Posted on 06/25/2007 9:36:37 AM PDT by stm
WASHINGTON — The U.S. 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.
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.
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.
Click here to read the case information (FindLaw pdf)
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 drug use.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What is it about the drug war that makes otherwise-sensible conservatives lose their minds? Bong Hits 4 Jesus was truly nonsensical. Schools have NO BUSINESS trying to control speech off campus.
What about on a field trip?
It would behoove the school to quit being authoritarian control freaks in such a manner.
Why doesn’t everybody knock off the nonsense so that the fraking Supreme Court of the United States doesn’t have to get involved.
Geez. Everybody is always looking for an argument. The kid tries to provoke people, people got provoked. It’s all so pointless.
Myself, I think the kid had the right to do what he did. I have the right to fart in public. I try to avoid doing so, it’s just good manners.
The idea of somebody, somewhere, enjoying himself.
Disgraceful opinion.
This is a sad day for the American iron-on patch industry.
Schools can now prohibit everything from Tim Leary lectures on tape, to Grateful Dead and Redman music being played on campus, and also Dickens novels, and any classic novel that has any mention of alcohol (Jack Kerouac, Jack Kerouac never existed!) , and probably tobacco also, let alone any of Philip K Dick’s novels.
Once a state makes the possession of tobacco a crime for anyone under 18, a school system can remove (censor) all novels that contain any reference to tobacco. This is already being done by major movie studios on classic movies.
OK, enough bloviating from me, I’ll go read the opinion tonight.
I fail to see the problem. There is not—or at least should not be—an unlimited right for free speech by schoolchildren.
Schoolchildren need discipline, and as long as the discipline is reasonable, we should not have these damned ACLU lawyers constantly taking school districts to court. One result is that school administrators fear lawsuits, so there is little or no discipline in most of the public schools.
This is NOT good for the kids.
Sorry, something smells rotten here. Drugs may be illegal in most parts of this country, but advocating for legalization is not (even assuming that is in fact what this kid was doing). Buggering little boys is illegal, but the sick perverted SOBs in NAMBLA who want those laws repealed are still allowed to march. Nazis were allowed to rally in Skokie, and the cross-burners and flag-burners alike have their idiotic expression protected. The First Amendment was written to protect speech that may offend or even outrage others, not such non-controversial topics as the weather or one’s favorite wine. And where does it say one must reach a certain age to exercise those rights? If this principal wants a controversy-free zone, let her work in a private school and make her own rules! WHEW! I feel better now.
This once again brings back the underlying problem with the schools altogether: That they are run by the government. Even if you assume that the government should pay for everyones education, there is no reason why the government should actually run the schools.
Let parents choose schools on their own. Those who want their kids at schools that restrict speech are free to send them there. Those who want their kids at schools that allow such speech are free to send their kids there.
See also https://honestedu.org/page1.php
So you think the inmates should be in charge of the asylum.
Personally I wuuld have let this one go in the interest of free speech. But what if his sign was obscene? Okay then? What if it was threatening? What if it advocated another kind of crime? Furthermore, when something is more about disruption that speech (the Phelps funeral protests come to mind) I think it is fair to say that the free speech can happen, just after the event.
Still, we should have as few limits as possible.
So was it a school-sanctioned event or wasn’t it?
That's how I would come down on this one. LOL! Some things are better left in the hands of negative public reaction.
My parents would have gone to bat for me against the school if I had done something like this.
And then they would have kicked my butt themselves at home for being such an idiot.
And that’s the way it should be.
No. I think Americans have a right to free speech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.