Get Schooled

By Jeff

June 26, 2007 8:23 AM | Link to this

well, maybe at least now it will stop the idiots from bragging about it and disrupting class.

By luvs2teach

June 26, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this

My goodness…when will people learn that “freedom of speech” isn’t unlimited and doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.

I’m going to go yell “movie” in a crowded firehouse…oh, wait…

LOL

By Lisa B.

June 26, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this

I agree with the Supreme Court decision on this matter. Schools must try to keep disruptions at a minimum, if at all possible. The courts have upheld bans on controversial clothing, etc. However, it would be nearly impossible to ban what students SAY verbally. Kids will still talk about drugs, sex, etc. Some kids will still do drugs, and some won’t. I don’t think the Supreme Court ruling will impact drug use one way or the other.

By mmm

June 26, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

What would be a more interesting discussion is: Where did the money come from to pay for lawyers for 5 years to take this all the way to the Supreme Court.

Another case of Adults in disagreement, kids in control.

By Spooner

June 26, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

Justice Hugo Black, a well-known “absolutist” on behalf of “freedom of speech,” made it clear, in a trenchant critique of the Holmes “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” argument, that Black’s advocacy of freedom of speech was grounded in the rights of private property. Thus Black stated:

That is a wonderful aphorism about shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. But you do not have to shout “fire” to get arrested. If a person creates a disorder in a theater, they would get him there not because of what he hollered but because he hollered. They would get him not because of any views he had but because they thought he did not have any views that they wanted to hear there. That is the way I would answer not because of what he shouted but because he shouted.”

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fifteen.asp

The 1st Amendment was not meant to protect popular speech. The kid sought attention and recieved it. Was he advocating drug use? No.

By Spooner

June 26, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

The school allowed students and staff to leave class to watch the Olympic torch pass by.

Clearly the school was not trying to minimize distractions. In this case they seemed create them.

By decaturparent

June 26, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

I’m trying to get a handle on just how school-associated this parade was. Were the kids there during school hours? Were kids transported there by school buses? What it an event that was advertised officially by the school or school system? How close to the campus was it?

If it was further from the campus would the school have been deemed to have the right to punish him? If he did it on vacation at the beach would he have been punished. If he yelled it rather than putting up a banner would he have been punished?

I’m just concerned about the idea of a school having reach that goes too far into kids private lives. I already get very irritated by the feeling that I get during the school year the the school “owns” my kids.

Don’t get me wrong, if I caught my child with a sign like that the punishment that he or she would face from us (his parents) would be far more unpleasant than anything that a school could dish out. I just really think that the school system’s reach should end when the children are outside of the care of the school. At that point, the only entity with jurisdiction should be law enforcement and parents. Ideally (but I guess it’s not an ideal world), schools should teach - that’s it.

But then again, since we have so few parents actually bothering to parent these days, I guess that the school needs to step in - which is why they can’t get any teaching done.

By jim d

June 26, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Well have I been missed?

In the war on drugs, common sense is always the first casualty.

Here’s the problem I see with the courts ruling on this case.

“The incident occurred during school hours but on a public sidewalk across from the school.”

Just my personal opinon—The school should have no-nada-zilch authority over free speech when it dosen’t involve school property even if it is a school sponsored event such as this one was. But then that is just my opinon.

By jim d

June 26, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

Y’all do see the irony of this ruling, don’t you?

Possession of less than 1 oz. is legal in Alaska.

By decaturparent

June 26, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

OK, now I know more after going to CNN. This occurred during school time. The kids were let out of class for it and were accompanied by teachers. It was like a field trip. If it is on school time - then I have not problem with the school restricting an action like this.

On school time or school property the school should be able to control actions/words that promote illegal activities. Now if the kid had been on his own time (on the weekend or sth) with the banner - the school should have not jurisdiction.

By Jeff

June 26, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

jim:

the benefit of your approach would be that schools would then pull ALL school functions back to being STRICTLY on campus.

No more million dollar proms!!

By jim d

June 26, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

This really is pretty funny if you think about it.

A kid in Alaska can legally have less than an ounce stashed in his bedroom but can’t talk about it. :-)

By jim d

June 26, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

DP,

I guess I don’t see the danger of a kid with a sign promoting a legal activity in the state which he resides.

By Dan

June 26, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

At least this is quashing speech that refers to something illegal. (Note the kid in question has since been arrested for possesion in an unrelated incident) For years schools have been shutting kids up with inane zero tolerance policies regarding, so called hate speech, innocent touching, school yards games such as tag, all kinds of politically correct nonsense, in some schools they can’t even draw a picture of a gun even if it is in the hands of a cop or soldier. All of this is currently being done without a specific court ruling. Most of these decisions are words or actions which are legal and imposing a moral interpretaion of what the person meant and banning it. I suppose that you could make the argument that he was talking about using regular tobacco in the bong, but if he was under 18 that too would be illegal.

By Katie

June 26, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

We are losing our rights when it comes to freedom of speech. People get offended way to easy these days and it seems to me laws are changing to create a bubble for these little whiney babies. Get over yourselves people, if you don’t like what you hear either ignore it or don’t listen. Stop trying to control what others do or say—or not say for that matter. It’s NOT all about you, no matter how much you think your ideals are the right ones for everyone else.

By jim d

June 26, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Dan,

something illegal?

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?wtmview=&GroupID=4522

DP,

The case arose in 2002 when Joseph Frederick, then a student at Juneau-Douglas High School in Juneau, Alaska, was suspended for 10 days for holding up a humorous sign that the principal interpreted as a pro-drug message. As the ACLU and Mertz noted, the sign caused no disruption, was displayed at the Olympic Torch Relay - a public event on public streets - and Frederick had not yet arrived at school for the day.

By Katie

June 26, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

forgot to add, and how does everyone know Jesus didn’t smoke pot?? A lot of cultures use it (as well as coca) medicinely—how do we know Jesus didn’t? I think it’s pretty judgmental to be so firm in your belief he didn’t. I agree with the Alaskan boy, BONG HITS FOR JESUS!!!!

By jim d

June 26, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

SET,

Regardless of your personal opinon of the use of pot—Did the courts rule correctly in this case considering Alaska’s laws?

By Dan

June 26, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

Jim D Clearly it is something illegal, regardless of whether you agree with the law or not. Even with the less than an ounce rule, I would be surprised if there are not not caveats regarding schools and age. Having said that, while it seems inane to have this case go to the supreme court at all, and I think doing so gave the case and the cause more credibility than it deserved (which is more for advocates of legalizing marijuana than any free speech issue). As I pointed out there are far more egregious limits on free speech in the schools every day that have nothing to do even tangentially illegal.
My opinion he was a punk kid trying to get under the priciples skin, while she probably overeacted, you can’t completely tie her hands. But given it was not on school property she probably should not have a legal right to discipline but I would not have a problem with a lesser (day or two) suspension there needs to be some gray area

By jim d

June 26, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

Dan,

Obviously there are federal laws that may have been violated. The student, however was not charged with a violation of any law. He was merely suspended from school.

We are a nation of laws and when laws are broken violators should be charged and pay the penalties for those violations as subscribed by law, should they be found quilty. They should not be penalized without due process because some school authority feels they are superior to the law. Instead we have school authorities making up rules that actually violate the rights we are guaranteed under our federal constitution.

That is the issue here for me.

By jim d

June 26, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

BTW Dan,

It isn’t against the law to get under someones skin or to be a punk kid.

Sometimes I’m sure we all wish it were—but it isn’t.

By jim d

June 26, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

Let’s see—perhaps a list of words that may get one suspended from school should be published.

Here’s a start of over 7000 words.

http://www.nicd.us/drugstreetandslangterms.html

Feel free to add to the list and submit to your local school for publication.

By catlady

June 26, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

From a teacher’s point of view (only), students who do this type of thing are looking for REACTION from their supervisors and fellow students. Even if the school had ignored it, the students would not. And it would escalate into more and more attention-seeking behavior on the part of this student and his admirers. Since the buisness of schools is to learn, any behavior that draws attention away from learning should be subject to the school’s rules and consequences. You would probably not believe how many times things like this happen at school, although perhaps not so blatantly. And the kids who do it are the very ones who need APPROPRIATE attention, rather than inappropriate. But their parents cry “First Amendment” and think the behavior is cute (until it escalates so far out of control that the parent cannot take it anymore. Had this happen this year with a 4th grader at my school, but mom had been “training” him for it for nearly 10 years. Then when it bit her in the @#$ she turned him over to the state for evaluation).

The boy in this case could wear this shirt at home, to church, or to the mall, or wherever else he chose, just not to school or during school functions (and probably not to his workplace, if he had one) because of the disruption it could reasonably be assumed to cause. We all have to learn self-control and the choice of an appropriate time and place to air our opinions. Welcome to the adult world.

By swolf4810

June 26, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

The Bush loaded Supreme Court got it wrong……again.

By Dan

June 26, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

I don’t necessarily disagree with u Jim D, but the court didn’t make it against the law, they simply said the priciple broke no law in disciplining the kid.

Consider alternative headlines Students right to promote bong use to classemates upheld

or had the opinion been reversed; School principles prevented from disciplining students who promote drugs at school functions

Both are probably more contextuall and factually correct than CNN’s headline of Supreme court limits students speech

In either case it is inane as are both the ruling itself (indeed simply hearing the case) and the clear sensationalistic reporting by the press. Are all indications of agendas that have nothing to do with the issue. If the kid put up a jesus saves banner and he was suspended it the press would have supported the suspension. Link it to drugs and it becomes a free speech issue. (and i am far from religious btw)

By Lisa B.

June 26, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

I agree with Dan’s comments. When I said I agreed with the Supreme Court ruling, it is because I believe the court was right to uphold the principal’s disciplinary action against a student who caused disruption at his school. I don’t think the intent of the ruling was to prevents students from talking.

By jim d

June 26, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

No sir, It appears the court ruled that the school had authority over speech of an enrolled student even though he was not at the function under the auspices of the school and was not on school property.

I think a key point here is that the student hadn’t reported to school the day of the incident. Technically I’d have not had a problem should the school suspended him for playing hookey. But they didn’t. They suspended him for his words.

I really fear this ruling may hold dire consequence to our freedoms somewhere down the road.

By jim d

June 26, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

Lisa,

Let me just point out that there reportedly was no disruption.

By jim d

June 26, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

Dan,

I just gotta ask this question.

Do you honestly believe that one student holding a sign saying “bong hits 4 jesus” will alter any other students behavior to the point they will go fire up the bong?

By SET

June 26, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

I’m on the road so I’m checking in occasionally.

The Supreme Court of the US is in a fantasy world in my opinion. And I don’t mean the individuals at the moment but the institution as operating for the last 80 years.

They have decided to create political compromises rather than to enforce the Constitution as written and tell the players involved to change it or live with it.

They are still doing this. Sandra Day O’Connor was a state legislator who masterfuly operated the institution, one of a list of such people who got the levers of power.

The problem is that they aren’t supposed to be doing this. There is a saying that the road to hell begins with good intentions. I believe all of them have good intentions.

There is no basis in the US Constitution for federal interference in state public school operations. No basis for extending “rights” to children in school against teacher and administration authority - these people stand in place of parents.

I could go on about the court deciding it’s just fine to destroy freedom of association and to allow states to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens - such is the state and local authority did to the people during the Katrina disaster.

Suffice to say the first rule of any federal judge is to say why is this thing before me and why do I have to have anything to do with it. The current bunch are like addicts, they will not stay out of anything.

All powers not expressly given to the Feds are reserved to the States. Congress can write bunnies and flowers on it’s bills and the Federal Judges are supposed to strike it all down unless it is clearly within their limited constitutional power.

This school nonsense should never have gone beyond that state’s supreme court and which ever way that state wanted to go - it is their children and their business.

By Charles

June 26, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

The United States Supreme Court telling students they can’t talk about drugs won’t keep them from doing them, but the task of the church is to help them make better decisions.

The year was 1969; we were freshmen at our independent schools, so called segregated schools. David, a friend and fellow high school basketball player decided to experiment with marijuana which left us bewildered. His decision was a life altering one; he was never the same person again.

I met David in the second grade. We developed a friendship; we grew up together.

His decision to experiment with marijuana changed him ever so slightly, but decisively. Had I not been an extremely sensitive person, the change might have been overlooked or dismissed. He was never again, completely whole, the same person who I once knew; his personality within months had become somewhat paranormal, magically skewed.

Illicit drugs magically deprive children and adults of the innate ability to discern right and wrong; good and evil; the very foundation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The United States Supreme Court was morally right in extending prohibition on student expression to anything deemed as promoting illicit drug use; a task of the church. Legally, I think their decision was unconstitutional.

By Lisa B.

June 26, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

SET, thanks for shedding some light on this issue.

By Katie

June 26, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

Catlady, is it not part of the learning process for children to test bounderies and act inappropriately? I think so. Going to school is about learning more than English, math and science, it’s about learning behavior. Are we asking kids to act like adults in school? they are KIDS, geez. They’re going to act as children until they grow up to be adults. Don’t expect them to behave in a manner they’re not ready to.

By jim d

June 26, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

Charles,

I agree, with but one exception.

In my humble opinon While the church and each individual does have moral obligations to each other and to God, Government has no moral obligations. I fear when governemnet starts dictating morals we are in deep do-do.

By catlady

June 26, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

I wonder what the student code of conduct said?

On college campuses the courts have ruled that student protests, etc, can be governed as to where they can take place; that is, there can be a spot set aside for protests and other free speech activities. You cannot incite others to illegal activities, however. Then there are the rulings on hate speech.

Private k-12 schools can also legally govern on and off campus behaviors to a greater degree than public schools, presumably because they are part of a voluntary contractual relationship.

Jim d, I think you are right to be scared about the consequences to our freedoms down the road. I am terrified with what I have seen eroding over the last 10-20 years, myself. And the folks I see going along with it—if you had told me back in the 60s that they would cheerfully hand over these rights, I never would have believed you.

By Dan

June 26, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

But the schools authority to penalize only exists within the confines of the school, there is no criminal record, there is no deprivation of freedom (jail) or financial penalties. If you want to attend school you must abide by its rules. One of the primary problems in public schools is the mindset that it is owed to them, and regardless of their behavior, it is the schools duty to educate them. Lets also remember that before ouishing the student the principle asked the student to remove it from view of the other students. One who is worried about loosing freedoms should be far more concerned with the socialism of political correctness taught in our schools than with the appropriate disciplining of a trouble maker

By Charles

June 26, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

Jim d,

We are in deep doo doo when the church does not dictate morals, or does not have the influence to do so?

Years ago, the church needed only to say that abortion is sinful. Women and men were greatly influenced. We needed no laws; Roe vs Wade. But if the church has lost its influence, the moral question has to be addressed.

By decaturparent

June 26, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

Very interesting legal question - would make an excellent law school essay.

So now apparently, the kid had not checked into school yet. What constitutes “checking in”? Is a kid considered present b/c they show up at a school function or does the teacher have to actually check them off of the roster for them to be considered in attendance?

I think that the case would really revolve around that question. Was the kid under the school’s jurisdiction?

Now, another issue is that apparently this kid was 18. He is not required to attend school anymore. His attendance at that age is voluntary so I’m not buying the compulsory schooling/free speech argument.

If the kid chose to attend school, he can be expected to abide by the school’s rules while in its jurisdiction. He can hang his banner anyplace and time he wants so long as it isn’t on the school’s time. Such a rule does not infringe on free speech - it just requires that it take place at an appropriate time.

Now, the fact that pot is legal in small quantities in Alaska does change things a bit, but I am still pondering that one.

By Atheist

June 26, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

Charles, for those of us who do not believe in god, why should his teachings rule what we want, say, think or do? I don’t believe and don’t want religious thoughts dictating what is right or wrong in my world. What you do in your church and home is your business but it doesn’t belong in a ‘public’ school. Keep your religious teachings for private, religious schools. The only thing any church should dictate is what is spoken on Sundays—or when ever you go to hear your sermon. And, I won’t be slamming any non-religious beliefs at you. Fair is fair. To each their own. I simply can’t stand for people to tell others what to think and feel. I should also mention that I don’t have kids, nor do I want them, but since my tax dollars (85%) go to public schools I will have my say in the subject. That is all, have a lovely day.

By jim d

June 26, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this

While we set here discussing this freedom of speech case there was another one decided by the supremes on the very same day that went a full 180 out from what they cite in this one.

How strange.(not)

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-969.pdf

By catlady

June 26, 2007 2:32 PM | Link to this

Katie, I suspect you don’t have a child in school being subjected to the “lessons” your classmates are giving you, all in the name of “testing the waters” and “acting inappropriately”. I can only suggest you make some visits to a variety of schools to see the lessons some kids are teaching others, and the resulting interference in the stated missions of the schools.

By Jeff

June 26, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

Atheist:

Do you fail to see the hypocrisy in this statement:

Keep your religious teachings for private, religious schools. The only thing any church should dictate is what is spoken on Sundays—or when ever you go to hear your sermon. And, I won’t be slamming any non-religious beliefs at you.

You start it BY slamming a non-religious belief at believers.

Talk about hypocritical…

It has often been said by many of the best logicians that atheism is the ONE religion that makes ZERO logical sense, and I concur. One must have much MORE religious belief to be an atheist than any other single religion out there.

By jim d

June 26, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

I know many of you won’t bother to read the link above so let me just summarize it for you.

The courts opinion protects campaign ads financed by corporate funds in virtually every case by assuming that the ads are issue advocacy and not ads seeking election or defeat of a candidate, saying that we give the benefit of the doubt to speech.

Student speech gets no such favorable presumption. Indeed, the exact reverse is true. If there is any reasonable basis for the school official’s characterization of the speech as advocating illegal conduct the speech can be banned giving the benefit of doubt to suppression of speech.

A rather conflicting view from the same group of supremes—wouldn’t you say?

By Jeff

June 26, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

jim:

The schools’ mission is education and/ or training, depending upon your point of view. Student expression that gets in the way of this mission can AND SHOULD BE banned. Students are NOT adults and have precisely ZERO political input FOR A REASON.

The Supremes’ decisions does not reflect hypocrisy, but instead a clear understanding that the Free Speech clause directly relates to adult political speech.

By KC Otto, MD

June 26, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

As a patient-churning, prescription- writing machine, I believe all drug laws should be abolished. Why should I—or anyone else—have more control over your body than you do? I don’t want that responsibility, yet our current drug laws force me to accept it.

If you don’t own your own body, who owns you? This is de facto slavery. I believe all drug laws are unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court is way out of line on this decision. For the record, since the media seems to want to bury the information: Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito oppose free speech. Breyer was wishy washy. Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg are for free speech.

By Charles

June 26, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this

Atheist,

I wonder who put those thoughts in your head. You sound like African Americans who don’t believe in a black Jesus. Given African Americans condition in the United States, collectively don’t have a pot to p** in, they should wish Jesus was black instead of arguing the contrary.

Atheist, if disbelievers were thinking properly, given the putrid and deteriorating state of men, women, and children on the earth, they should wish we have a living God instead of arguing the contrary.

If you will not submit to the rule of God, you will be ruled by tyrants. It’s your choice.

I have to admit, I had to be completely convinced, face to face, by the creator of heaven and earth.

By GaLiberal

June 26, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

This decision will have lots of unintented consequences and abuses. Teachers and administrators will see this as a blank check to censor any speech and use the claim it was disruptive or promoting drug use. If I say ‘I took three hits and only got to second base.’ I have made a reference to drug use (hits) and sexual activity (second base). When factually I was talking about a baseball game. You can take anything out of context and make it sound bad. Just look at what Boortz, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Fox News.

By Jeff

June 26, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

Liberal:

Better examples would be Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, and Reid…

By Tony

June 26, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

It is about time that schools are able to take action and not have to fear “violating the rights” of someone. For all of us who believe that schools should have order and discipline, I believe this court decision is a mild victory.

By Dan

June 26, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this

Yes Jim it would be conflicting were the stakes and context were the same which they are clearly not (even given your selective paraphrasing) and if in the bongs for jesus case anything was banned which it was not. In one case we are talking about protecting the perceived right of a whiney a* teenager to get some attention and the other is protecting the political discourse that makes this country what it is and allows all the various opinions to be shared on blogs like this without fear of retribution. One would certainly hope the people who sit on the highest court in the land would be able to differentiate between the two. There is really zero correlation, between the two but if you must make a correlation and the resulting conflicting positions at least we can at least be grateful that they erred in the insignificant case. As opposed to one that seeks to limit speech legislatively with a far broader reach than a highschool classroom. Additionally the courts demonstrated ability to segregate that which is important from that which is not, would belie the argument that the bongs case leads to a slippery slope.

By jim d

June 26, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

Ahh, but yet the courts have ruled that students do maintain freedom of speech rights even when inside of the school house.

Just an observation: The guarantee of freedom of speech in America is established in the very first amendment to the American Constitution: “Congress shall pass no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Ever wonder why it was first?

Free speech is often regarded by many, if not most, Americans as one of their most important rights. At the same time, there are regular government efforts to regulate, restrict, or even prohibit a great many types of speech - and often with popular support from the public.

It seems as though people approve of free speech, but only when they approve of the content of that speech. As soon as the speech turns to political views they dislike or sexual material that offends them, the principle of freedom of speech disappears.

Perhaps—Just perhaps we should revisit the constitution and amend it to say “Freedom of speech so long as everyone agrees.”

By jim d

June 26, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this

Sorry Dan,

Can’t have it both ways. We either protect the freedom of speech or give it up altogether—I see no middle ground.

By thomas

June 26, 2007 7:07 PM | Link to this

The issue really isn’t over what the young man had on his sign. The issue is over whether or not students and parents have the right to disrupt school. They do not.

Sadly, many people today feel they have the right to do what ever they want in school. This is one of the reasons schools in western society are in such chaos (that is American and British schools). Schools in other parts of the world aren’t in such disarray.

This is why many people enjoy working with immigrant students, despite the inherent academic deficiencies. Students from other parts of the world don’t seem to want to give schools the finger.

A few more Supreme Court rulings like this and school may become an enjoyable place again.

By Lee

June 26, 2007 7:45 PM | Link to this

Sorry Jim D, I don’t see this as a freedom of speech issue. According to the ruling, the student was “At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event…” As such, the school has the right, nay, duty to govern behavior and speech of the students in their care. I gotta back the principal on this one.

Now, if the student was at the event during his own time, then he would have a complaint if the principal tried to take his banner.

Of course, back when I was in school, the last thing you wanted was for the football coach to see you acting a fool, even on your own time. Next practice, you’d be running the bleachers till you puked.

Living in a one-red light town, it was hard to hide…

By jim d

June 27, 2007 8:13 AM | Link to this

Fraid we disagree Lee and the courts heard it as such.

I agree with Justice Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg’s dissenting view.

There is absolutely no evidence that Frederick’s banner’s reference to drug paraphernalia “willful[ly]” infringed on anyone’s rights or interfered with any of the school’s educational programs.2 On its face, then, the rule gave Frederick wide berth “to express [his] ideas and opinions” so long as they did not amount to “advoca[cy]” of drug use. Ibid. If the school’s rule is, by hypothesis, a valid one, it is valid only insofar as it scrupulously preserves adequate space for constitutionally protected speech. When First Amendment rights are at stake, a rule that “sweep[s] in a great variety of conduct under a general and indefinite characterization” may not leave “too wide a discretion in its application.” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 308 (1940). Therefore, just as we insisted in Tinker that the school establish some likely connection between the armbands and their feared consequences, so too JDHS must show that Frederick’s supposed advocacy stands a meaningful chance of making otherwise-abstemious students try marijuana.

But instead of demanding that the school make such a showing, the Court punts. Figuring out just how it punts is tricky; “[t]he mode of analysis [it] employ[s] is not entirely clear,” see ante, at 9. On occasion, the Court suggests it is deferring to the principal’s “reasonable” judgment that Frederick’s sign qualified as drug advocacy.3 At other times, the Court seems to say that it thinks the banner’s message constitutes express advocacy.4 Either way, its approach is indefensible. To the extent the Court defers to the principal’s ostensibly reasonable judgment, it abdicates its constitutional responsibility. The beliefs of third parties, reasonable or otherwise, have never dictated which messages amount to proscribable advocacy. Indeed, it would be a strange constitutional doctrine that would allow the prohibition of only the narrowest category of speech advocating unlawful conduct, see Brandenburg, 395 U. S., at 447-448, yet would permit a listener’s perceptions to determine which speech deserved constitutional protection.5

To the extent the Court independently finds that “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” objectively amounts to the advocacy of illegal drug use—in other words, that it can most reasonably be interpreted as such—that conclusion practically refutes itself. This is a nonsense message, not advocacy. The Court’s feeble effort to divine its hidden meaning is strong evidence of that. Ante, at 7 (positing that the banner might mean, alternatively, ” ‘[Take] bong hits,’ ” ” ‘bong hits [are a good thing],’ ” or ” ‘[we take] bong hits’ “). Frederick’s credible and uncontradicted explanation for the message—he just wanted to get on television—is also relevant because a speaker who does not intend to persuade his audience can hardly be said to be advocating anything.7 But most importantly, it takes real imagination to read a “cryptic” message (the Court’s characterization, not mine, see ibid., at 6) with a slanting drug reference as an incitement to drug use. Admittedly, some high school students (including those who use drugs) are dumb. Most students, however, do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate, and most students know dumb advocacy when they see it. The notion that the message on this banner would actually persuade either the average student or even the dumbest one to change his or her behavior is most implausible. That the Court believes such a silly message can be proscribed as advocacy underscores the novelty of its position, and suggests that the principle it articulates has no stopping point.

Even if advocacy could somehow be wedged into Frederick’s obtuse reference to marijuana, that advocacy was at best subtle and ambiguous. There is abundant precedent, including another opinion The Chief Justice announces today, for the proposition that when the “First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker,” Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. _ (2007) (slip op., at 21) and that “when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy … we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship,” post, at 29. If this were a close case, the tie would have to go to Frederick’s speech, not to the principal’s strained reading of his quixotic message.

Among other things, the Court’s ham-handed, categorical approach is deaf to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high-school students, about the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use.8 See Tinker, 393 U. S., at 511 (“[Students] may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved”). If Frederick’s stupid reference to marijuana can in the Court’s view justify censorship, then high school students everywhere could be forgiven for zipping their mouths about drugs at school lest some “reasonable” observer censor and then punish them for promoting drugs. See also ante, at 2 (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).

Consider, too, that the school district’s rule draws no distinction between alcohol and marijuana, but applies evenhandedly to all “substances that are illegal to minors.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 53a; see also App. 83 (expressly defining ” ‘drugs’ ” to include “all alcoholic beverages”). Given the tragic consequences of teenage alcohol consumption—drinking causes far more fatal accidents than the misuse of marijuana—the school district’s interest in deterring teenage alcohol use is at least comparable to its interest in preventing marijuana use. Under the Court’s reasoning, must the First Amendment give way whenever a school seeks to punish a student for any speech mentioning beer, or indeed anything else that might be deemed risky to teenagers? While I find it hard to believe the Court would support punishing Frederick for flying a “WINE SiPS 4 JESUS” banner—which could quite reasonably be construed either as a protected religious message or as a pro-alcohol message—the breathtaking sweep of its opinion suggests it would

If you are interested the courts published opinions can be found on findlaw.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-278

On a side note: The Court’s opinion ignored the fact that the legalization of marijuana was an issue of considerable public concern in Alaska at the time. The State Supreme Court held in 1975 that Alaska’s constitution protects the right of adults to possess less than four ounces of marijuana for personal use.

In 1990, the voters of Alaska attempted to undo that decision by voting for a ballot initiative recriminalizing marijuana possession. At the time Frederick unfurled his banner, the constitutionality of that referendum had yet to be tested. It was subsequently struck down as unconstitutional. BTW, Fredirick was an adult of 18 at the time.

By WFC

June 27, 2007 8:20 AM | Link to this

I am not an atheist but I don’t believe that a carpenter who has been dead almost 2000 years should have the final say over what goes in 2007. This is America and you are therefore entitled to believe otherwise.

The sign was silly and nonsensical but it did not disrupt instruction. Why were the students out watching a parade when they should have been doing academic work?

If adults hadn’t over-reacted, all of this would have been FORGOTTEN within an hour with nobody being dragged into the degredation of the “drug life.” Just goes to show that people running public schools are not the “sharpest knives in the drawer.”

The legal hhassles were a giant waste of money.

By jim d

June 27, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this

Adding to the irony,

Fredrick has become a teacher.

By Jeff

June 27, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this

jim:

let us pray, then, that he has finally seen the error of his actions.

By OldSchool

June 27, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

In my own very humble opinion: I’ve been witness to uprisings over controversial t-shirt messages and have tried to carry on teaching in the aftermath. If the student “wins,” others often seem to take that as an okay to push the envelope even further. If the school “wins,” there is often the same reaction by other students and sometimes even their parents. For the teacher just trying to continue teaching, the ripple effect can be a real challenge.

Students bring a lot of baggage to class…often not even their own. Issues of dress code, freedom of speech, and such can be detrimental to the learning atmosphere no matter which side is right or which side wins. I choose to respond to those students trying to draw me into the debate (yes, even in my vocational class it happens) that if they dislike a rule, there is a process they can follow to be heard and possibly get it changed. I also remind them to be prepared to defend their stance with valid arguments, to offer viable solutions, be open to compromise, to maintain their own dignity, and to show respect the other side. It has been interesting to watch the students’ and administrations’ approaches to these first-hand lessons in “law-making” although it is painfully obvious they care nothing about the lesson and everything about getting their way. Only once have I witness students putting together a very valid proposal and presenting it in a very mature, dignified manner. The radical change in dress code was passed and…just as I knew they would…within 2 school years, students were again pushing the limits with clothing that defied the very rules THEY developed.

Far too often though, students would rather just argue or defy the administration than put together and present a reasonable, logical, and workable proposal. It must be far more fun to fan the flames than do the work.

Over the past 33 years, I’ve observe these kinds of actions. It’s a little deja vu all over again.

By jim d

June 27, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

Error? perhaps—perhaps not.

Whenever we defend our freedoms, win or lose, it is never an error.

By Jeff

June 27, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

jim:

he was in the wrong in the first place with the banner. he was further in the wrong by contesting the principal’s action.

Mass education cannot exist in chaos. We MUST have rules. He KNOWINGLY broke them, causing a disruption of public school in the process.

By jim d

June 27, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

“I find it absurdly funny,” he said. “

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/19/free.speech/index.html

By jim d

June 27, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

Several supreme court judges disagree with you.

By Jeff

June 27, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

jim:

4 Supremes can be wrong all they want.

When 5 get it wrong is when we have a problem.

Fortunately, in this case, only 4 did…

By jim d

June 27, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

I’m not too sure they did get it right. Neither are many conservative religious leaders. They raised some interesting points.

Christian Attorneys Defend ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ Student.

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000004163.cfm

By jim d

June 27, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

Then we may have a problem!

By jim d

June 27, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

Unintended consequences?

Conservative groups that often are allied with the administration were 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.

Let’s see here. Do either of those issues fit into the schools stated mission? Might discussions of these issues lead to disruption?

I’m afraid we may be in for a long-hard ride here Jeff.

By jim d

June 27, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

I guess whenver I see issues regarding speech I just recall the words of Niemoller and I don’t relish the thought of being the one described at the end of his passage.

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Have a great day my friend.

By Jeff

June 27, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

Jim:

This isn’t a guy with a banner proclaiming that the drug laws need to be struck down - even I would protect that.

Instead, this is a guy trying to be funny and grab attention for himself (aka “disrupting the school”) with a nonsensical, ludicrous banner.

Had he made it more of an actual political banner, I would say that it should be protected, even though I disagreed with its contents. It wasn’t slanderous or libelous, so I would protect it. Again, he did NOT do this. His ONLY true intent was to gain attention for himself.

He succeeded, and then proceeded to waste taxpayer money trying to fight his just punishment.

By SET

June 27, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

Here we go again.

The Bill Of Rights were intended to control Federal Power. It is a constitutional fantasy that the Bill Of Rights were controlling the State Governments (It limits the power of Congress). The States were expected to write and live by their own constitutions. The States duplicated such limits as their own people wanted from time to time.

As time went by, amendments were written applying to the states but the Supreme Court in a monumental power grab, decided long ago that through the Due Process clause (as they then interpreted it) the earlier amendments were to be applied to the states also. This is one of the cornerstones of the expansion of federal power and the diminishment of state power.

Thereafter, the elite concentrated their bribes - I mean campaign contributions - to the federal elections. Ultimately we have the federal government setting speed limits on state roads and controlling primary school education.

That’s all fine if that’s what you signed up for. It’s nowhere in the US Constitution and no-one bothered to float an amendment to properly empower the feds. To overtly grab all that power might make people wake up and realize where this is all going to end.

So I see the chain of decisions that lead us to the destruction of the USA - my point is it’s not what anybody wrote in the US Constitution or voted for. A massive government with centralized power in DC is a very (historically) bad idea for viability of this society.

As we now see when people seriously argue that secondary students have “freedom of speech”. I notice that in CA the teachers as well as the professional class and up aren’t sending their kids to public schools where their kids will be subjected to other children’s “freedom of speech”.

You can’t train the proletariat for work, military or higher education in this atmosphere. You can get yourself a really dumb electorate this way. And I never did believe in accidents.

A society that lives in the moment, that is self centered, is ripe for the rise of a Mao, a Castro, a Stalin, a Hitler, or whatever is coming for us. And remember, every one of these people were popularly elected in one way or another.

We are happily delivering total control of the nation right down to the schools into the hands of one woman or man (and their buddies in Congress) - destroying all of the checks and balances that were written into the constitution to prevent exactly this. At the rate things are going they won’t even have to suspend the Constitution to take total power, they’ll already have it.

By jim d

June 27, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

SET,

I must agree. This never belonged in the federal courts.

Alaska’s Declaration of Rights signed in 1959 specifically states in sec. 5, “Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

I do however still fail to see any abuse, of the right to speak by Fredrick, in this instance.

By luvs2teach

June 27, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

You know, when our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they drafted a document which has proven to be remarkably flexible, given the unimaginable changes in society, American culture, and communication in the last 230-odd years.

Realizing it wasn’t perfect, they drafted the subsequent Bil of Rights and developed a series of checks and balances that have worked surprisingly well ever since. Mistakes? Sure - remember the 18th Ammendment and Plessy vs Ferguson? Things get righted eventually.

Our Founding Fathers were greatly influenced by the philosophy of John Locke and the idea of the social contract. Freedom of speech (or expression, for you modernists) wasn’t really an issue until the 20th century - social mores kept people in line more than the law did. So jim d’s idea of “Just perhaps we should revisit the constitution and amend it to say ‘Freedom of speech so long as everyone agrees.’” is pretty much on the mark.

Remember the expression, “Your rights end where mine begin?” To me, all these issues are merely a reflection of the cultural divides (in age, religion, sexuality, parenting - I could go on and ON!) and new forms of communication. We’re still figuring it out.

Great post, OldSchool, and a perfect example of how kids will push the limits. That brings me to Katie’s post from yesterday:

“Catlady, is it not part of the learning process for children to test bounderies and act inappropriately?”

Yeah, Katie, it is…but it’s also the job of the adults in that child’s life - coaches, teachers, pastors, PARENTS! - to let him or her know where the boundary is - and usually, sadly for the child, that means a consequence of some sort. That’s how they grow up - if you just “let them act like kids” they’ll never grow up.

By OldSchool

June 27, 2007 5:22 PM | Link to this

Likely it wasn’t anything about banners or drugs or bongs or even Jesus. It was all about a kid seeing just what he could get away with.

It’s what kids do. Maybe their actions are some grand experiment to see if punishment fit the crime or could be just to get their 15 minutes of fame.

Worked, didn’t it?

By Lee

June 27, 2007 6:07 PM | Link to this

I still fail to see where this is a freedom of speech issue. The Founding Fathers came from an era where criticism of the King or Queen could get you put in jail, or worse. When they drafted the Bill of Rights, they wanted to ensure that a citizen could air his grievances against the government without fear of retribution or retaliation.

Sadly, our courts have twisted that noble idea to the point that an “artist” can display a crucifix in a pail of urine and call it art, all the while being protected as a form of “freedom of speech.”

And yes, there are limits as to when and where this freedom may be exercised. I’m sure if SET were to stand up in a courtroom and begin to state his opinion on [select a topic here], the judge would quickly hold him in contempt of court and have him arrested.

As I posted earlier, according to the ruling, the student was “At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event…” The principal gave him a lawful, direct order to do something. He refused. He paid the consequenses. It does not matter whether his banner read “Bong hits for Jesus” or “Have a nice day.”

Now that he is in the workforce, that action is call insubordination and it will get you terminated quicker than anything.

By jim d

June 28, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

Well Lee,

I realize these may be minor points but,

Though he was standing on a public sidewalk, the school argued Frederick was part of a school-sanctioned event, because students were let out of classes and accompanied by their teachers. Yet Fredrick reportedly had not yet reported to school. Just my opinon but that makes him just another ADULT on the sidewalk

Morse ordered the senior to take down the sign, but he refused. That led to a 10-day suspension for violating a school policy on promoting illegal drug use. Not for refusal to relinguish the sign, but for what the sign said.

It is easy for me to see why the court was split so closely on this issue. I just honestly believe they got it wrong. The devil here is really in the details.

By Lee

June 28, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

Yes Jim, the devil really is in the details. There are a couple of critical points that would sway my support one way or the other. The main point to me is whether or not he was actually at a school sanctioned event.

While I agree that a student’s right to free speech does not end at the schoolhouse door, I do recognize there are limits and that the school must be allowed to control the behavior of the students under their care and custody.

“10-day suspension for violating a school policy on promoting illegal drug use” I agree there should be some consequences for insubordination for refusing to comply with the principal’s direct order to take the banner down, but a 10 day suspension for displaying a banner is bullcrap. Even that goes back to whether or not he was really at a school event.

Bottom line, neither the student nor the principal exercised good judgement on this one.

But alas, thet’s the state of public schools today, isn’t it.

By jim d

June 28, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this

Indeed it is Lee,

That is why my very first comment on this issue was “In the war on drugs, common sense is always the first casualty.”

By jim d

June 28, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

Lee,

As to the issue of school sanctioned event.

Since the running of the torch is in fact a public event, it matters not if the school sanctioned it thus allowing students to leave class to watch it.

The sticking point to me is that as an adult Fredrick elected to not report to school but go directly to a public event that just happened to be sanctioned by the school. So The question becomes one of personal rights when one is not directly under supervison of the school. The school argued they he was under their supervision when in fact as an adult he had not subjected himself to that supervion on the day in question.

By SET

June 28, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

Lee: You obviously don’t understand the role of a lawyer in a courtroom.

We don’t stand up and lecture the court with our opinions on public policy. We can argue the facts of a case when it’s time to do so within the deadlines we have to work in. It’s improper to personally vouch for the truth of a witness or other facts - we are not witnesses ourselves.

The best work we do is keeping our clients under control and their mouths shut - when it’s not time for them to say something.

And you miss the point of my posts. The law degree is primarily a history degree, by the way. The US Supremes have no power and no business applying the US Constitution to public schools that are state agencies. Our Federal constitution sets up the federal government and limits it’s power. All else remains the provence of the State Governments. By seriously trying to debate what the US Supremes will allow and not allow inside a classroom the Feds have forgotten their place and have gone power mad.

To the extent they try to micromanage life all over the States they render the state constitutions and governments superfulous ans make the USA an unstable centralized power form of government. We know from history what happens to those systems. Big Bang.

Decentralized power is more dynamic and more durable over time. Which is why the Founders of this country wrote what they did. Centralized power is a narcotic which is why the 20th Century polititians turned the Constitution on it’s head. They couldn’t get the votes to amend it anymore, so they simply changed it without amendments.

We are now paying the price and the price is about to reach the ultimate. Like all large democracies, we are about to have a dictator. It can come from the right or the left, but it is coming. Bush is nothing compared to what’s in store. School policy plays into what is happening. Think “1984” - much of that is in process already. Realspeak, for example.