical of President Biden with origins in a more 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 ordered the boys to remove the sweatshirts. However, administrators allowed students to wear apparel with other political messages, including gay-pride-themed hoodies.

The incident is part of a pattern of political favoritism by the school district. When the school district relaxed the dress code for field day, a school administrator ordered a student to stop wearing a Trump flag as a cape, but permitted other students to wear gay pride flags in the same manner.

The school district is wrongly relying on a policy that prohibits "profane" clothing to censor this particular message, but FIRE's lawsuit argues that ordering the students to remove the "Let's Go Brandon" sweatshirts violates the First Amendment.

"The slogan exists as a way to express an anti-Biden message without using profanity," explained Fitzpatrick. "A public school district cannot censor speech just because it might cause someone to think about a swear word."

This is FIRE's first lawsuit on behalf of K-12 students. FIRE's lawsuit seeks a court order blocking the school district's viewpoint-discriminatory ban on "Let's Go Brandon" apparel and a provision of its dress code banning students from wearing clothing which "calls undue attention" to the student.

This case parallels the 1969 Supreme Court case of Tinker v. Des Moines, in which the Supreme Court affirmed public school students' First Amendment right to wear black armbands to school protesting the Vietnam War. The Court stressed that 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."

"These students should not only be allowed to express their political beliefs, but should be encouraged to do so," said FIRE attorney Harrison Rosenthal. "America's students must be free to exercise their constitutional rights, not just learn about them."

Note: I have consulted for FIRE on other matters, but I haven't been at all involved with this case.

Comments

[VinniUSMC]

Progressives don't care about profanity (not that anybody should), they care about heresy, wrongthink.

If the pride flag wearing students wore a shirt that said "Fuck me in the ass", the administration wouldn't blink.

[Mr. Bumble]

Some of them might offer to accommodate adding: don't tell your parents.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why do the fans of this right-wing blog fixate on gays and anal sex?

Maybe the first impression -- this blog targets an audience of disaffected bigots -- is wrong. Maybe the aim is at closeted Republicans.

Maybe that's a large enough audience to make it worthwhile for the Conspirators.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If some young boy wore a Pride shirt and said "fuck me in the ass", the Democrats would line up and he'd be heading to the White House.

[Krychek_2]

When I was in college, back in the days before the earth's crust cooled, any profane shirt would have gotten a student in trouble. In those days, civility was enforced by the administration as well as by the social mores then in effect.

Now that civility has largely gone by the wayside, and any college that attempts to maintain civility will likely get sued, I think this lawsuit is probably right on the law. Oh how I wish it weren't, and not because I'm a Biden supporter. I'd ban the "fuck me in the ass" shirt too.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Of course, there's no profanity involved in this case.

[Kazinski]

Somewhat interesting side issue of the Carlson firing is the hostile work environment suit by one of Carlson's producers.

Not a word I use much myself is that Tucker called Sidney Powell a cunt. Now of course it isn't a polite term, but has its sexual connotation been elided? Take for example these potential off air statements in a newsroom and tell which ones would tend to create a hostile work environment and show sexism or a sexually charged environment:

"Trump is a Motherfucker."
"Schumer is a cocksucker."
"McConnell is a dick."
"Sidney Powell is a cunt."
"Buttigeig is Biden's bitch"

I'd think a producer in a newsroom would be expected to be able to hear any of those statements and respond with her own analysis even if not quite so colorfully.

Of course that doesn't mean there aren't other statements that are of a different nature, but I think the Powell statement undercuts the rest of the lawsuit.

If someone wore a "fuck me in the ass" sweatshirt on campus I could see a hostile environment complaint, but any of those statements above aren't really about sex, or manhating , gay bashing, or misogyny.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I hate to say this, but I'd ignore the "fuck me in the ass" shirt.

[Estragon]

These students should be able to identify themselves as huckleberries for all to see. The school is wrong here. As for laying this all at the feet of progressives, who wrote the majority opinion in Morse again?

[not guilty]

¨If the pride flag wearing students wore a shirt that said ´Fuck me in the ass´, the administration wouldn’t blink.¨

The First Amendment permits school authorities to discipline a student for lewd or indecent speech, even if it is not obscene. Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). A student wearing a pride shirt without a vulgar message is probably protected under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969), but Fraser would likely permit discipline for the particular message posited by VinniUSMC.

[VinniUSMC]

Yup.

[CeeCie]

It would be difficult to find an adult or teen in the US who does NOT know to what the phrase, “Let’s Go Brandon” refers. If a person knows that reference, then they know it’s a cover for profanity. This is not about exercising constitutional rights to support Trump, otherwise the students would be satisfied with wearing a “Go Trump” shirt. They insist on wearing the “Let’s Go Brandon” shirt because they want to (not so) covertly get away with saying, “Fuck Biden”, and act stupid, pretending they don’t know what it means.
I would also be opposed to “Fuck Me in the Ass”, or a rainbow shirt that had FMITA on it. I believe the school district wouldn’t allow this because it’s the profanity that is in question, not the politics.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"A public school district cannot censor speech just because it might cause someone to think about a swear word."

Yeah! Who do they think they are -- a white, male, right-wing blog with a vanishingly thin academic veneer and an affinity for racial slurs?

[Theendoftheleft]

Stop insinuating that you’re a real academic, Rev. How many times must it be stated: you would never even qualify for an academic position at a good university in another advanced Western country.

You have also repeatedly stated that all religion is false and should be eradicated from society. You feign tolerance (for some) and bandy about the term ‘Islamophobia’, when you demonstrate repeatedly that don’t mean it at all. YOU are the mortal, existential enemy of Islam. You will have a fatwa brought upon you, your faculty, and your family.

Furthermore, you aren’t equal, evolutionary dud, and it’s not a function of a ‘phobia’ to note that, either.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Stop insinuating that you’re a real academic, Rev.

When has he ever insinuated that?

[Theendoftheleft]

Are you joking? As just one type of example, when he repeatedly insists that American conservative legal academics (in contrast to folks like himself) can only get placed in fourth-tier law schools for a reason.

[DaveM]

If it helps, think of the Rev. as a bot: he's just some algorithm spitting out the same text adventure game responses every time you enter the room.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

just some algorithm spitting out the same text adventure game responses every time you enter the room.

That also describes the Volokh Conspiracy, especially lately (after Prof. Kerr and a few others distanced themselves from this flaming shitstorm).

The VC algorithm seems to focus on transgender parenting, lesbians, drag queens, transgender parenting, gay drama (non-Peter Thiel), transgender restrooms, Muslims, and white grievance in particular.

[Theendoftheleft]

Isn't it obvious? For one thing, those identity politics themes dominate academic and media discourses presently, and reflect totalitarian-Jacobin efforts by American blue team imbeciles to try to normalize these things. You know, as part of a pervasive social engineering project by pretentious morons who lack both the knowledge and skill set to do any such thing. (This, in the grand American, Elizabeth Holmes-style, 'fake it till you make it', fashion.) Hypocritical, mindless folks like yourself who prattle on about 'Islamophobia' despite making it abundantly clear that they don't actually respect Islam at all. People who insist upon gender's being nothing more than a social construct, yet insisting that it is -- somehow -- 'essential' to trans identities, and that those identities aren't merely to be held in esteem, but also that pronoun usage ought to be policed.

For another thing, focusing on identity politics helps to distract people, including readers of this site, from the country's rapid decline and loss of influence.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I guess it is natural that this blog attracts right-wing Russians.

[Theendoftheleft]

I’m certainly no Russian. Feel free to call me one, though. (Still, it’s ironic that you American blue teamers claim to be anti-Putin, despite your conspicuous efforts over the last few years to systematically dismantle procedural, rule of law protections in your own country whilst also championing a plutocratic leader.)

From hereon your name will be AIDS.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The more relevant case is Pyle v. South Hadley School Committee, 861 F.Supp. 157 (D.Mass.1994).

This was the "Coed Naked T Shirts" that students at UNH were producing at the time -- for examples see: https://www.chowdaheadz.com/blogs/news/coed-naked-a-90s-classic-renewed

The Pyle boys wore them to high school and that's what led to this suit.

[Noscitur a sociis]

More relevant than what?

[David Nieporent]

Why would a non-precedential district court ruling be "more relevant" than Supreme Court cases?

[apedad]

From the lawsuit opening paragraph:

“This case is about protecting the role of America’s public schools as “nurseries of democracy.” (reference omitted). Our schools train the next generation to live in a country where their neighbors and coworkers might not think, pray, or vote the same way they do.”

OH BOY! I can’t wait for the FIRE lawsuit in Florida.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is about STUDENT free expression, not about curriculum.

Florida K-12 has a dress code for employees -- had to because of inappropriate things young female teachers were wearing -- and that is different.

[Mr. Bumble]

"... because of inappropriate things young female teachers were wearing .."
Hot for teacher?

[Eugene Volokh]

1. You need not wait for the FIRE lawsuit as to the Stop WOKE Act Florida university curricula; FIRE brought one of the (so far successful) challenges to that, see here, and is continuing to litigate it on appeal. See also, for instance, FIRE's lawsuits against Collin College on behalf of professors who engaged in union advocacy, supported the removal of Confederate monuments, and the like.

2. FIRE is not, to my knowledge, challenging the Stop WOKE Act as it applies to K-12 curricula, likely because the law is pretty well settled: The state legislature does have broad power to direct what its employees teach in K-12 schools.

3. I don't know of any restrictions on K-12 student speech in Florida, but if there are some that go outside the boundaries set by Tinker, Fraser, Morse, and Hazelwood, I expect FIRE would be quite interested in challenging them.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe they were just big fans of SF Giants SS Brandon Crawford (my daughters are)
I heard "Brandon's" announcing his reerection bid today, has anyone told him?

Frank

[John F. Carr]

"A public school district cannot censor speech just because it might cause someone to think about a swear word."

When I was in school children would sing "Hello, Operator" to demonstrate how close they could get to saying bad words.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Operator"? Was there ever such a thing?

[DaveM]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Susie

[santamonica811]

Dave,
Thanks so much for the link. The rhyme never made it to my school, so I've heard it only in tiny snippet, when references in TV shows. I would have had no idea how to look it up on Wiki.

Today I learned... 🙂

[Bored Lawyer]

Back in the dark ages.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe I have a touch of geezer nostalgia, but they didn't seem so dark.

[Bored Lawyer]

THe other day, my wife and I were watching a period piece from the early 1960s. Someone dialed a rotary telephone. I asked my wife, "Do you remember those?" She did.

[John F. Carr]

I showed a two year old a book with a picture of a rotary telephone in it. She asked "what's that?" I used to dial them. My town's phone system upgraded from electromechanical to ESS when I was in school. I remember 5 digit dialing, but not referring to exchanges with letters instead of numbers.

[Frank Drackman]

Did they ask the butcher if he had Pig's Feet?

[GKHoffman]

Or the tobacco shop if they had Prince Albert in a can?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Fledgling culture war losers have rights, too, even in shambling, half-educated, Republican backwaters. Freedom is not just for society's winners and better elements; these students should get to wear their shirts.

[RhymesWithRight]

Given the profane origin of the phrase, might it not be appropriate for the school administrators to deem it inappropriate in a school setting -- similar to the way that a sweatshirt with a picture of Marjorie Taylor Greene and the words "Cupid Stunt" printed thereon might be deemed inappropriate? What is being banned here is NOT criticism of the president -- they could literally wear a shirt with other messages attacking the president and there not be a problem.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I don't know. Do you think a school can ban a shirt that says, "I agree with Paul Cohen about the draft."?

[RhymesWithRight]

I think you give students today much too much credit on that one.

[mulched]

Probably not. The school prevented a student from having a non-Brandon Trump flag but permitted rainbow flags.

[Nige]

The mere existence of minorities is, alas, political to some people.

[mulched]

What does the existence of minorities have to do with this case?

[Nige]

Oh, the rainbow flags were a My Little Pioy thing.

[Bored Lawyer]

Another disingenuous comment.

Try looking up the words "expression" and "speech."

[Nige]

Just an observation.

[RhymesWithRight]

Might the flag in question have created a substantial likelihood of disruption during the school day? After all, the federal courts have upheld the banning of the American flag at schools on Cinco de Mayo on precisely that basis.

[Nige]

Or not, since they were allowed.

[ReaderY]

Recent Supreme Court precedent has been rather favorable to school administrations on these issues. If a school can ban “Bong hits 4 Jesus” because of an implied reference to drug use, it can probably ban this because of an implied reference to profanity.

[David Nieporent]

implied reference to drug use

Implied?

[ReaderY]

Do you think this Supreme Court would order a school administration to accept a t-shirt with a picture of (say) Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Amy Coney Barrett (take your pick) and the words “Cupid Stunt” (hat tip RhymesWithRight)?

It’s pretty obvious what it’s referring to.

You may think the “Bong hits 4 Jesus” precedent should be overruled. Fair enough. But if it holds, I think it covers this too. I just don’t see a big difference between the two.

[VinniUSMC]

implied reference to drug use

Implied?

[ReaderY]

Bethel School District v. Fraser, which Morse v. Frederick relied on, had upheld a suspension of a student for sexually suggestive speech. Suggestive. As in implied. Yes, implied,

It’s not like Morse was decided in a vacuum and you can say anything outside its specific facts isn’t covered. The Supreme Court had upheld a school’s right to suspend a student for sexually suggestive speech long before BH4J.

What was different about Morse is that he was suspended for a single slogan. Fraser had made a whole speech. The Morse court began with Fraser, took sex as the given regarding what kind of speech can be banned in school, extended the reasoning to also include drugs, and also extended the reasoning to cover a single slogan.

But if implicit sexual suggestiveness can be banned, as Fraser held, and you can ban a single slogan, as Morse held, then it follows that you can ban a single sexually suggestive slogan.

[David Nieporent]

I didn't say anything about the BH4J precedent. I questioned your claim that drug use was merely "implied" by that statement, rather than express.

[Estragon]

Does BH4J come out the same way today? I’d bet no, and not just because of marijuana legalization in many states, including alaska

[Dr. Ed 2]

Aren't most states "over 21"?

[Sarcastr0]

Could be onomatopoeia for church bells?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bong Hits 4 Authoritarian Wingnuts.

Until replacement.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No.

There are Federal and State Drug Free Schools laws. There is no such Profanity Free School law.

While I feel that the BH4J case was wrongly decided, the distinction that I would make is that anything advocating alcohol or drugs (including tobacco) is in a different category from everything else.

The school has a duty to influence student decisions on drugs, but no such duty to influence student opinions on the merits of various politicians.

[ReaderY]

Before Morse v. Frederick, there was Bethel School District v. Fraser, which upheld suspension of a high school student for giving a sexually suggestive speech. Frederick extended the rule from Fraser that schools can discipline profanity and said it also applies to soeech about drugs. And it considerably broadened it. Fraser had given a whole sexually suggestive speech. Morse had merely displayed a banner with a single phrase. It’s not like Frederick came in out of the blue and can be limited to its specific facts. There’s a line of cases before it that considerably narrowed Tinker.

And what’s this with duties only come from the Federal Government? Unless Uncle Sam tells them so, teachers and school administrators have no duties, no say in what school rules should be?

[Dilan Esper]

This case looks like Bethel School District v. Fraser all over again to me.

[ReaderY]

Beth El v. Fraser said a school can suspend a student for an entire sexually suggestive speech. Morse v. Frederick said a school can ban a single brief slogan (about drugs, not sex, and explicit, not just suggestive).

You have to put the two cases together to arrive at a school can discipline for a single suggestive slogan. But I think these cases, taken together, pretty much constrain the result that a school can do it.

On reflection I have to agree othet commentators are correct to say this case can easily be distinguished from each of these two cases taken individually. The problem for these commentators is the two cases combined.

[M L]

A school district is a local affair. It's just absurd to have this suprastate tribunal of 9 weighing in and setting policy on stuff like this.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, we can't have the US Constitution enforced on local governments. States' rights, don't you know.

[Will Nonya]

As much as I can agree with the sentiment behind the sweatshirts they are not a way to avoid using profanity. The message behind the shirts is intentionally profane. It only avoids communicating pflrofantiy if the average person around them doesn't know the message being displayed.
The school may have a history of abusing speech but I think they picked the wrong fight here.

[gdanning]

I am assuming that FIRE'S best authority is B.H. ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area Sch. Dist. , 725 F.3d 293, which held that, under Fraser, "speech that does not rise to the level of plainly lewd and that could plausibly be interpreted as commenting on political or social issues may not be categorically restricted." 725 F.3d at 298. Now, that seems wrong to me: The speech in Fraser, after all, was also speech that did not rise to the level of plainly lewd and was about a political issue: a school election. The fact that a school election is far less weighty than a presidential one shouldn't matter much, esp given the language in Mahanoy that "Fuck cheer" was "criticism of the rules of a community of which B. L. forms a part" and which was "the kind of pure speech to which, were she an adult, the First Amendment would provide strong protection." But it is still good law, regardless of whether or not it is correct.

[ReaderY]

I think Morse v. Frederick significantly relaxed what’s required. It permitted disciplining for a single slogan with a simple reference to an off-limits topic. Fraser said sexually suggestive is off-limits, but as you note its facts involved considerably more than a single slogan.

Each case taken separately can be easily distinguished. You have to put the two together to get the result.

[Bored Lawyer]

Same reason conservatives opposed unilateral disarmament. Or as Justice Scalia well put it:

"St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules." R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 392 (1992)

[Mr. Bumble]

Civility used to be a much more common value, neither conservative nor liberal.

As for Trump is he the cause or effect?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Do you value civility, QA?

[Mr. Bumble]

Current example of civility:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12011511/United-Airlines-flight-Israel-turns-three-hours-flight.html

[VinniUSMC]

I bet you think you've made a clever point.

[Bored Lawyer]

Now poll the school administrators and whom they voted for. Bet you it's not the same percentages.

[Mr. Bumble]

It was just a question in response to your statement, which you are free to answer or not.

[VinniUSMC]

If you ever had a proper thought, it would be a miracle.

[Mr. Bumble]

Enlighten use your Majesty.

[Theendoftheleft]

That's neither what I'm arguing nor what he (has repeatedly) stated.

[Bored Lawyer]

Read my comment again. Civility is a two-way street. When the other side fights dirty, civility does not require one to fight clean.

[Krychek_2]

I would say effect. Up until fairly recently it would have been unthinkable to elect someone with his potty mouth, his talk of grabbing women by the pussy, and his acting like an unruly toddler, no matter what his policies were. Such a person simply would not have been electable. Sure, we've had uncouth vulgarians as president (think LBJ) but they managed to hide it in public. And Trump was only a viable candidate because that is no longer the country we live in.

And it's not just with language. I'm old enough to remember when you dressed up to go to dinner, when men wore a suit to go to work, when it would have been unthinkable for a woman to go to church without wearing a hat. I miss those days. People no longer care how they look or what image they present.

[Krychek_2]

I would say that Trump made an already bad situation worse. He managed to further coarsen our already coarse political discourse.

[VinniUSMC]

I hoped Queenie would be able to put 2 and 2 together on their own, but that was probably a big ask.

[John F. Carr]

In my high school the students, mostly from rich families, were 2:1 conservative and the teachers on teachers' salaries were 2:1 liberal.

[Mr. Bumble]

I take that to mean you choose not to answer. Good for you.

[Bored Lawyer]

You mean you want the right to follow the principle of "be a patsy." That's not a principle, that's stupid.

[Lee Moore]

No, you simply aren't grasping what the civility principle is.

The principle is not "always be civil" it's "respond to civility with civility, and assume the other guy is going to be civil until he demonstrates otherwise."

It's a reciprocal thing.

[Kazinski]

Well you could take that principle even further:
'If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun'
-Barack Obama

[TwelveInchPianist]

Secret?

[Bored Lawyer]

Straw Man Alert! Straw Man Alert!

You don't need a "secret stealth Democrat cabal controlling policy" for petty bureaucrats to abuse their position and make politically motivated decisions.

[VinniUSMC]

Lol, it’s true, I didn’t assume a secret stealth Democrat cabal controlling policy in this massively Trumpian district!

Or just the demographic realities of an aging populace which is more likely to have voted than those likely to be in school administration.

QA, proving once again that they don't have 2 brain cells to rub together.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey now!!!!!!!!!!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The uneducated, dependent people were conservative while the educated, working people were liberal?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No.

I was a teaching assistant as an undergraduate. I speak to undergraduate classes at several universities occasionally. I teach a couple of continuing legal education courses each year; conduct election law presentations periodically; advise and judge moot court competitors occasionally. I do not believe that makes me an academic. I do not recall claiming to be an academic, or a "real" academic, mostly because I believe I am not.

I school a bunch of clingers regularly, though; maybe that has precipitated confusion concerning this point.

[Commenter_XY]

Bored Lawyer, do you believe this was viewpoint discrimination on part of the school district?

[Theendoftheleft]

Thanks for the clarification. It certainly helps to explain why you have no idea that the American legal academic system is structured to lock in particular sorts of politics (and is completely immeritorious) and why you regularly espouse the moronic beliefs about American legal academics that you do.

Regardless, you should never be permitted anywhere near students, save to the extent that foreign students can learn how folks such as yourselves have helped to turn America into a banana republic. You ought also to spend the rest of your life -- howsoever long that might be -- living under a fatwa, whilst also knowing that the Islamic world (and, indeed, most of the Global South) will abandon your country for China's sphere of influence instead precisely because of folks like yourself.

Why do you 'cling' to this website, and why do you misrepresent yourself as being equal?

[Frank Drackman]

Proving that "Those who can't, teach"

[Lee Moore]

The suit is a very clever invention. It allows guys who lack a, er, commendable shape to look reasonably good. It's an excellent cosmetic aid. Whereas loose casual clothes make most guys look, well, suboptimal. Strike that - seriously suboptimal.

[Scooter]

We also wouldn't keep someone in the position of Chief Executive with a documented history of sexually harassing young interns. Nor would we 'rehabilitate' someone who had to drop out of a presidential campaign decades earlier when documented instances of plagiarism surfaced.

[David Nieporent]

And it’s not just with language. I’m old enough to remember when you dressed up to go to dinner, when men wore a suit to go to work, when it would have been unthinkable for a woman to go to church without wearing a hat. I miss those days. People no longer care how they look or what image they present.

Lawyers used to tell clients in deposition or trial preparation: "Dress like you're going to church." But that doesn't work any more because most people no longer dress up to go to church.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, but it was our generation that changed all that, not today’s generation, or Trump. And remember Trump.made his comments in private and they were disclosed, not where he thought they would be public, so you can't fault him more than you faulted LBJ.

The Cohen Fuck the Draft case was in 1971, my generation, probably yours too, and how old were the justices on the court that decided that? John Marshall Harlan II who wrote the decision was born in 1899.

In any case I think the relatively brief era of public decency most of us are nostalgic for is just a 20th century middle class veneer aping the Victorian era upper class. That was never a feature of the lower classes the newly created middle class was desperate to distinguish themselves from.

Now we’re all the lower classes which is probably the way things should be.

The Cerne Abbas Giant makes a good reminder of the sensibilities of the pre Victorian era public to expressions of obscenities in the 1600’s (likely date, but not definitive).https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/cac6e0d82fa723485d9c5d3245e054327a8276a3/0_117_3500_2101/master/3500.jpg?width=1200&height=900&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&s=cf56b60c358602292fe5abe4d80dd485

[bevis the lumberjack]

Aren’t you old enough to remember LBJ?

[Noscitur a sociis]

When good people see bad behavior from their adversaries, they take it as an opportunity to show their good character by remaining true to their principles.

When bad people see bad behavior from their adversaries, they take it as an opportunity to lower themselves to that level.

Thanks for letting us know where you fall.

[Scooter]

NPC Alert.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes.

[Bored Lawyer]

There is a link to the Complaint above. Pages 12-13 give explicit examples of view-point based discrimination.

[Rossami]

Have none of you studied Game Theory?

Civility, in this context, is subject to the rules of iterative gameplay of the Prisoners' Dilemma. The most effective long-term strategy is to reward cooperation with cooperation but any defection begets immediate retaliatory defection as an inducement to return to cooperation.

[Bored Lawyer]

So let me understand you. Good people have to behave like door mats, or else they are bad people. How convenient for you. To me it's BS. Civility means society accepts mutual rules of discourse within which one can have disagreements. When one side violates it but then accuses the other side of being bad, it sounds like an opportunistic head-game to me.
If someone came up to your wife in a public place and started insulted her, calling her vile names, would you say, "Thank you very much for your input. Have a nice day?"

[Nige]

When bad people engage in bad behaviour they claim the other guy was doing it first.

[Bored Lawyer]

She understands it. She wants to score cheap rhetorical points by ignoring that obvious definition.

[Krychek_2]

I don't entirely disagree with you, though I would modify it as follows: Presidential skirt chasing did not being with Bill Clinton; JFK had the sexual ethics of a tomcat. There was a urologist on the White House staff specifically to treat him for venereal disease as necessary.

The difference is that in earlier times it wasn't talked about. You're absolutely right that had it been talked about, it would have kept JFK out of the White House (and I doubt he was the first either). So, which is worse: A conspiracy of silence in which everyone knows POTUS is a hound dog but doesn't talk about it, or a situation in which the president's fondness for blow jobs from interns is plastered all over the evening news?

I myself accept that all people have frailties; our statesmen mostly have clay feet. You can find bad things about pretty much anyone if you look hard enough. So I'm content to let both JFK and Donald Trump have their faults so long as (1) it doesn't affect their jobs and (2) it isn't the subject of news reports. Be discreet; cover your tracks; and don't let it become the subject of national news. A big part of civility is being discreet, both about your own faults and those of other people.

[Krychek_2]

Well, that's basically what Ted Cruz did when Donald Trump called Mrs. Cruz a fat cow or whatever it was he said about her.

[Nige]

If you think civility = doormat, you don't know what civility is. Mind you, oftenbetimes when people are chided for being uncivil, they are actually being told to act as doormats, but that's usually used to try to keep women and minorities in line. The people that gave us, eg, 'feminazis' have nothing to teach anyone about civility.

[Sarcastr0]

There is a ton of middle ground between behaving like a door mat and throwing civility to the winds.

*especially* given the distorted view many have of the other side, such a philosophy of yours is an excuse to rationalize all sorts of bad behavior.

See also: the dirtbag left.

[Commenter_XY]

Bored Lawyer, I am laughing reading your responses. I find it hilarious you even have to explain. Thx for the cite in the filing.

Let me ask this: Is there a distinction that you can make between a 'political' message (LGB t-shirt) and a social message with political undertones (Gay Pride t-shirt)?

Every time I try to make a distinction between the two, it falls apart because there is political speech. If you let in one political viewpoint, you have to let them all in. And my analysis stops there.

[Bored Lawyer]

So Ted Cruz is a wimp. A smart one, but a wimp.

[Bored Lawyer]

The problem is that discretion is applied in a selective manner. A certain Senator, later to be haloed into the presidency, met with Louis Farrakhan in 2005. The news and photo were purposely buried until 2018, long after the haloed one left office.
You can read about it here:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-appearances/the-politics-of-race-and-the-photo-that-might-have-derailed-obama
So, no, I don't trust the media to apply "discretion" in an even-handed manner.

[Krychek_2]

And Trump met with the President of North Korea, and the President of China, and the President of Russia, all of whom have far more on their consciences than Farrakhan does (which is not an endorsement of Farrakhan). I don’t see the mere fact that someone meets with someone to be that significant.

Obama does not share Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, misogyny, homophobia, or prejudice against whites. On the other hand, Farrakhan is, for better or worse, a community leader in South Chicago and so it’s not unreasonable for a South Chicago politician to have been in the same room with him.

[grb]

Take a step back and you see a whole other level to the problem. Certainly other presidents have been coarse, petty, and immature. But in the case of Trump, it’s not just this behavior is less concealed – or even found acceptable by voters.

Instead, it's the very cause of his popularity. Because even hardcore MAGA fans can’t take Trump seriously – the same way spectators watching pro-wrestling don’t take the match seriously. And they have to see every other word thru his lips is a lie. And they must know his “concern” for them is a huckster con.

But they enjoy his two-year-old brat behavior regardless. Every time Trump wipes his lard ass on some political, ethical or cultural institution, they hoot with joy and slap their knees. That the thing which sealed the deal. The entertainment.

[Kazinski]

Your Trump hatred is blinding you.

What's the most grossest most indelicate statement Trump has ever made in public intending for it to be public?

If he's that bad that should be easy.

Trump changed the whole moral environment of the country because he made a statement that he thought was in private but it was released to the public to kill his election chances?

If you want to blame someone for it blame the Trump hater that did it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Flailing, disaffected right-wing bigots who hate modern America are among my favorite culture war debris.

Carry on, clinger . . . so far as your betters permit, as usual.

[Theendoftheleft]

Culture war debris? You’re going to totally lose, evolutionary dud. The rest of the world rejects your values as (a) garbage and (b) imperialism. You’re losing hegemonic status, and thus the ability to ram your nonsense down the world’s throat. ‘Progressive’ and ‘liberal’ Americans are going to be pariahs everywhere they go over across the globe over the coming years.

Domestically, as you desperately and fascistically try to enforce your normative preferences by silencing all real dialogue and dissent (in the academy, media, social institutions, etc), the right is eventually just going to kill you all. They’re the ones with the guns (and the children), after all. That is, unless a religious Muslim gets to you first.

You still haven’t answered my question: why do insist on misrepresenting yourself as equal, when you’re clearly an evolutionary dud advancing an evolutionarily inferior meme (value system)?

[Bored Lawyer]

Give me a break. Trump was POTUS, who has to deal with all kinds of world players, good, bad and indifferent.

Obama was a Senator, and he (and other members of the CBC) met with and honored a known anti-semite. If you read the article, it was purposely suppressed. AFAIK, no one tried to suppress the fact that Trump met with world leaders, nor did anyone think they needed to.

[Krychek_2]

And when you’re a South Chicago politician you meet with South Chicago power brokers and community leaders. Farrakhan may be a douche bag but he does co trol a certain number of votes.

[Seamus]

And Trump met with the President of North Korea, and the President of China, and the President of Russia, all of whom have far more on their consciences than Farrakhan does (which is not an endorsement of Farrakhan).

Oh, for crying out loud. Yes, he did, and FDR met with Stalin, and Chiang Kai-shek, and King Saud, none of which were going to get any prizes from Human Rights Watch. Big effing deal. Meeting with disreputable heads of state is part of the job description.

[Sarcastr0]

What you are describing is a Democratic cabal controlling policy, my dude.

You want to make that charge, come with evidence, not just 'I'll bet it's true' partisan rationalization.

[Sarcastr0]

It walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.

It must be a Democrat False Flag!!!

[Sarcastr0]

First, there is no game theory solution to the Prisoners’ Dilemma. You're speaking of a singe simulation study, with no real theoretical underpinning.

Second, humans are not computers in a simulation.

Third *this isn't the prisoner's dilemma* this is you rationalizing having a double standard with some badly understood pop-science.

[Sarcastr0]

He called the media the enemy of the people and said the 2020 election was stolen.
He as much as invited violence on Jan 06.

His twitter was both gross and indelicate multiple times a day.

How soon you forget. Or don't care.

[grb]

Kazinski : “What’s the most grossest most indelicate statement Trump has ever made…”

In the last campaign, Trump repeated an allegation that Obama secretly had Seal Team 6 murdered. For Trump it was just another day ending in “y” – replete with lying rancid sleaze.

And that was the jaded view of everyone else as well; the story was deemed barely worth a headline. Trump exceeds all bounds of decency? Trump promotes a grotesque lie? Dog bites man. Something that familiar hardly qualifies as news.

But think if a normal politician did anything remotely similar. Or a normal human being, for that matter. It would be the stuff of screaming headlines lasting days. Remember, Obama’s choice of mustard or the color of his summer suit generated mini-scandals.

It was obvious from the beginning. Hours into Trump’s presidency, he was telling bizarre lies about his inauguration crowd size. The next day he was supposed to give a speech at Langley honoring CIA dead. He spent the time whining about his inauguration crowd. Two days later he was lying about millions of illegal votes that robbed him of the popular vote, Then he gushed about the virtues of waterboarding in an interview with Hannity. A few days later he spoke at a National Prayer Breakfast and spent the time bragging about his TV show ratings. No one has ever been confused about what a loathsome turd Trump is. He’s made that clear right from the start.

[Bored Lawyer]

Look up the word "cabal." You might get an education.

Until then, spare me your drivel.

[Rossami]

Wow, that's wrong on all points. And evidence that no, you haven't studied Game Theory.

[Sarcastr0]

Going to try and appeal to your own expertise? Whatever, dude.

OK, lets start very simple. There is no prisoner's dilemma scenario in the facts here.

[George Grady]

For the record, SarcastrO is wrong here. Mathematically, a "prisoner's dilemma" is a two-person game in which the two players each choose a move from the list {cooperate, don't cooperate}. In this case, "cooperate" could be "be civil", and "don't cooperate" could be "be uncivil". What makes such a game a "prisoner's dilemma" is that the payoffs are such that both players would be better off if they both cooperated than if they both didn't cooperate; whereas each player is individually better not cooperating regardless of what their opponent does. The payoff matrix could be, for example:
Coop NCoop
Coop (7,7) (10,0)
NCoop (0,10) (3,3)
That is, if both sides cooperate, they each score 7; if neither cooperate, they each score 3; if only one cooperates, the one who does scores 0 whereas the one who doesn't scores 10.
This scoring would reflect a situation where if everyone is civil, they all do pretty well; if everyone is uncivil, they all do pretty poorly; but if only one side is civil, the civil side does very poorly and the uncivil side does very well. This is a reasonable interpretation of the situation here.

[Sarcastr0]

LBJ's linguistic proclivities were not well known to the public.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks, but I know what the word means. The school administrators plotting a false flag counts.

You. Have. No. Evidence. Don't. Make. Shit. Up.

[Kazinski]

The context of my question was not politically objectionable, or lying, it was in response to Krychek:

“Up until fairly recently it would have been unthinkable to elect someone with his potty mouth, his talk of grabbing women by the pussy, and his acting like an unruly toddler, no matter what his policies were. Such a person simply would not have been electable. Sure, we’ve had uncouth vulgarians as president (think LBJ) but they managed to hide it in public.”

So the question is, again, Trump having a “potty mouth” or being an “uncouth vulgarian” intentionally in public, not having conversations intended to be private outed. Or was he merely caught in the same trap as LBJ having private conversations exposed, or private conduct like Kennedy and Clinton and Biden, which appears to be par for the course for Presdents.

If we are going use your standard the most outrageous offensive thing I’ve ever heard a President say is “you didn’t build that”, but that wasn’t the question.

[Sarcastr0]

You claim 'gross and indelicate' as things that did NOT characterize Trump's statements.

You're deep into some land, but it ain't reality.

[Kazinski]

The question is to Krychek as to his statement that Trumps potty mouth ushered in a whole new era of public profanity.

Go ahead answer if you like but stay on topic.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This works just as well:

Yeah! Who do they think they are -- the Volokh Conspiracy?