Every individual on this planet has the right to express themselves independently of how others around them might perceive them.

Yes, absolutely. We have the right to express ourselves. But we aren't entitled to employment in any position we want at any company we want regardless of how we express ourselves in public while representing that company. "Dressing in flashy attention-seeking outfits and displaying a sign that says Lolita" isn't a category that's protected from employment discrimination.

The dude isn't facing criminal charges. Just normal workplace consequences that anyone should have expected regardless of whether you feel it's right.

No, that's the opposite of what I was saying.

Then what you said doesn't make any sense. I agree nobody needs to make assumptions. The driver didn't need to, the parents didn't need to. But my argument is they all did.

His actions were not based on the decisions of other.

Of course they were. "You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.", said a famous person whom we all know thanks to the context we live in. The basis of whether we do anything is whether it would be good for ourselves, no matter if that means it would be better to someone you're close with or that the backlash from incongruence with society's expectations is too little to worry about. Here, according to your narrative which I agree with, the driver assumed that the views of others and superiors wouldn't change except maybe someone'd bad an eye or avoid looking at them. Instead, parents were scared to have their children ride the bus.

Didn't you say that the driver probably didn't know the pedophilia connotations of "Lolita"? How is that "Lolita" is a normal word without such connotations not an assumption?

The story would be very different if parents were primarily concerned about the driver's dress, in which case I would agree with you. But, instead, the story here is with the sign.

That was not a reasonable assumption. It was an ignorant assumption

How were they supposed to know "Lolita" referred to the fashion trend?

He no longer drives that route.

That's all it says. You assumed it meant he was fired when in fact it could've been a suspension or a transfer to some other route, just as the parents assumed "Lolita" meant what they were taught it meant growing up. The article doesn't even seem to know what gender the driver is.

This is called the "benefit of the doubt".

To do that you need possibility for doubt. What is the reasonable doubt against the negative effects I mentioned occurring?

And this is all predicated on the assumption that the driver was in fact referring to Lolita fashion. If I need to prove there was harm, you also have to prove they was just making a fashion statement.