First Amendment jurisprudence: who determines what gets censored?

It shouldn't take a lawyer to determine what language is acceptable and which language must be censored. The text of the First Amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." According to Dictionary.com, First Amendment means "The first article of the Bill of Rights. It forbids Congress from tampering with the freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, and the press."

According to Prof. Jonathan Turley's op-ed, "In March 2021, California principal Jesus Becerra was confronted by a clear and present threat to his school. Standing before him was the culprit — a student apparently so dangerous that Becerra had to act without delay to protect the entire Viejo Elementary School in the Capistrano Unified School District." What caused the stir that shook Viejo Elementary School to its core? This:

The little girl is known only as B.B. in federal filings, but her actions were so heinous that a parent alerted Becerra to take all necessary action. Beccera showed B.B. the incriminating evidence: a picture of children holding hands with the words "any life" written under "Black Lives Matter."

Let's establish a little context:

That single piece of paper has since prompted years of litigation, in which California educators fought for the right to punish this child for this picture given to a friend. And if that seems outrageous, you do not even know the worst of it.

B.B. had just sat through a book reading about Martin Luther King. It ended with "Black Lives Matter," an expression that she had never previously heard. She felt bad that black people in the book were shown as being treated differently and unfairly. She decided to draw a picture of her friends holding hands under those words with the addition of "any life." She gave the picture to one of those friends, a girl known in the litigation as M.C.

How could B.B. be so mean-spirited? (SARC) In all seriousness, this unprincipled principal needs to learn the Constitution, the First Amendment and about patriotism. Frankly, I think this principal is highly un-American. Schools are dropping in quality because too many principals and teachers have been taught that America, especially under Trump, is evil.

Throughout history, friends have given each other such notes and pictures without incident. But in these times, an array of adults felt the need to intervene, to make sure the girls understood that this innocent act was actually a despicable act of latent racism.

Principal Becerra isn't trustworthy. I'd do anything in my power to get these children away from these radicals. Then there's this:

And so B.B. apparently got what she deserved as a little harasser, roaming the halls of Viejo Elementary School with her hateful box of crayons.

Fortunately, however, with the help of the Pacific Legal Foundation, the parents appealed Judge Carter’s chilling opinion. Last week, they won a major free speech victory before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In 1969, the Supreme Court famously declared that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” However, since that iconic case, federal courts have often given short shrift to the free speech rights of students.

Packing the courts with anti-constitutionalists is part of a strategy. Democrats keep filing lawsuits, thereby overloading the courts. At some point, the system collapses, which is what radicals want.