Reply With Quote
So schools now control their students' speech outside campus?
Mark my words, this is a wildly terrible precedent the Court set today.
Studen Free-Speech Rights limited.
Student Free-Speech Rights Limited
Jun 25 11:14 AM US/Eastern
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.
Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.
Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.
His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use.
"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts said. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."
Morse suspended the student, prompting a federal civil rights lawsuit.
Students in public schools don't have the same rights as adults, but neither do they leave their cons utional protections at the schoolhouse gate, as the court said in a landmark speech-rights ruling from Vietnam era.
The court has limited what students can do in subsequent cases, saying they may not be disruptive or lewd or interfere with a school's basic educational mission.
Frederick, now 23, said he later had to drop out of college after his father lost his job. The elder Frederick, who worked for the company that insures the Juneau schools, was fired in connection with his son's legal fight, the son said. A jury recently awarded Frank Frederick $200,000 in a lawsuit he filed over his firing.
Joseph Frederick, who has been teaching and studying in China, pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, according to court records.
Conservative groups that often are allied with the administration are backing Frederick out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose sexuality or abortion.
The case is Morse v. Frederick, 06-278.
--Interesting.
So schools now control their students' speech outside campus?
Mark my words, this is a wildly terrible precedent the Court set today.
So "Schlong Hits 4 Jesus" would be ok.The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.
Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which KENNEDY, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment inpart and dissenting in part. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
Where I disagree with the court is the decision of what is appropriate speech. Granted, Frederick is just some stoner who thought it'd be funny to copy a snowboard slogan, but it still leaves it to school administration to determine what is "political speech."
I wish Frederick would have eaten some more Cheetos and decided on "Legalize it!" for a banner.
But I will say this, Roberts' opinion is pretty tight on the environment of the speech and not necessarily the message (drug use advocation during school time). Another point where I disagree with the court is "school time." That's where my problem lies.
I'm still confused as to where this banner was hung. The article contains a typo which seems to leave out the location, but it was a "school-sanctioned event."
And I'm not sure why this would be the case, because in those instances the student would not be (supposedly) promoting illegal activity.Conservative groups that often are allied with the administration are backing Frederick out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose sexuality or abortion.
On January 24, 2002, the Olympic Torch Relay passed through Juneau, Alaska, on its way to the winter games in Salt Lake City, Utah. The torchbearers were to proceed along a street in front of Juneau-Douglas High School(JDHS) while school was in session. Pe ioner Deborah Morse, the school principal, decided to permit staff and students to participate in the Torch Relay as an approved social event or class trip. App. 22–23. Students were allowed to leave class to observe the relay from either side of the street. Teachers and administrative officials monitored the students’ actions.
See, I wouldn't consider that "outside campus." I don't think the Court is saying administrators can suspend a student for wearing a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" T-Shirt at the Mall, for example.
For those who would like to read the opinions of the Court.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf
The thing is, I'm kind of changing my thoughts on that the more I read (and agreeing with the majority decision, but I have yet to read the dissenting). I'll get into it more later, I've got some work to catch up on.
This is a tough for I can see both sides but I'd have to lean towards the dissenting opinions.
Well, any chance I had of possibly agreeing with Justice Thomas flew right out the window.
In my view, pe ioners could prevail for a much simpler reason: As originally understood, the Cons ution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools.
I don't disagree with Roberts' opinion (since he's focused on whether or not it was a school event), but Alito and Thomas' are just way the out there.
ign big brother.big government.
erg. I can't even talk right now.
I just read somebody's opinion on another site and this brings up what I was referring to earlier about precedent (and it's happened with punishment for off-campus, out-of-school actions).
Back when I was in HS (my sop re, junior and senior years), I'd go off-campus to eat lunch sometimes. Say there happened to be some event passing by with cameras and I unfurled "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." At what point does the guardianship of the school stop?
If you went off campus with your class, as part of a "class lunch," that would be comparable.
This was more like a Field Trip. It just happened to be near campus.
I'm actually surprised this got to the Supreme Court in the first place. I hope it was worth it to the Fredericks and their attorneys.
Granted, it has nothing to do with this case, but to counter your argument, what about students who are punished for drug use off-campus, on-campus?
I'm still on the fence on this case as far as facts go (was Frederick in class that day, he's 18 at the time, etc.), but what gets me (in reading other people's thoughts) are how some people are so willing to throw the First Amendment out the window.
I don't know about that. I can see testing athletes for performance enhancing drugs, since that is directly related to school activities, but I wouldn't be in favor of the school doing random piss tests for pot, etc. Do they do that?Granted, it has nothing to do with this case, but to counter your argument, what about students who are punished for drug use off-campus, on-campus?
As far as free speech goes, though, students have never had absolute free speech in the classroom, and I think that still applies when the "class" is at a different location. I don't think it's vague or that it's a slippery slope.
IIRC, the Alamo Heights cheerleaders were punished for off-campus parties. I'm trying to remember some other cases I know I've seen before, though.
The arguments I've seen elsewhere today (and , in Thomas' opinion) are that students have no rights when they enter the school realm.As far as free speech goes, though, students have never had absolute free speech in the classroom, and I think that still applies when the "class" is at a different location. I don't think it's vague or that it's a slippery slope.
I haven't had time to read the opinion yet, but I would imagine that the fact that this was an event that occurred during school time and that the students were in attendance solely by the school's permission is dispositive. The distinction in the off-campus lunch scenario is that while off-campus lunch occurs during school time, the school has no say about what a student does or where the student goes while away from campus. If punishment were meted out for expression-based activities occurring during that time, there would probably be a basis to challenge that punishment.
The Alamo Heights cheerleaders issue is somewhat different, but I think the distinctions are: (1) the punishment dealt primarily with involvment in extra-curricular activities, which are not matters of right; and (2) any attempt to challenge that punishment through involved court proceedings would have been futile because the issues would have rapidly (in terms of litigation time) become moot.
School speech is always an interesting topic, because it suggests to me that there are relative values to speech. For instance, in Tinker, which is really the landmark school speech case (famous for noting that students' rights do not terminate at the schoolhouse door), it was clear that Mary Beth Tinker's choice to wear an armband protesting the Vietnam War was a matter of pure political speech. In every context, pure political speech has been very carefully protected. See Cohen v. California (concluding that without a compelling interest, the State of California could not punish a war protester for wearing a jacket with a visible statement reading " the Draft" in a public courthouse). Because political speech is so jealously protected -- restriction of such speech is, essentially, presumptively uncons utional and can only be supported by the state's demonstration that it has a compelling interest in limiting the speech and that its means for restricting the speech are narrowly-tailored to satisfy that interest.
Religious speech is similarly protected, if only by virtue of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
But in schools, speech that might otherwise be protected can clearly be limited if only because of the audience. Thus, while indecent expression enjoys some cons utional protection (as opposed to obscene speech, which has no protection), there's no doubt that indecent expression can be prohibited in public schools.
I have my doubts about the sincerity of Frederick's purpose and I don't subscribe to the idea that limiting his speech will somehow have a detrimental effect upon those who wish to engage in religious speech on public campuses. Like I say, I haven't read the opinion, but as I understand the commentary about it, the Court largely stayed away from any characterizations other than the recognition that Frederick's expresion sought, in some way at least, to promote drug use. I suspect that if his banner had read, "Read the Paper for Jesus," or "Run a Marathon for Jesus," or even "Skip Calculus for Jesus," his case would have long ago ended. But I don't think that you can protect an otherwise punishable expression by adding some marginal religious value to the statement.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
