Morse v. Frederick No. 06-278

[Sindawe]

AKA: "Bong hits 4 Jesus"

The Supreme Court has ruled.

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, 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 homosexuality or abortion.

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

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bong_hits

The text of the ruling may be found here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf

As I understand this case, Frederick was NOT on school grounds, had not yet arrived for the days school session and was at a public event when he and his fellows unfurled their banner.

 

[silliman89]

The kid was supposed to be at school. All the other kids were let out of school to attend the event as a class trip. When he showed up and unfurled his sign, even from across the street, he pretty much joined the class trip and became subject to school rules.

If a nudist goes streaking in public, they are charged with indecent exposure. If a flasher exposes themselves to school kids, they get charged with some kind of child molestation / sexual predator. If the flasher is across the street from the kids, he's just as guilty.

Now I'm not saying that flashing and promoting marijuana are the same thing. I'm just saying that doing it from across the street is the same thing, i.e. no protection at all from paying the consequences.

 

[Brainstem]

What I found disturbing is that the Supreme Court has now declared that schools, as agents of the government, can declare speech to either be 'free or restricted.'

That is a scary thing.

 

[ArmedBear]

It's not so scary. It's not really a major decision, from what I can tell. It's a narrow ruling. Many on whatever side are disappointed at just how narrow it is.

This was a "school event" by any common-sense definition. He could have shown up anywhere he wanted with a banner, but he chose to do so at the location of the field trip.

SCOTUS just ruled that there's a difference between protected speech and horseplay, or rather, tried to decide which was which.

The disagreement between justices was which one this was.

Was it a nonsensical message, or a political opinion delivered with a humorous banner?

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.

So he, himself, claims that it was a nonsensical message, not a political statement. If he'd have had a history of, say, advocating the legalization of marijuana, and this banner was part of that history, he might have won. But as it stands, he himself says it was horseplay to prove what he could get away with, not political speech. He may not mean to, but that's what he's saying.

Kennedy and Alito, for example, held that this decision is actually very narrow, because the banner does not make an argument relating to a political or social issue. They upheld the school's power to tell kids to "stop screwing around!" like the shop teacher in South Park. That has few scary implications that I can see.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_06_24-2007_06_30.shtml#1182789151

And SCOTUS has never held that someone has the "right to say anything at all" without liability, or even legal consequences. SCOTUS has held that someone has the right to express one's opinions about the government without repercussions from the government.

 

[DKSuddeth]

one has to wonder, had this been done on 'non-school' time, would the outcome have been different and had it not been different, what would this do to prevent further challenges to the raich ruling?