Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Court hears arguments in speech case
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published March 20, 2007
WASHINGTON - A high school senior's 14-foot banner proclaiming "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" gave the Supreme Court a provocative prop for a lively argument Monday about the extent of schools' control over student speech. If the justices conclude Joseph Frederick's homemade sign was a pro-drug message, they are likely to side with principal Deborah Morse. She suspended Frederick in 2002 when he unfurled the banner across the street from the school in Juneau, Alaska. He sued, saying his free-speech rights were violated. "I thought we wanted our schools to teach something ...including the character formation and not to use drugs," Chief Justice John Roberts said Monday. But the court could rule for Frederick if it determines that he was, as he has contended, conducting a free-speech experiment using a nonsensical message that contained no pitch for drug use. "It sounds like just a kid's provocative statement to me," Justice David Souter said. Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who is representing Morse, argued that the justices should defer to the judgment of the principal. Morse reasonably interpreted the banner as a pro-drug message, Starr said. Douglas Mertz of Juneau, Frederick's lawyer, struggled to keep the focus away from drugs. "This is a case about free speech," he said. A decision in the case is expected by July.
[Last modified March 20, 2007, 02:12:21]
Share your thoughts on this story
Comments on this article
|
by IssyWise
|
03/27/07 01:47 AM
|
|
Guys; Are you really absolutists? Can schools regulate statements that are racist, sexist, calculated to distract from classwork, scatological? Drugs use is important enough for schools to address by teaching and school regulations.
|
|
by IssyWise
|
03/27/07 01:34 AM
|
|
Susan, Kay owwch! Cases hold that schools can regulate speech if it relates to school matters, but not if it relates to public issues. Schools can ban an armband protesting school policy but not an armband protesting war. Where do bong hits fall?
|
|
by Kay
|
03/20/07 04:32 PM
|
|
IssyWise, the point is that free speech can contain any message as the speaker sees fit. Not you, not me and not the school or court. We are supposedly "free" to speak. Also, I agree with Karen, principal has no authority because it was off grounds.
|
|
by Susan
|
03/20/07 11:43 AM
|
|
IssyWise, so your thoughts are - free speech is protected, as long as you agree with the message? As long as YOU see it as "legitimate"? Who gets to decide what is legitimate and what is not?
|
|
by Joel
|
03/20/07 10:14 AM
|
|
Free speech issues must be carefully balanced. This case may well hinge on "the eyes & ears of the beholder." I feel the student has every right to express himself in the manner that he did. To rely on opinion is a slippery slope we need to avoid.
|
|
by Karen
|
03/20/07 10:02 AM
|
|
It didn't happen on school property, and this principal had no authority. Can you imagine your child being confronted at the mall or the beach by a teacher who didn't like the t-shirt they were wearing and suspending them from school for it! Wrong!
|
|
by IssyWise
|
03/20/07 08:38 AM
|
|
I like the joke, but it ain't fit for school. What kind of country doesn't let schools discourage pro-drug use messages? If he was carrying some message on a legitimate public issue, he'd be protected by the 1st Amendmt, but a joke about drug use?
|
|
News
Fifty years ago, they were screwed-up kids sent to the Florida School for Boys to be straightened out. But now they are screwed-up men, scarred by the whippings they endured. Read the story and see a video and portrait gallery.
Print
Email story
Comment
Email editor
