|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Masta_Don
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Hyehwa-dong, Seoul
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:43 am Post subject: BongHits4Jesus smoked by SCOTUS |
 |
|
| Quote: |
MORSE ET AL. v. FREDERICK
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 06�278. Argued March 19, 2007�Decided June 25, 2007
At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating �BONG HiTS 4 JESUS,� which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down the banner. When one of the students who had brought the banner to the event�respondent Frederick�refused, Morse confiscated the banner and later suspended him. The school superintendent upheld the suspension, explaining, inter alia, that Frederick was disciplined because his banner appeared to advocate illegal drug use in violationof school policy. Petitioner school board also upheld the suspension.Frederick filed suit under 42 U. S. C. �1983, alleging that the school board and Morse had violated his First Amendment rights. The District Court granted petitioners summary judgment, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that they had not infringed Frederick�s speech rights. The Ninth Circuit reversed. Accepting that Frederick acted during a school-authorized activity and that the banner expressed a positive sentiment about marijuana use, thecourt nonetheless found a First Amendment violation because the school punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption. It also concluded that Morse was not entitled to qualified immunity because Frederick�s right to display the banner was so clearly established that a reasonable principal in Morse�s position would have understood that her actions were unconstitutional.
Held: Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick. Pp. 5�15.
(a)
Frederick�s argument that this is not a school speech case is rejected. The event in question occurred during normal school hours and was sanctioned by Morse as an approved social event at which the district�s student-conduct rules expressly applied. Teachers and administrators were among the students and were charged with supervising them. Frederick stood among other students across the street from the school and directed his banner toward the school, making it plainly visible to most students. Under these circumstances, Frederick cannot claim he was not at school. Pp. 5�6.
(b)
The Court agrees with Morse that those who viewed the banner would interpret it as advocating or promoting illegal drug use, in violation of school policy. At least two interpretations of the banner�s words�that they constitute an imperative encouraging viewers tosmoke marijuana or, alternatively, that they celebrate drug use�demonstrate that the sign promoted such use. This pro-drug interpretation gains further plausibility from the paucity of alternative meanings the banner might bear. Pp. 6�8.
(c)
A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrictstudent speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, the Court declared, in holding that a policy prohibiting high school students from wearing antiwar armbands violated the First Amendment, id., at 504, that student expression may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will �materially and substantially disruptthe work and discipline of the school,� id., at 513. The Court in Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, however, upheld the suspension of a student who delivered a high school assembly speech employing �an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor,� id., at 678. Analyzing the case under Tinker, the lower courts had found no disruption, and therefore no basis for discipline. 478 U.S., at 679�680. This Court reversed, holding that the school was �within its permissible authority in imposing sanctions . . . in response to [the student�s] offensively lewd and indecent speech.� Id., at 685. Two basic principles may be distilled from Fraser. First, it demonstrates that �the constitutional rights of students in publicschool are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults inother settings.� Id., at 682. Had Fraser delivered the same speech ina public forum outside the school context, he would have been protected. See, id., at 682�683. In school, however, his First Amendment rights were circumscribed �in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.� Tinker, supra, at 506. Second, Fraser established that Tinker�s mode of analysis is not absolute, since the Fraser Court did not conduct the �substantial disruption� analysis.Subsequently, the Court has held in the Fourth Amendment context that �while children assuredly do not �shed their constitutional rights. . . at the schoolhouse gate,� . . . the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school,� Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U. S. 646, 655�656, and has recognized that deterring druguse by schoolchildren is an �important�indeed, perhaps compelling� interest, id., at 661. Drug abuse by the Nation�s youth is a serious problem. For example, Congress has declared that part of a school�s job is educating students about the dangers of drug abuse, see, e.g., the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994, and petitioners and many other schools have adopted policies aimed atimplementing this message. Student speech celebrating illegal druguse at a school event, in the presence of school administrators andteachers, poses a particular challenge for school officials working to protect those entrusted to their care. The �special characteristics of the school environment,� Tinker, 393 U. S., at 506, and the governmental interest in stopping student drug abuse allow schools to restrict student expression that they reasonably regard as promoting such abuse. Id., at 508, 509, distinguished. Pp. 8�15.
439 F. 3d 1114, reversed and remanded.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which KENNEDY, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment inpart and dissenting in part. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
|
How did this ever happen? There are so many arguments that can be made, I just don't understand. Are students not allowed to be critical of certain laws? Are they always in the care of their school during school hours? And above all, how is it not obviously a joke? It promotes Christianity as much as it does marijuana.
What happened SCOTUS, I thought you were on our side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Are students not allowed to be critical of certain laws? |
Well, within limits. If a group of students wanted to parade around at recess with a sign that read "End the ban on student-teacher sex", I think the principal would be pretty justified in putting the kibosh on that. Even if it were meant as a joke.
| Quote: |
| Are they always in the care of their school during school hours? |
Legally speaking, I think they are. If some activity leads to the students being injured or harmed, and the parents' lawyer can prove that the school knew the activity was going on and should have foreseen the consequences, than I would imagine that the school can be held legally liable. Someone with a legal background can set me straight on that one.
Having said all this, when I was in junior high, kids made jokes about marijuana use in talent show skits, and wore t-shirts promoting alcohol consumption. Then again, this was a time when many parents seemed okay with their underaged teenagers having drinking parties in their home. My understanding is that this free-wheeling era has now come to an end, as lawyers finally clued everyone into the fact that if you allow children under your care to break the law, then you are responsible for whatever damages result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Masta_Don
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Hyehwa-dong, Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Are students not allowed to be critical of certain laws? |
Well, within limits. If a group of students wanted to parade around at recess with a sign that read "End the ban on student-teacher sex", I think the principal would be pretty justified in putting the kibosh on that. Even if it were meant as a joke.
| Quote: |
| Are they always in the care of their school during school hours? |
Legally speaking, I think they are. If some activity leads to the students being injured or harmed, and the parents' lawyer can prove that the school knew the activity was going on and should have foreseen the consequences, than I would imagine that the school can be held legally liable. Someone with a legal background can set me straight on that one.
Having said all this, when I was in junior high, kids made jokes about marijuana use in talent show skits, and wore t-shirts promoting alcohol consumption. Then again, this was a time when many parents seemed okay with their underaged teenagers having drinking parties in their home. My understanding is that this free-wheeling era has now come to an end, as lawyers finally clued everyone into the fact that if you allow children under your care to break the law, then you are responsible for whatever damages result. |
Alright but he was excused (called in sick) from school and not on school grounds. They said becuz he was facing the school he was antagonizing the students but if he had been on the side side of the street it would have been school grounds. And the event wasn't a school event, just something that the students were allowed to go out and see.
Then the principal ripped the banner out of his hand and tore it up. That should be destruction of property. I don't understand where SCOTUS went with this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think there are two concepts at work here.
"Crying fire in a crowded theater"
The promotion of drug use to minors could be an example of this concept.
The other concept is the limit of individual rights.
That concept being that ones rights extend to the point where they interfer with the rights anothers.
The display of the sign within a protective zone, school zones are drug free zero tolerance zones, speech or expression is limited here in many ways bars, strip clubs, porn shops and others are prohibited within certain community standards.
The practice individual responsibility may weigh in here too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
