By John Klar
A Vermont High School recently banned a young girl from sporting events for allegedly chanting “Let’s Go Brandon!” at a basketball game. The school claims the phrase is “profane” and may be prohibited under the student handbook’s command to “respect all people, their feelings, their possessions, and their right to an education.”
Constitutional law says otherwise. Schools can prohibit foul language, but any child can see that this language is simply not foul.
Foul language is protected speech, especially if political. In Cohen v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court considered criminal charges against a Vietnam War protester who sported a jacket in the courthouse displaying “F— the Draft.” Noting that the First Amendment was “designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion,” Justice Harlan observed of the “F” word in Cohen:
[T]he principle contended for by the State seems inherently boundless. How is one to distinguish this from any other offensive word? Surely the State has no right to cleanse public debate to the point where it is grammatically palatable to the most squeamish among us. Yet no readily ascertainable general principle exists for stopping short of that result were we to affirm the judgment below. For, while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.
Vermont’s overzealous social justice bureaucrats have launched their reprogramming agenda in reckless disregard of basic constitutional liberties. This school has banned T-shirts proclaiming, “There are only two genders” — social “theory” is employed to subjugate objective biological science.
If free speech were allowed to thrive, such bizarre ideological machinations would shrivel under the light of intellectual scrutiny.
Was the girl from the town of Brandon ? Maybe she is a NASCAR fan of Brandon Brown, the original Let’s go Brandon ? The fact of the matter is that it does not say “____ Joe Biden”. If someone named Winston Theodore Flink wanted his initials on a t-shirt, should he not be allowed to wear it ? Grow up people, or go live in the China !
Must remember that in the Peoples’ Republic of Vermont, any verbal slight or even a dirty look can be interpreted as a “microaggression”. Leftists consider such an “assault” as having measurable stress and hence harm to the recipient, and is then considered equivalent to a physical assault. This is the philosophy that we have brought down upon ourselves by our voting habits.
Boo hoo I already have a let’s go Brandon t-shirt, next is a 3’x5′ Let’s go Brandon flag to go under my “intimidatingly” big American flag !
Is this the roots of what the Bipoc students claim is so much hate in the schools?
No, she’s from Randolph. Tensions are rising here because the Superintendent canceled a Chick-fil-a fundraiser for the baseball team and has kept the BLM flag flying because 10 Bipoc students threaten disruption if it comes down.
Seem Vermont takes everything to the extreme….why? EXTREME never produce positive results..
Even a shirt that rightfully says “f#!@ joe biden!” should be allowed. Get over it you weak, super sensitive, autocratic socialists! Stop trying to tell people what they can and cannot do
Jacks, not only SHOULD it be allowed, but it MUST be allowed. The document that mandates this is the U.S. Constitution via God. Both pretty powerful, last I knew.
Banned her from sporting events??????? Hello? Is there a SINGLE Vermont attorney anywhere with enough ba**s to EVER take on these free speech violations?
These leftist lunatics are out of control fascists & the people OF the right who are IN the right just turn & walk away like cowards.
You nation is being destroyed. Anyone care? If so…..ACT like it!
John Klar, who wrote this article, is a lawyer.
John has organized a lot of events, publishes conservative articles/commentaries, & ran for State-wide elective office. Anyone else within that esteemed profession who wants to continue to work within the USA under the US Constitution?
Sue for injunctive relief and damages! That will arouse the public.