\’Bong Hits for Jesus\’
| Video \’Bong hits\’ |
You\’ve just got to love that banner.
This case fascinates me. Short
version: Frederick, then a senior, was off school property when he hoisted
the banner but was suspended for violating the school’s policy of promoting
illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event.
The 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals overruled a lower court saying: The federal
appeals court said even if the banner, however vague and nonsensical, could
be construed as a positive message about marijuana use, the question came down
to whether a school may punish or censor a student\’s speech because it promotes
a social message contrary to one the school favors. \”The answer under controlling,
long-existing precedent is plainly, \’No,\’\” wrote Judge Andrew Kleinfeld
in an 18-page opinion.
The case has now been heard at the Supreme Court.
The implication of the SG\’s (Solicitor General) argument appears to be that
although a school may not penalize student speech because it expresses views
unpopular with the majority of the public, it may restrict such speech when
the student\’s views are inconsistent with the state\’s own curricular and pedagogic
viewpoints. It\’s not hard to see why religious groups would be concerned by
such an argument — after all, student speech from a religious perspective
is often \”inconsistent with\” the pedagogy of a public school (indeed,
it may often be a direct challenge or rebuke to the school\’s curricular viewpoints).
Linda Greenhouse: \”The religious groups were particularly alarmed by
what they saw as the implication that school boards could define their \’educational
mission\’ as they wished and could suppress countervailing speech accordingly.\”When
Is Viewpoint Discrimination a Constitutional Virtue?with more here…
The Justice Department, and some school officials and supporters, would prefer
a declaration by the Court that public school administrators are constitutionally
free to bar any student speech that might appear to them to be advocacting
a violation of law — a more sweeping proposition than wiping out student
speech that seems to advocate using illegal drugs. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy,
whose vote the Department would surely need for a decision going that far,
was openly hostile to it. And, somewhat surprisingly, so was Justice Samuel
A. Alito, Jr., one of the Court\’s more conservative members.
Slate\’s got a good piece up on it too, as does TMV.
Tinker
revolves around a student deciding to wear a black arm band in school to protest
the Vietnam war. The decision defined the constitutional rights of students
in U.S. public schools.
Of course, religious groups have signed on to the Morse v. Frederick case with briefs because
of the threat against what could happen to them, considering public schools
are supposed to stay separate from religious teachings, etc.
For me, if a student is off campus that\’s the rub. I don\’t see how a school
can limit his or her free speech rights just because he\’s at a school sponsored
event. Or is it the message, Bong hits 4 Jesus?
One thing it proves is that the sense of humor of school administrators hasn\’t change a whole lot. I\’m pulling for Frederick.
Comments are closed.