“I Love Boobies”
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Oh, also there is a legal case involving that phrase, or more precisely “I ♥ Boobies!” which translates from slang into that. See it all starts with a bracelet sort of like this:
It’s a cheeky way to make a statement on breast cancer and there is like a whole philosophy behind it:
The Keep A Breast Foundation believes that a barrier to achieving their goals is negative body images among young women. Young women may feel that a stigma is associated with touching, looking at, or talking about their breasts. The Foundation’s “I ♥ Boobies!” campaign seeks to reduce this stigma and to help women talk openly and without embarrassment about their breasts. The bracelets are intended to be and may be reasonably viewed as conversation starters to facilitate discussion of breast cancer, and to help overcome fear and taboo associated with discussing breast health.
So a couple of teenage girls decided to wear bracelets sort of like the ones there (it might be a different color, but otherwise it seems to be identical) when there was a ban on them and got into all kinds of trouble with the school. For starters, I think everyone involved needs to lighten up. It wouldn’t be the end of the world for the girls to wear something like that. But at the same time, this is kind of a stupid thing to take a stand on. I mean they are in the right, but did we really need to make a federal case out of it?
You know, because they did.
I think on the law the court had it exactly right and indeed sums up the law fairly succinctly:
In summary, a school may categorically prohibit speech that is (1) lewd, vulgar, or profane; (2) school-sponsored speech on the basis of a legitimate pedagogical concern; and (3) speech that advocates illegal drug use. If school speech does not fit within one of these exceptions, it may be prohibited only if it would substantially disrupt school operations.
So it can be banned automatically if it fit those three categories, but the only category that this situation had any chance of fitting involved “lewd, vulgar or profane speech.” That principle was enunciated in Bethel S.C. v. Fraser, where a student thought this was a good way to argue that a person should be elected to student office:
I know a man who is firm — he’s firm in his pants, he’s firm in his shirt, his character is firm — but most . . . of all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm.
Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he’ll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn’t attack things in spurts — he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally — he succeeds.
Jeff is a man who will go to the very end — even the climax, for each and every one of you.
So vote for Jeff for A. S. B. vice-president — he’ll never come between you and the best our high school can be.
The Supreme Court properly said that this kind of campaign speech was inappropriate on campus and thus the school could properly punish him for saying it. Obviously that is an order magnitude worse than saying you love “boobies.” Previously in the same circuit, for instance, they had declared a shirt that said the following to be insufficiently vulgar to fall under the Fraser rule:
Top 10 reasons you might be a Redneck Sports Fan if …
10. You’ve ever been shirtless at a freezing football game.
9. Your carpet used to be part of a football field.
8. Your basketball hoop used to be a fishing net.
7. There’s a roll of duct tape in your golf bag.
6. You know the Hooter’s menu by heart.
5. Your mama is banned from the front row at wrestling matches.
4. Your bowling team has it’s own fight song.
3. You think the “Bud Bowl” is real.
2. You wear a baseball cap to bed.
1. You’ve ever told your bookie “I was just kidding.”
They even tried to say Hooters was a double entendre…
(nice uh… wings)
It’s truly hard to say that a reference to that restaurant is kosher, but “boobies” was not. So not being able to invoke the “automatic ban” rule, they instead tried to say it created a disruption (which it didn’t). Incidentally in the Foxworthy case, there was a more serious concern about disruption because there had apparently been racial tensions. I am not saying that the Redneck shirt should have been banned, just that the case for banning made more sense under precedent and in the circumstances.
And needless to say I don’t support the idea that otherwise peaceful speech can be banned if it is “disruptive.” I do not ever like the idea that your freedom of speech should be dependant on another person’s willingness to control himself. But that is the Supreme Court’s precedent, like it or not.
And at the same time, I also consider this another reason to support vouchers. If students are able to go to other schools two things would happen. First, private schools would be able to create speech codes without regard to the constitution and thus each principal’s decision doesn’t become a federal case. And yet, simultaneously, the parents of the student would be able to vote with their feet if they don’t like a school’s speech code.
Still you know, I think this issue needs much, much more investigation by our favorite legal analyst Megyn Kelley.
Yep, I ♥ them.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
3. You think the “Bud Bowl” is real.
What are you saying, Aaron? Tell me it isn’t so!
malclave (1db6c5) — 4/14/2011 @ 1:52 pmBoobies?
Never heard of them.
Charlie Gibson (7cefeb) — 4/14/2011 @ 1:55 pmmal
i think you might be a redneck sport fan… lol
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/14/2011 @ 1:56 pmMegyn should stay abreast of this situation.
JD (318f81) — 4/14/2011 @ 2:10 pmIf the bracelet was going to cause disruption among middle school students sufficient to be require silencing, how could the “Snow Ball” dance not cause the same level of disruption? I must admit I do admire the chutzpah of the school administrators in setting the punishment for wearing “I Heart Boobies” bracelets the girls were not allowed to attend the “Snow Ball” dance.
max (2f2a28) — 4/14/2011 @ 2:29 pmA.W. – JD got it right, it Megyn, not Megan, you moran.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2011 @ 2:31 pmBong Hits 4 Jesus!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2011 @ 2:33 pmNuke Gay Whales!
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 4/14/2011 @ 2:59 pmYour gonna love my boobs………why are you guys looking at me like that?
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/14/2011 @ 3:15 pmThe outfit putting this out has some curious expenditures. I don’t think they’re doing much good at all. http://www.guidestar.org requires signup, but I’ve had no spammy issues with them since I signed up. And you can look up charity’s tax forms. And find out who is giving $12K to an acupuncturist.
I completely hate most “awareness” charities. People are aware of breast cancer. Curing it would be better. And acupuncture is not a cure.
–JRM
JRM (de6363) — 4/14/2011 @ 3:34 pmThe is a 5K call Run for the Ta Ta’s, and another called Save the Ta Ta’s. I think there is another called Topless for Ta Ta’s. I ran behind a lady that had a Save the Tata’s shirt in the half marathon. She made me smile.
JD (318f81) — 4/14/2011 @ 3:41 pmFace it JD, if she had not been wearing that shirt but, say, a Bud Bowl shirt, you would have passed her and possibly won.
johnnycab23513 (3a4381) — 4/14/2011 @ 4:14 pm@9
I think you mean “Nuke the Gay Baby Whales for Jesus!”
malclave (1db6c5) — 4/14/2011 @ 4:23 pmIt’s truly hard to say that a reference to that restaurant is kosher
LOL. Given their menu, any reference to that restaurant couldn’t be kosher.
(Sorry, could not resist.)
More seriously,
First, private schools would be able to create speech codes without regard to the constitution and thus each principal’s decision doesn’t become a federal case.
Are you sure? Vouchers =public funding = excuse to sue (excuse to sue of course not being the same as valid reason to sue).
Tata for now… “)
kishnevi (4fe729) — 4/14/2011 @ 4:55 pmFuck the Draft.
nk (db4a41) — 4/14/2011 @ 4:56 pmSo, if you take a voucher for schooling and home-school your child, you are then receiving federal funding and subject to federal suits?
Let’s ignore the fact for a moment that the vouchers would come from the state, not the federal government….
Some chump (e84e27) — 4/14/2011 @ 5:12 pmIt’s very well established that a private school, even one that receives government funding, is not Congrefs, and is not bound by the constitution. Congress may impose conditions on such funding, but it doesn’t have to.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/14/2011 @ 5:13 pmUnder Grove City, probably. But that would be suits by the FedGov, authorised by Congress, because you didn’t comply with conditions laid down by Congress. You would not be subject to constitutional challenges, because you’re not Congrefs.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/14/2011 @ 5:14 pm(.) (.) To small?
( . ) ( . ) D’s are better, no?
JP (c4988c) — 4/14/2011 @ 5:39 pmAs a middle school assistant principal, my issue with these bracelets was not that girls were wearing them…but middle school boys who were using them as rubber band shooters as well as declarations of wearing something that has the word boobies on it. Call me old-fashinoned, but I feel that if they want to show support for breast cancer research, they can do it off campus…
Todd (e9d429) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:35 pmGod forbid that we would encourage a healthy interest in breasts among middle school boys.
Icy Texan (6d2703) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:40 pmBTW, Megyn just had her baby . . .
. . . no chance of that kid ever starving.
Icy Texan (6d2703) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:42 pmIcy Texan, do you seriously believe middle school boys need any extra encouragement to be interested in breasts?
I love how the middle school boys wearing the bracelet beautifully illustrated the difference between the genders: the girls wearing the bracelets saw a righteous cause; the boys wearing them saw a weapon – as well as a free pass to say the word ‘boobies’.
Dana (9f3823) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:46 pm> Are you sure? Vouchers =public funding = excuse to sue (excuse to sue of course not being the same as valid reason to sue).
no, it is not. vouchers are considered scrubbed in terms of government taint.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:07 pmicy
indeed, there is little change of ms. kelly’s baby starving. i am sure she is a multi-millionaire by now…
i mean, that’s what you were saying, right?
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:09 pmAs sure as you only love Grace Park for her eyes.
Icy Texan (6d2703) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:23 pmGee, Dana, I thought when I wrote “healthy interest” with the word “healthy” in italics that it would be kinda obvious what I was intimating.
Icy Texan (6d2703) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:28 pm“You wear a baseball cap to bed.”
Well, it ain’t like I’m going to wear my football helmet.
Dave Surls (baf401) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:35 pmDana – Do you have a computer in the kitchen now?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:51 pmWell, it ain’t like I’m going to wear my football helmet.
I have a spare fedora if you want to borrow it.
kishnevi (1b86f1) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:07 pmPersonally, I think a glass of Johnny Walker Red is a pretty good night cap.
Dana – Do you have a computer in the kitchen now?
No daley, I don’t…I snuck out to use one in the other room but quite clearly, I overstepped my boundaries!
Dana (9f3823) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:12 pm“…fedora…”
You might be a Redneck historian if you think Fedora was a Byzantine empress.
Dave Surls (baf401) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:18 pmthis is nasty
hunter (eb595a) — 4/20/2011 @ 3:19 pm