cannabisnews.com: Court Backs School On Speech Curbs





Court Backs School On Speech Curbs
Posted by CN Staff on June 26, 2007 at 12:45:03 PT
By Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writer
Source: Washington Post 
Washington, DC -- The Supreme Court yesterday gave public schools new authority to regulate what students say, allowing principals to punish speech or demonstrations that may "reasonably be viewed" as promoting illegal drug use.In its most significant ruling on student speech in almost two decades, the court said that the principal of a high school in Juneau, Alaska, did not violate senior Joseph Frederick's constitutional right to free speech when she suspended him for unfurling a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as students waited for the Olympic torch relay to pass their school in 2002. A bong is a water pipe commonly used to smoke marijuana.
"Student speech celebrating illegal drug use at a school event, in the presence of school administrators and teachers . . . poses a particular challenge for school officials working to protect those entrusted to their care from the dangers of drug abuse," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a five-justice majority of the court. "The First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers."Frederick had insisted that the slogan meant nothing specific and that he was not advocating drug use.The court recognized students' right to free speech at school in 1969, when it said that an Iowa public school could not ban the wearing of armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, as long as classes were not disrupted. Since then, the court has limited that right, permitting administrators to ban sexually explicit student speech in 1986, and to censor school-sponsored student publications in 1988.But yesterday's ruling was the first time the court has said that schools can prohibit a student expression that was neither obscene nor published under the school's auspices.The Juneau School Board, like many others nationwide, forbids "any assembly or public expression that . . . advocates the use of substances that are illegal to minors" or otherwise "urges the violation of law." Some federal school aid is conditioned on schools' conveying an anti-drug message.Public school officials welcomed the ruling, saying that it recognizes that the schools' mission includes protecting student security and welfare, and that it will now be easier for school administrators to do that without worrying about being sued."It's terrific news," said Francisco M. Negron Jr., general counsel of the National School Boards Association. "Educators aren't going to have to second-guess the on-the-spot decisions they make to ensure students are safe."Still, the court did not accept the broadest claims of Juneau school officials and some of their supporters, including the Bush administration, who had urged the justices to empower schools to restrict messages contrary to their "educational mission."Two members of the majority, Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy, made it clear that they gave Roberts the fourth and fifth votes he needed on the understanding that yesterday's ruling applied only to advocacy of illegal drug use.In a concurring opinion joined by Kennedy, Alito wrote that yesterday's ruling "provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue," including student opposition to the drug laws themselves.The case, Morse v. Frederick, No. 06-278, had created unusual alliances, with Frederick receiving the support not only of civil libertarians, gay rights advocates and proponents of medical marijuana but also conservative Christian legal organizations.Lambda Legal, which advocates equal rights for gay and lesbian students, backed Frederick out of concern that a ruling in favor of the principal might encourage administrators to prohibit students from openly declaring their gay, lesbian or bisexual orientation.For their part, the Christian groups argued that a broad ruling in favor of the schools could be used to punish students who express religion-based opposition to homosexuality, in school districts whose policies call for tolerance of gay people.Negron said the "jury is still out" on those matters after yesterday's ruling, but some who filed friend-of-the-court briefs in favor of Frederick said the Alito-Kennedy concurrence means that the decision will not affect cases involving student speech about sexuality."It is unfortunate that the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to depart from its long-held practice of protecting the free speech rights of students," said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization. "However, the decision should have a limited effect because it applies only to student speech that promotes illegal drug use."Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also joined the majority. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, arguing 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.Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Stevens's opinion. Justice Stephen G. Breyer also dissented, writing separately that the court should not have decided the free-speech issue at all and ruled only that the principal was not individually liable for her decision.Note: A 5-4 Majority Cites Perils of Illegal Drugs In Case of the 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' Banner.Source: Washington Post (DC)Author: Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff WriterPublished: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - A06Copyright: 2007 Washington Post Contact: letterstoed washpost.comWebsite: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ Related Articles:Vote Against Banner Shows Divide on Speech http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23122.shtmlCourt Restricts Student Expressionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23121.shtmlRuling Bong Hits Out of Boundshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23120.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #22 posted by whig on June 27, 2007 at 12:06:27 PT
Keep the i small
LEGALiZE BONG HiTS 4 JESUSJust so. :)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by whig on June 27, 2007 at 12:04:15 PT
Zandor
Actually the court made it clear that if it was a political or religious statement it would be protected.So one proposal that has been made is for students to begin carrying signs that say:LEGALIZE BONG HiTS 4 JESUSThat is guaranteed first amendment right protected according to the court's ruling in this case.So hop to it, kids. :)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Hope on June 27, 2007 at 09:41:26 PT
Zandor
"I feel they will now be targeted at school for special attention and NOT finish due to the pressure from administration to fit in or get out." They already are targeting one group, in particular. The "Skaters". The skateboard kids. It seems obvious in our community.I'm so happy that your son thwarted their expectations.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Zandor on June 27, 2007 at 08:01:56 PT
I get where you are comming from Whig
I guess I worry more about the voices that will now never be heard, the topics that now will never get a chance to be heard.The topics that will never get the chance for discussion because no the only rights Students have is to agree with administration.It's the voices that will never speak out or be heard that worries me the most.I worry that our future may not have a voice, they grow up in fear of speaking out and many will always live in fear of retribution if they ever speak their mind.With this one case I did not expect them to rule in his favor at all. To write in law and send the message to School districts everywhere that it's ok for "Children to be seen and not heard" as long as they play the party line is what I don't care for.Did you know we now we have schools with no touching period or you will be kicked out of school. No interaction with anyone in school anymore period. I fear next will be no talking and no direct eye contact with another student; A dirty look can get you kicked out of school next.I also feel that schools will use this ruling as a way to thin out their ranks as well. Administration will make the numbers look good for more federal money and bonus in their pocket. They know who will follow the stupid rules and fit into their image of what a child should be and they know who will never fit in. Just as the misfit toys in a child's Christmas story. Those are the one's who I worry about. I feel they will now be targeted at school for special attention and NOT finish due to the pressure from administration to fit in or get out.Administration knows how to push them out the door and make the school numbers look better. "Get rid on the square pegs; they just don't fit into the round holes like they should".I fear schools will be discarding that group to the street.My son was in that group. Now he makes 3 times the money his teachers made. He programs professionally in 26 languages and earns more then 3 times what his high school principle does. He is one child they wanted to kick to the curb and was told he would never be more then a dish washer in his life. Of course they were wrong he had family and was a partner in my business so we knew he would be fine but how many other great minds are we going to loose if this keeps up.Yes I see way more here then just a banner. This is a ruling now schools will use to continue a rain of terror on the minds of our future. Only pass on those who are round pegs that fit into round holes and nobody else.Thanks for the chat though, you made me think a little more and that is always a good thing dude.PeaceZ
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by FoM on June 27, 2007 at 07:43:12 PT
One More Thought
I don't believe that hate type speech is acceptable ( like killing someone or making a person or group of people feel like they are terrible ) but when it is just something off the wall like Bong Hits 4 Jesus that hurts no one. Some might get angry and others might laugh and that should be ok I would think.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by FoM on June 27, 2007 at 06:54:13 PT
Sinsemilla Jones
I agree that artistic expression should not be illegal. Bong Hits 4 Jesus sure has made a lot of people think and try to figure out what was meant by it. I still don't understand what he meant but I am glad that I had that expression to try to analyze. It also was just funny. I have a picture on this link from a few years ago from the UK. What if someone had dressed like these 2 people in the USA? I think it is a cute picture but some might just get orbital if they saw it. Strange days indeed.PS: Don't people know how to laugh anymore?http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/million.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by OverwhelmSam on June 27, 2007 at 06:42:12 PT
Time to Start Busting School Officials
No one is perfect, not even the bitch principal who suspended the Bong Hits for Jesus student. Let's look a little closer at our jackass school administrators. Surely they too can be busted for whatever criminal, immoral or indecent acts they like to engage in. Time to give them a taste of their own medicine, we'll take ours.Police too need to be instructed by their boss, The People.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on June 26, 2007 at 20:02:24 PT
So what speech does he complain was suppressed?
Art.Salvador Dali told Alice Cooper, "Confusion is the greatest form of communication.", or something like that.Artistic expression should be protected just as much as political expression.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by whig on June 26, 2007 at 19:10:40 PT
Zandor
That's the point, it was meaningful to the principal.The boy said it didn't mean anything.She made a decision based on what she thought it meant.He never argued that it meant anything.So what speech does he complain was suppressed?I am glad he did it anyhow and I think it is good he got the publicity for this.I agree it's a corrupt court.I also think this was a correct decision.That's all I'm saying.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by FoM on June 26, 2007 at 19:01:40 PT
Sinsemilla Jones
Thank you. I will check our local PBS channel to see when it airs on DirecTV.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Zandor on June 26, 2007 at 18:31:23 PT
reply whig
Meaningless to who? One persons dribble is another persons chant. So only only protect speech if they agree with your speech then?What about the exact same protection that a Cross has or a flag has or any sign for that matter. There is no need to speak words but the symbolizing nature of a cross or a flag does hold meaning and makes a statement all the same.This ruling was focused on and about Marijuana thus the exception was written in. They say they want to protect and educate children. Then why not tell the truth about Marijuana for starters?I stand by my feelings, "This is truly a corrupt court."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by mayan on June 26, 2007 at 18:25:38 PT
Misc.
The "war on drugs", like the "war on terror" is a complete fraud. By now, it should be clear to all that those who perpetuate these false wars are the enemies of all mankind...Afghan opium production 'soars' - Opium production in Afghanistan is soaring out of control, the annual UN report on illegal drugs says: 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6239734.stmTHE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11: 
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260607_mineta.htmlCould Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy (video):
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/260607Conspiracy.htmVeterans For 9/11 Truth:
http://www.v911t.org/9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB - OUR NATION IS IN PERIL:
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on June 26, 2007 at 17:39:36 PT
I'll try to do that, FoM. Check local listings!
According to Zap2It, it won't air till midnight, locally!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on June 26, 2007 at 17:12:46 PT
Sinsemilla Jones
Thank you. Please post this information a couple of times until it airs so we won't forget to check it out. I really don't want to miss it. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by RevRayGreen on June 26, 2007 at 17:01:49 PT
Could you imagine
the buzz he will create among the press/talk shows should he ever come back to the United States.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by whig on June 26, 2007 at 16:50:42 PT
RRG
As I said on the other thread, he's cool with me. Maybe he didn't deserve to win on the facts of the case, but he got good publicity.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on June 26, 2007 at 16:48:08 PT
Students screwed, time to screw the Indians again.
Native Americans Growing Hemp Find That Tribal Sovereignty Collides With Government Policy...Alex wasn’t out to challenge the logic of the federal government’s drug war, but figured that tribal sovereignty allowed him to plant hemp as surely as it allowed casinos elsewhere. He was wrong....Standing Silent Nation premieres on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 10 p.m. on PBS, as part of the 20th anniversary season of PBS’s groundbreaking P.O.V. series. (Check local listings.)http://tinyurl.com/2jkg2f
NativeTimes.com
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by RevRayGreen on June 26, 2007 at 16:14:05 PT
This kid
is a Legend..........you can fine him here.....vvvvvvv
http://www.myspace.com/bonghits4jesus 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by whig on June 26, 2007 at 15:09:27 PT
Zandor
The kid purports he wasn't saying anything. What protection should meaningless speech be given?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Zandor on June 26, 2007 at 13:36:37 PT
This is truly a corrupt court.
If you want to spend money to support the Republicans they say "When it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban -- the issue we do have to decide -- we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship," Chief Justice John Roberts." that is how they applied free speech so corporates can still paying for political ad's.But if you are a kid then you have no rights to free speech. You only the right to think the way they want you to and act the way they expect you to.This is only because of the word Bong so they wrote a law to make an exception for anything to do with Marijuana even though they don't have the power or right to make law.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by dongenero on June 26, 2007 at 13:22:01 PT
okay how about this
"The Global War On Dangerous Banners"Heh he, yessssssss, that's it! It gives us much greater jurisdiction. It's a war we can export to everyone.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by dongenero on June 26, 2007 at 13:10:56 PT
safe?, It's a paper banner!
"It's terrific news," said Francisco M. Negron Jr., general counsel of the National School Boards Association. "Educators aren't going to have to second-guess the on-the-spot decisions they make to ensure students are safe."Yes boys and girls......I do believe the time has come for......."The War On Dangerous Banners".Break out the SWAT team.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment