« The high price of turnover | Main | And the Hits keep comin' »
June 25, 2007
Bong Hits No More…BoardBuzz is happy to report the Supreme Court handed down this morning its decision in the notorious Bong Hits 4 Jesus case, Morse v. Frederick. Ruling for the Juneau, Alaska School District and its Principal, Deborah Morse, the court found that Joseph Frederick’s free speech rights were not violated when Principal Morse took Frederick’s 14-foot banner emblazoned with the now-famous quote. The court’s decision had two primary holdings: First, that student freedom of speech is not co-extensive with the rights of adults, and second that schools are different and can regulate pro-drug messages. The Court expressly weighed the danger of drug use more highly than the student’s First Amendment claim, appearing to give increased consideration to the notion that schools have a role in maintaining student welfare. In fact, writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts brought a sobering realism to the court’s decision, rejecting theoretical arguments about free speech for the reality of the very real danger of the scourge of drug use, which he said was “serious and palpable.” Hear, hear.
The decision although boasting a strong majority in the judgment (6 justices in all), had 3 Justices dissenting in full and 1 dissenting in part. BoardBuzz is flummoxed. Is this 5-4? Or 6-3? And, it seems at least one justice, Justice Thomas is willing to do away with the Tinker standard altogether! What a day. Justice Alito, however, warns his vote is dependent on the limitation of the decision to regulating drug messages, and cautions the Court not to go to far down the path that would allow school districts unfettered discretion to regulate speech on the basis of the “educational mission.”
The decision also puts to rest the question of whether the Alaska public school principal was personally liable for damages for allegedly violating a students free speech rights when she disciplined a student for holding up a banner saying “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at an off-campus, school-sanctioned, school-related event. Since it ruled for the school district and the principal, the Court did not reach question of qualified immunity. That means Principal Morse is not personally liable. BoardBuzz is happy to report the even the three-justice dissent would not find Principal Morse personally liable.
So, BoardBuzz celebrates today. Educators and administrators across the nation can sleep well tonight, comfortable in the conviction that they do not have to fear personal legal reprisals when they act in good faith to implement school board policies designed to protect students by prohibiting messages promoting drug use!
You can read previous BoardBuzz coverage of this here, here, here, and here. Check out NSBA's press release on the case here.
Posted June 25, 2007 4:35 PM | School Law
Trackback Pings
Comments(2)
Posted by: Mike on June 27, 2007 4:56 PM
What you and many others seem to miss is that "Bong hits for Jesus" was not a message promoting drug use.
The Supreme Court's decision is another blow to the free speech (esp. satire and humor) of our students.
Posted by: jim crawford on July 20, 2007 7:59 AM
Re your article of June 25, 2007, "Bong Hits No More…," the Supreme Court's approval of regulation of "offensive" speech by school administrators is a woeful and abominable violation of the First Amendment of our Constitution's Bill Of Rights. That amendment, "Article I," specifically states that " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech… ," abridge having the definition of "to contrive, to contract, or diminish" [Johnson's Dictionary]. The founders of our country were very much aware of the crimes and misdemeanors a government can commit, and this is one of them. Prohibiting someone from speaking or holding up a sign, no matter how offensive, is a violation of our right of free speech, as is the concomitant restriction on the rights of teachers to free speech during school hours. If you watch closely, you will soon see the next step In this process, restricting the rights of teachers to make comments about the school system for whom they work.
Do school administrators run about tearing down advertisements from buses that advertise tobacco products? I ask this because of the now well known fact that the most addictive and destructive drug in the world is tobacco, with heroin coming in a close second. More damage, monetary and physiological, is done by tobacco than by all other drugs combined. It ruins the health of far more people than heroin, cocaine,and alcohol combined, and is responsible for far more premature deaths than any other addictive drug. From this, are we to gather that signs promoting tobacco use are therefore acceptable because tobacco products are legal? No, this idea makes even less sense than the decision handed down.
As for speech about "illegal" drugs, we have only to remember that in the not too distant past, beer, wine, and other alcoholic beverages were forbidden by law. Could this fact have been construed to mean that no one was allowed to speak against the law that forbade them, or to speak in favor of alcohol consumption? No, the law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of liquor was never accompanied by a ban on free speech about the subject. Thus the "Bong Hits For Jesus" decision is wrong on this count also.
As more than one of the country's founders pointed out, the best remedy for noxious speech is strenuous oppositive speech. If we're teaching our students anything, we should at least teach them about the values that America holds dear, and not the values of totalitarian governments. To my great surprise, I find myself, probably also for the last time, in agreement with Justice Alito.
I wonder if President Washington would have stopped growing hemp had he been faced with these kinds of "drug" laws?
This decision was, in fact, irretrievably dumb and stupid.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” William Pitt
jim crawford
Westwood NJ
BoardBuzz Feed
