PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court limits student speech



Firetxmi
06-26-2007, 01:38 PM
Supreme Court limits student speech

In 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case, Roberts says advocacy of drug use can be curbed
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:54 a.m. ET June 25, 2007

WASHINGTON - 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 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Anti-free speech?
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.

The winning side in the case was quick to assert that the decision was not anti-free speech

In their concurrence, Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy specified that the court's opinion provides no support for any restriction on speech that goes to political or social issues.

It's a narrow ruling that "should not be read more broadly," said Kenneth Starr, whose law firm represented the school principal.

Limited student rights
Students in public schools don't have the same rights as adults, but neither do they leave their constitutional 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 homo******ity or abortion.

The case is Morse v. Frederick, 06-278.

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19414576/

2Sheds_Jackson
06-26-2007, 02:00 PM
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.


Seems like this family is in the habit of using the courts to pay the bills. IMHO this case was a no-brainier from the very beginning. Doubtless if they had won this case, their next payday would have been against the school system (i.e. their tax paying neighbors) for crushing poor little Joseph's psyche. Even grade school kids know that there are restrictions on free speech, especially so when dealing with children and school. So to me, the SC didn't limit anything- just confirmed what's been commonly known for decades.

Firetxmi
06-26-2007, 02:07 PM
Seems like this family is in the habit of using the courts to pay the bills. IMHO this case was a no-brainier from the very beginning. Doubtless if they had won this case, their next payday would have been against the school system (i.e. their tax paying neighbors) for crushing poor little Joseph's psyche. Even grade school kids know that there are restrictions on free speech, especially so when dealing with children and school. So to me, the SC didn't limit anything- just confirmed what's been commonly known for decades.

I thought you would not be for this ruling as in another thread you stated that "Hate Crime" laws are ridiculous because it regulates what someone is thinking at the time. Does this ruling not regulate what someone is thinking or what their intent is?

Examples:

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."


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.

Laworkerbee
06-26-2007, 03:12 PM
The kid admitted this was about him trying to get on Television, he was wrong and I don't understand why the Supreme Court wasted it's time on such a case.

shocker1
06-26-2007, 03:16 PM
I thought you would not be for this ruling as in another thread you stated that "Hate Crime" laws are ridiculous because it regulates what someone is thinking at the time. Does this ruling not regulate what someone is thinking or what their intent is?

Examples:

You are being hard headed. I never had the right to proclaim illegal drugs on banners. If the sign said "I love Jesus you should too" you would be crying separation of church and state and want that boys head on a platter.

Firetxmi
06-26-2007, 03:20 PM
You are being hard headed. I never had the right to proclaim illegal drugs on banners. If the sign said "I love Jesus you should too" you would be crying separation of church and state and want that boys head on a platter.

Nah, if it is an individual saying that and not the school, then it would be fine!

BTW, I love Jesus as well.... :D

If people were EQUALLY concerned about their other rights as they are about the 2nd amendment then I think the U.S. would be a better place.

shocker1
06-26-2007, 03:29 PM
Nah, if it is an individual saying that and not the school, then it would be fine!

BTW, I love Jesus as well.... :D

If people were EQUALLY concerned about their other rights as they are about the 2nd amendment then I think the U.S. would be a better place.

If he would have been at the mall, at the corner of market and Broad I would agree that he has every right. However this is a school where parents send their children and expect the school to do what they can to protect our kids from drugs. A drug free zone ( well you know:)) that has policy against pushing drugs or the advertising of such. Could have put tobacco bong hits for Jesus and he might have a case. Sorry bud(not a pun) you are stretching and by your standard parents have no right to limit a child's words either.

BTW I was not saying you're anti-Jesus if that is how I came across sorry.

Durandal
06-26-2007, 09:17 PM
THey should have nailed him on separation of church and state. rofl

"Bong hits for Jesus"

How is that "cryptic" and think its funny. I also think its funny that some young punk think he has the RIGHT to Free Speech in a Public School.

He has just as many rights to free speech as he does the ability to legally purchase a firearm.

People need to realize that there are adult rights and children should be seen and not heard.

Hollis
06-26-2007, 09:40 PM
THey should have nailed him on separation of church and state. rofl

"Bong hits for Jesus"

How is that "cryptic" and think its funny. I also think its funny that some young punk think he has the RIGHT to Free Speech in a Public School.

He has just as many rights to free speech as he does the ability to legally purchase a firearm.

People need to realize that there are adult rights and children should be seen and not heard.

Trying to decide here, who I agree most with. You or 2 Sheds............... rough choice.

Durandal
06-26-2007, 09:45 PM
Trying to decide here, who I agree most with. You or 2 Sheds............... rough choice.

I bet we both agree on this one. :)

Bia
06-26-2007, 09:46 PM
School policy overrides the spoiled "I have the right to say anything" kids IMO and yay for the ruling.

+rep to court

Hollis
06-26-2007, 10:12 PM
I bet we both agree on this one. :)


Yes Sir, that is a most Affirmative....or as my old RO would say, "Dats A Firm a *****"

Durandal
06-27-2007, 07:54 AM
Yes Sir, that is a most Affirmative....or as my old RO would say, "Dats A Firm a *****"

Sorry, that came out odd. I meant I bet both 2Sheds and I agree...which is rare. :)

But I hear ya.

Violet Fashion by Mindy
06-27-2007, 08:04 AM
I disagree on this ruling.

Why?

Because of late I've been agreeing with you neo-cons and I need to restore the confidence in my followers

Durandal
06-27-2007, 08:36 AM
I disagree on this ruling.

Why?

Because of late I've been agreeing with you neo-cons and I need to restore the confidence in my followers

Well, so long as it is a rational reason. :)

Violet Fashion by Mindy
06-27-2007, 08:38 AM
The kid was only stating the truth really.

Think about it.

Jesus had long hair, beard, wore robes and went around preaching love, peace and compassion.

Kinda sounds like the hippy generation.

So the kid was speaking the truth yet is punished for it.

2Sheds_Jackson
06-27-2007, 11:56 AM
I thought you would not be for this ruling as in another thread you stated that "Hate Crime" laws are ridiculous because it regulates what someone is thinking at the time. Does this ruling not regulate what someone is thinking or what their intent is?

Examples:

I disagree with current hate crime laws for three reasons; they are not "instead of" existing laws, but "in addition to" (IMHO creating thoughtcrime and a protected class), they are almost completely subjective in nature (i.e. it's far too easy to turn a mugging gone bad into a race related shooting), and the record shows that they are implemented on a political basis (i.e. they are in effect not "hate crime" laws but "crimes against protected classes" laws).

This is the correct ruling because as others have said, there is not, nor has there ever been an absolute right to free speech. As a society we have recognized from the very beginning that there are certain things that we can't say at certain times. It's a concession we make in order to have a little something we like to call "civilization".

No matter what he was thinking, or what his intent was, the fact is that language is a mechanism to convey meaning to other people. No matter what his thought or intent was, the language on the banner had a clear and unambiguous message. And that message was prohibited by school rules. He's free to think whatever he wants, or have any intent he wants, it's his action that's prohibited.

For example, if intent is what matters, and intent makes everything OKl, why is John Hinkley Jr. in jail? His intent was to get a date with Jodie Foster, his thought was to make sweet sweet crazy guy love to her - but his action was to shoot Reagan. And the evil thought police of the US put him in jail for it.