MergeLeft
I feel better already!
- Joined
- May 31, 2007
- Messages
- 232
- Reaction score
- 6
FYI, this kid was NOT on school property- he was across the street & it was a public event. So, if your kid borrows your Bob Marley T-shirt & his principal sees him at the mall, he could theoretically be suspended.
Justice Stevens deserves a medal for what he said at the end of this about debating the war on drugs & medicinal mj.
Court Tightens Limits on Student Speech
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 25, 2007; 12:38 PM
The Supreme Court affirmed wide authority for school administrators to regulate students' speech today, allowing principals to punish pupils who make any in-school speech or demonstration that may "reasonably be viewed" as promoting illegal drug use.
The finding came in a case in which a Juneau public high school teacher gave Joseph Frederick a 10-day suspension for unfurling a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as the school was gathering outside to watch the Olympic Torch Relay pass in 2002. Joseph, who has since graduated, sued the suspension was a violation of his constitutional right to free speech.
Though the Banner's message was admittedly ambiguous, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court majority that the school's principal, Deborah Morse, was not wrong to conclude that it promoted the use of an illegal substance, which was contrary to the Juneau school system's policy.
The dangers of illegal drug use are "serious," Roberts wrote, and the "First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers," Roberts wrote.
Roberts' opinion was joined fully by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justice Stephen G. Breyer agreed with the majority that Morse should not be liable, but disagreed with its reasoning.
Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented.
Stevens wrote that Frederick had raised a "nonsense banner," which advocated nothing, legal or illegal, and that the court's opinion could be read to permit broad censorship.
"[T]he 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," Stevens wrote.
The case is Morse v. Frederick, No. 06-278.
Justice Stevens deserves a medal for what he said at the end of this about debating the war on drugs & medicinal mj.
Court Tightens Limits on Student Speech
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 25, 2007; 12:38 PM
The Supreme Court affirmed wide authority for school administrators to regulate students' speech today, allowing principals to punish pupils who make any in-school speech or demonstration that may "reasonably be viewed" as promoting illegal drug use.
The finding came in a case in which a Juneau public high school teacher gave Joseph Frederick a 10-day suspension for unfurling a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as the school was gathering outside to watch the Olympic Torch Relay pass in 2002. Joseph, who has since graduated, sued the suspension was a violation of his constitutional right to free speech.
Though the Banner's message was admittedly ambiguous, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court majority that the school's principal, Deborah Morse, was not wrong to conclude that it promoted the use of an illegal substance, which was contrary to the Juneau school system's policy.
The dangers of illegal drug use are "serious," Roberts wrote, and the "First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers," Roberts wrote.
Roberts' opinion was joined fully by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justice Stephen G. Breyer agreed with the majority that Morse should not be liable, but disagreed with its reasoning.
Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented.
Stevens wrote that Frederick had raised a "nonsense banner," which advocated nothing, legal or illegal, and that the court's opinion could be read to permit broad censorship.
"[T]he 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," Stevens wrote.
The case is Morse v. Frederick, No. 06-278.
