Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Justices put new limit on student speech

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041

    Justices put new limit on student speech

    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.

    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 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 pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling ********* at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nagodoches, Texas, according to court records.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    WASHINGTON -
    Joseph Frederick pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling ********* at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nagodoches, Texas, according to court records.
    Imagine that......

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    Imagine that......
    what does that mean?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On top
    Posts
    255
    "Bong hits for Jesus".... that's just stupid. I would have kicked the kids arse myself.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Huckster
    "Bong hits for Jesus".... that's just stupid. I would have kicked the kids arse myself.
    Well, CBS news reports
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...r=HOME_2974259
    that the Supreme Court reasoned thusly:

    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.

    So, if a kid can't hold a banner sayins "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," could a kid hold a banner that says, "No Bong Hits 4 Jesus" ?

    ---------------------

    Another curious condition in this little adventure is that the incident happened away from school. So, another question is, can the school regulate a student's speech off the school grounds?
    Read on:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...eechcase_N.htm
    Among the factors that could weigh in the decision, Frederick was standing on public property, not school grounds when he displayed the banner. The school said students were allowed to leave class to see the torch pass by, making the event school-sanctioned. Frederick, however, never made it to school that day before the event.


    Me, I would have sided with the minority (it was a 5 to 4 decision) on this, mostly because the incident happened off the school grounds at an attendance-optional event. Seems to me that the schools now have an excessive degree of control over student's free speech away from school.
    On the school grounds, yes, the school gets to regulate what goes on. Away from the school grounds, it's up to the parents.

    My gosh . . . I keep advocating for smaller government with less power over citizens -- I think I'm slowly becoming a Conservative!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
    Last edited by Tock; 06-27-2007 at 11:30 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants
    what does that mean?
    Why do you need everything explained to you? This student claimed that his sign had nothing to do with advocating the use of pot. Later on he gets popped for selling pot. Knock the chip off your shoulder and read, you seem to always be looking for an arguement.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Who would have thought that! LOL!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •