 | |  |
 |
|
|
|
Supreme
Court Rules to Allow Censorship in High Schools |
Updated:
06.26.07
|
|
|
While stating that student speech should be protected, the Supreme
Court ruled 5-4 to limit those rights after a high-school senior
was suspended for displaying a sign with a drug reference at a
school-sponsored activity.
Printer-friendly version: PDF
|
|
|
|
|
 In
January 2002, 18-year-old Joseph Frederick of Juneau, Alaska was
suspended in January 2002 for showing a 14-foot banner that read
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at an off-campus school activity.
The principal, Deborah Morse, said she could not allow him to
promote the use of marijuana.
"I wasn't trying to say anything about drugs," Frederick
told the Washington Post. "I was just trying to say something.
I wanted to use my free speech, and I did it."
Morse said that if she hadn't taken down the banner it would
have been "inconsistent with the district's responsibility
to teach students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior."
What started as a joke became a serious battle for clarification
on the First Amendment rights of students.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The First
Amendment and students |
|
|
|
|
|
Although students have the right to say what they want, schools
have the authority to limit student speech that is disruptive
to other students or teachers.
 Speech,
as defined in legal terminology, is an actual verbal statement,
a student newspaper, or in this case, a banner with writing. Or
it can be symbolic, like a piece of clothing, or participation
in a protest.
Notable exceptions to the right to free speech include language
or behavior that is obscene, or that is intended to provoke violence,
or that presents clear and present danger, like yelling "Fire!"
in a crowded theater.
Frederick said Morse crossed the line. "Schools use 'zero
tolerance' policies to cloak their abuse of authority and disregard
for student rights," he said.
The first court ruled against Frederick, but the student, with
the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, appealed the case
and won. The appeals court said "the phrase 'Bong Hits 4
Jesus' may be funny, stupid, or insulting, depending on one's
point of view, but it is not 'plainly offensive,'" and could
not be censored by the school.
|
|
|
|
The Supreme
Court ruling |
|
|
|
|
|
But the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Five of the nine justices
said the banner was not simply a joke, but could be interpreted
by the principal as endorsing illegal drug use.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, said
it was understandable for the principal to decide that it promoted
illegal drug use and that "failing to act would send a powerful
message to the students in her charge, including Frederick, about
how serious the school was about the dangers of illegal drug use."
He added, "The First Amendment does not require schools
to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes
to those dangers."
 But
four of the justices disagreed, saying the decision was unnecessarily
harsh and limiting.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the dissenting opinion,
said that "carving out pro-drug speech for uniquely harsh
treatment finds no support in our case law and is inimical to
the values protected by the First Amendment."
He added that alcohol is illegal among teenagers and wondered
in his opinion whether "the court would support punishing
Frederick for flying a 'Wine Sips 4 Jesus' banner."
One justice, Clarence Thomas, took an even harder line than Roberts,
finding that Frederick had no First Amendment rights to violate.
"In light of the history of American public education, it
cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment 'freedom
of speech' encompasses a student's right to speak in public schools,"
Thomas wrote. "I am afraid that our jurisprudence now says
that students have a right to speak in school except when they
don't."
|
|
|
|
Surprising
combination of supporters |
|
|
|
|
|
The case brought together such disparate groups as the liberal
American Civil Liberties Union, gay rights activists and conservative
Christian groups who want to protect free speech.
A Christian legal organization, the American Center for Law &
Justice, wanted the court to drop the case. "It would be
regrettable if the court were to resolve the important questions
of constitutional law at issue here in the context of a jokester's
prank, rather than a student's bearing of a serious message."
 Steven
Shapiro, the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties
Union, told the Washington Post ahead of the ruling that a court
decision against Frederick could "overrule the entire architecture
of student speech law that the Supreme Court has so carefully
constructed over the past 40 years."
Whether the narrowly decided case will have that sweeping an
impact on the nation's schools will have to be tested in future
cases.
--Compiled
by Molly Finnegan for NewsHour Extra
Do you have an opinion about this article? Or do you have
a personal experience related to this article that you'd like
to share with our readers? Click
here to submit your story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first major foreign policy issue they talked about was Iraq and on this issue I think we've got to give the win to Gov. Palin...She connected on this issue with the American people and in a debate it is imperative that you connect with your judge.
