Rhetorical interventions in the law: Interpreting “I ♥ Boobies!”

Abstract In 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a group of students were within their constitutional rights to wear breast cancer awareness bracelets that read: “I ♥ Boobies!” The majority opinion in B.H. and K.M. v. Easton Area School District called on judges to determine whether a student’s speech was “plainly” or “ambiguously” lewd, and also whether it could “plausibly be interpreted as commenting on political or social issues.” Cases like B.H. provide an excellent opportunity for rhetorical scholars to engage the law—asserting their expertise in the methods of interpretation germane to vernacular persuasive discourses.