erosion
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2003
- Messages
- 3,182
In a feisty session over a student's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner, former independent counsel Kenneth Starr urged the Supreme Court Monday to let public schools ban signs, buttons or other messages that undercut their anti-drug policy.
As scores of curious students milled in and around the columned building, Starr argued that a principal in Juneau, Alaska, did not violate Joseph Frederick's speech rights when she tore down the banner he had unfurled at an Olympic Torch Relay parade in 2002.
The principal, Deborah Morse, said the "bong" phrase referred to marijuana and suspended him for 10 days. Frederick, a senior at the time, said his words were merely nonsense meant to draw television cameras as students watched the parade.
A majority of the justices did not make clear how they would rule, but they were more open to Starr's anti-drug rationale than his broader argument that schools should be able to regulate any message that conflicts with the far-reaching educational mission.
Monday's test of student speech rights arises as schools face increased violence and drug use on their grounds. The National School Boards Association, siding with Juneau officials, says administrators should have expansive latitude to stop messages related to subjects such as drugs, guns, homosexuality and abortion. On Frederick's side are an unusual contingent of liberal groups, including the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and conservatives, including the Alliance Defense Fund — all worried that credible student views will be censored.
Spectators began lining up for seats before dawn for the arguments that began at 10 a.m. Students who were not able to get seats in the marble and velvet courtroom gathered in front of the building. Some arrived ready to show support for Frederick and held up signs that said, "Free Speech 4 Students."
"Illegal drugs and the glorification of the drug culture are profoundly serious problems for our nation," Starr said as he argued that Frederick's message promoted drugs and was "utterly inconsistent" with the basic educational mission of the school.
"The problem," said Chief Justice John Roberts, "is that school boards these days take it upon themselves to broaden their mission well beyond … illegal substances." Justice Samuel Alito, too, appeared troubled that schools would try to suppress a large swath of speech.
Responding to such concerns, Starr said, "the court does not need to go more broadly" than the drug issue. He stressed, overall, that Frederick's banner was "disruptive" to the school's goals.
Justice David Souter was among the few justices questioning even that basic premise. "I can understand if they unfurled the banner in a classroom that it would be disruptive," Souter said, "but what did it disrupt on the sidewalk? … It sounds like just a kid's provocative statement to me."
Lawyer Douglas Mertz, representing Frederick, emphasized the wider stakes of the case. "This is a case about free speech. It is not a case about drugs."
Mertz also argued that because Frederick had joined students across from their school, not on its grounds, the principal had even less reason to discipline him. Chief Justice Roberts countered, "He came here (across from the school) because it was the school event, the school-sponsored activity."
Justice Anthony Kennedy was sympathetic to the efforts to counter illegal drug use. Frederick's sign, he said, "was completely disruptive of the message … the school wanted to promote … completely disruptive of the school's image that they wanted to portray in sponsoring the Olympics."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled for Frederick last year. It also said that Morse could be personally liable for money damages because it was "clearly established" by past rulings that Frederick had a right to raise his banner.
Several justices voiced concerns about that part of the ruling. "It seems to me, however you come out, there is a reasonable debate" over student rights in public schools, Souter said.
A ruling is likely by the end of June.
Justices debate 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case
USA Today
March 20, 2007
Link
As scores of curious students milled in and around the columned building, Starr argued that a principal in Juneau, Alaska, did not violate Joseph Frederick's speech rights when she tore down the banner he had unfurled at an Olympic Torch Relay parade in 2002.
The principal, Deborah Morse, said the "bong" phrase referred to marijuana and suspended him for 10 days. Frederick, a senior at the time, said his words were merely nonsense meant to draw television cameras as students watched the parade.
A majority of the justices did not make clear how they would rule, but they were more open to Starr's anti-drug rationale than his broader argument that schools should be able to regulate any message that conflicts with the far-reaching educational mission.
Monday's test of student speech rights arises as schools face increased violence and drug use on their grounds. The National School Boards Association, siding with Juneau officials, says administrators should have expansive latitude to stop messages related to subjects such as drugs, guns, homosexuality and abortion. On Frederick's side are an unusual contingent of liberal groups, including the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and conservatives, including the Alliance Defense Fund — all worried that credible student views will be censored.
Spectators began lining up for seats before dawn for the arguments that began at 10 a.m. Students who were not able to get seats in the marble and velvet courtroom gathered in front of the building. Some arrived ready to show support for Frederick and held up signs that said, "Free Speech 4 Students."
"Illegal drugs and the glorification of the drug culture are profoundly serious problems for our nation," Starr said as he argued that Frederick's message promoted drugs and was "utterly inconsistent" with the basic educational mission of the school.
"The problem," said Chief Justice John Roberts, "is that school boards these days take it upon themselves to broaden their mission well beyond … illegal substances." Justice Samuel Alito, too, appeared troubled that schools would try to suppress a large swath of speech.
Responding to such concerns, Starr said, "the court does not need to go more broadly" than the drug issue. He stressed, overall, that Frederick's banner was "disruptive" to the school's goals.
Justice David Souter was among the few justices questioning even that basic premise. "I can understand if they unfurled the banner in a classroom that it would be disruptive," Souter said, "but what did it disrupt on the sidewalk? … It sounds like just a kid's provocative statement to me."
Lawyer Douglas Mertz, representing Frederick, emphasized the wider stakes of the case. "This is a case about free speech. It is not a case about drugs."
Mertz also argued that because Frederick had joined students across from their school, not on its grounds, the principal had even less reason to discipline him. Chief Justice Roberts countered, "He came here (across from the school) because it was the school event, the school-sponsored activity."
Justice Anthony Kennedy was sympathetic to the efforts to counter illegal drug use. Frederick's sign, he said, "was completely disruptive of the message … the school wanted to promote … completely disruptive of the school's image that they wanted to portray in sponsoring the Olympics."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled for Frederick last year. It also said that Morse could be personally liable for money damages because it was "clearly established" by past rulings that Frederick had a right to raise his banner.
Several justices voiced concerns about that part of the ruling. "It seems to me, however you come out, there is a reasonable debate" over student rights in public schools, Souter said.
A ruling is likely by the end of June.
Justices debate 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case
USA Today
March 20, 2007
Link
