N0 B0NG HiTS for the SuPR3m3Z!
Damn, one more brick in the wall.WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.
Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.
Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.
His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use.
"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts said. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."
The opinion is here. (PDF) Justice Steven's dissent is somewhat snarky in places, but I think spot on. (Then again, I am not a lawyer, etc.)But most importantly, it takes real imagination to read a cryptic message (the Courts characterization, not mine...)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 Commn v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. (2007)... [this is a big, huge, campaign finance reform decision - Teem] 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....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. [emphasis mine]
Among other things, the Courts 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, 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.... Consider, too, that the school districts rule draws no distinction between alcohol and marijuana, but applies evenhandedly to all substances that are illegal to minors....
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. [T]he breathtaking sweep of its opinion suggests it would.
So, in other words drugs are bad, got it? And, if you are within rock-throwing distance of a school, any authority figure can punish you for saying anything that, in that authority figure's opinion, might possibly, on even days, if you hold it up to the light, look at it sideways and use your secret decoder ring, happens to mention bad things.
Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.
Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.
His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use.
"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts said. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."
The opinion is here. (PDF) Justice Steven's dissent is somewhat snarky in places, but I think spot on. (Then again, I am not a lawyer, etc.)But most importantly, it takes real imagination to read a cryptic message (the Courts characterization, not mine...)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 Commn v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. (2007)... [this is a big, huge, campaign finance reform decision - Teem] 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....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. [emphasis mine]
Among other things, the Courts 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, 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.... Consider, too, that the school districts rule draws no distinction between alcohol and marijuana, but applies evenhandedly to all substances that are illegal to minors....
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. [T]he breathtaking sweep of its opinion suggests it would.
So, in other words drugs are bad, got it? And, if you are within rock-throwing distance of a school, any authority figure can punish you for saying anything that, in that authority figure's opinion, might possibly, on even days, if you hold it up to the light, look at it sideways and use your secret decoder ring, happens to mention bad things.