BONG HiTS 4 JESUS

[tranquility]

What is the name of your state? US

The Supreme Court today (one on-line opinion is at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-278

has held that school administrators have the power of their position to punish student's speech rights outside of the schoolhouse doors.

The holding was, "Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick."

While I agree with the decision, the hurdle was whether the student was under control of the school at the time. The court found, "Frederick's argument that this is not a school speech case is rejected. The event in question occurred during normal school hours and was sanctioned by Morse as an approved social event at which the district's student-conduct rules expressly applied. Teachers and administrators were among the students and were charged with supervising them. Frederick stood among other students across the street from the school and directed his banner toward the school, making it plainly visible to most students. Under these circumstances, Frederick cannot claim he was not at school. "

The problem with the logic will be that internet content can be fit into the definition (depending on the individual school's internet use) making internet writing, pages etc. within the purview of the school. I predict litigation (if it hasn't already started) be required in an attempt to distinguish in and out of school in our internet age.

 

[notsmartmark]

I don't believe you read the decision. The Court held that if the speech occurred outside of the school's control it would have reverted to Tinker and the need for the speech to have threatened a substantial disruption to the school.

Even though Justice Alito and Justice Kennedy clearly stated that they believe this case only allows a school to control pro-drug messages during school or school sponsored events and the Court tried to carefully incorporate "Bong Hits For Jesus" into Fraser's offensively lewd and indecent speech, I believe it has opened a potential Pandora's box of additional cases.

There will be a principal who will try to encompass other speech into this decision that the school considers lewd or offensive, i.e., pro-gay marriage, abortion, anti-military language that isn't presenting a substantial disruption under this decision.

I found Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion very interesting and well crafted. I also found Judge Thomas' argument interesting, not because it was well crafted, but instead because it is worrisome. "As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools." Period.
He went on, "Early public schools gave total control to teachers, who expected obedience and respect from students. And courts routinely deferred to schools' authority to make rules and to discipline students for violating those rules." He would disagree with a student's right to protest against the war, or, in fact, protest against anything that a school found objectionable.

 

[seniorjudge]

Free speech never hurt anyone.

That's my position and I'm sticking to it.


Flag burning, etc.: I saw an Italian girl at an Italian restaurant wearing an Italian flag as an apron.

 

[fairisfair]

I wanna be on SJ's team.

 

[tranquility]

Most everyone on the court except Bryer was willing to accept some level of restriction on pro-illegal-drug speech in the schoolhouse. Thomas and, perhaps, Bryer are the only ones who wouldn't do it with a specific first amendment viewpoint exception. Drugs are bad...m'kay. The schools should not be allowing students to encourage other students to do bad things while in school. We know the student's rights don't end at the schoolhouse doors, but the court found avocating illegal drug use is not a right in school. (As to if the phrase does so is another thing entirely. It doesn't seem more than a sophormoric joke which will have any effect on other students beyond a snicker. But that's just my take. I lean towards Stevens in this regard.)

The greater problem to me is the complete dismissal of the in/out of school argument with criteria which can be applied to situations which I don't believe should be covered by school rules.

The decision leave open qualified immunity to school administrators who act on expressive content by any student in or out of school as long as there can be some arguable nexus of school activity. If a school allows students access to the internet, I think an administrator would be fine if he punished a student who posted a page on the web saying "drugs are cool" or, because of the silliness of the particular facts in this case, "reality sucks." This is the thing I fear, not that students are controlled by the government when they are in the classroom, but that they can be controlled when any argument could be made that the activity is "directed" at the school. If a web page is directed at friends at school and those friends could view the page at school, is it directed at the school?

(Remember all justices would have given qualified immunity to Morse.)