Court Hears Whether a Drug Statement Is Protected Free Speech for Students. Supreme Court ruled an Alaska high school principal and school board did not violate a student’s free-speech rights by punishing him for displaying the words “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” on a 14-foot-long banner across the street from school as the 2002 Olympic torch parade went by.
Principles Argument:
His approach was to present the free-speech case as a drug case and argue that whatever rights students may have under the First Amendment to express themselves, speaking in oblique or even in arguably humorous dissent from a school’s official antidrug message is not one of them.
*The question was particularly interesting because Mr. Starr had just sought to reassure the court that his argument was not limitless. The court’s leading precedent on student speech, a 1969 decision called Tinker v. Des Moines School District, “articulates a baseline of political speech” that students have a presumptive right to engage in, Mr. Starr said.*
Defendant's side:
It was basically a public event in a public place. In that context, he argued, the sign was not disruptive.
This case presents a particular challenge. While Justice Kennedy is perhaps the most speech-protective of the justices, he is also highly pro-government on issues involving illegal drugs.
Ruling:
Court ruled that student speech can lose its protected status if it is unduly disruptive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Look at this June editorial and article from the NY Times. Can you tell what they think about First Amendment protection and the public schools?
June 26, 2007
Editorial
Three Bad Rulings
The Supreme Court hit the trifecta yesterday: Three cases involving the First Amendment. Three dismaying decisions by Chief Justice John Roberts’s new conservative majority.
Chief Justice Roberts and the four others in his ascendant bloc used the next-to-last decision day of this term to reopen the political system to a new flood of special-interest money, to weaken protection of student expression and to make it harder for citizens to challenge government violations of the separation of church and state. In the process, the reconfigured court extended its noxious habit of casting aside precedents without acknowledging it — insincere judicial modesty scored by Justice Antonin Scalia in a concurring opinion.
First, campaign finance. Four years ago, a differently constituted court upheld sensible provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act designed to prevent corporations and labor unions from circumventing the ban on their spending in federal campaigns by bankrolling phony “issue ads.” These ads purport to just educate voters about a policy issue, but are really aimed at a particular candidate.
The 2003 ruling correctly found that the bogus issue ads were the functional equivalent of campaign ads and upheld the Congressional restrictions on corporate and union money. Yet the Roberts court shifted course in response to sham issue ads run on radio and TV by a group called Wisconsin Right to Life with major funding from corporations opposed to Senator Russell Feingold, the Democrat who co-authored the act.
It opened a big new loophole in time to do mischief in the 2008 elections. The exact extent of the damage is unclear. But the four dissenters were correct in warning that the court’s hazy new standard for assessing these ads is bound to invite evasion and fresh public cynicism about big money and politics.
The decision contained a lot of pious language about protecting free speech. But magnifying the voice of wealthy corporations and unions over the voice of candidates and private citizens is hardly a free speech victory. Moreover, the professed devotion to the First Amendment did not extend to allowing taxpayers to challenge White House aid to faith-based organizations as a violation of church-state separation. The controlling opinion by Justice Samuel Alito offers a cockeyed reading of precedent and flimsy distinctions between executive branch initiatives and Congressionally authorized spending to deny private citizens standing to sue. That permits the White House to escape accountability when it improperly spends tax money for religious purposes.
Nor did the court’s concern for free speech extend to actually allowing free speech in the oddball case of an Alaska student who was suspended from high school in 2002 after he unfurled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” while the Olympic torch passed. The ruling by Chief Justice Roberts said public officials did not violate the student’s rights by punishing him for words that promote a drug message at an off-campus event. This oblique reference to drugs hardly justifies such mangling of sound precedent and the First Amendment.
AND
June 3, 2007
A High School Drama Over Artistic Freedom
By KATE STONE LOMBARDI
Pleasantville
EARLIER this spring, just about the time when John Jay High School in Cross River was making headlines for banning the use of the word “vagina” in a reading of “The Vagina Monologues,” a group of students at Sleepy Hollow High School approached the administration about putting on “The Laramie Project.”
“The Laramie Project” is a play that explores the killing of Matthew Shepard, a gay student at the University of Wyoming, who was beaten, tied to a fence and left to die on the outskirts of Laramie. After Mr. Shepard’s death, members of the Tectonic Theater Project, a group based in New York, traveled to Laramie and interviewed more than 200 people. The edited interviews, as well as the trial testimony of the two men convicted of Mr. Shepard’s murder, were distilled into the script.
Students from Sleepy Hollow High School’s Gay-Straight Alliance considered the play’s message powerful and wanted to stage a production. But high schools are not independent theaters, and the students soon found themselves negotiating with the principal about the use of profanity in the play.
To the students, it was a question of censorship. “It was agony,” said Emili Feigelson, 17, co-president of the alliance. “The play is taken from interviews, and we were very worried about maintaining the play’s artistic integrity.”
To the administration, it was simply school policy. The play was reviewed using the same standards applied to any other school event.
“We have a code of conduct, and it specifies language guidelines,” said Howard W. Smith, superintendent of the Tarrytown schools. “It’s ironic that given the subject matter, the subject matter itself was never controversial. It was just the language. We are a school, and there are generally accepted standards.”
Conflicts between high school regulations and free speech are not uncommon, and some disputes have reached the Supreme Court, which has generally ruled in favor of the school’s right to regulate speech. In the 1980s, the court upheld the authority of school officials to ban vulgar or offensive student speech and to control the content of school newspapers.
In March, the justices heard another free-speech school case, this one involving a student in Alaska who unfurled a banner with the inscription “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at an off-campus event attended by students. The principal demanded that the student take the banner down. The student refused and was suspended for 10 days. (The court has not yet ruled on the case.)
Things never reached that point in Sleepy Hollow. Instead, students worked with a teacher to come up with an edited version of “The Laramie Project.”
“We decided the message was more important than keeping in the words, so we edited it and the principal approved it,” Emili said.
While they were in the midst of trying to find a school site for the production — the high school auditorium is under construction — a staff member at the Jacob Burns Film Center in Pleasantville heard about the students’ efforts. The center was presenting its “Out at the Movies” lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender film series, so it seemed fitting to offer the theater for a reading, said Kathryn Bonomi, a film programmer there. Ms. Bonomi also invited a cast member from the Tectonic Theater Project to work with the students.
The students presented their reading at the film center on May 23, in a production that was not formally affiliated with the school. Still, the audience was filled with Sleepy Hollow students and parents. Dr. Smith also came to see the show. Afterward, the eight performers, not all of whom are in the Gay-Straight Alliance, talked about their experience.
“It’s the only thing besides ‘Saving Private Ryan’ that made me cry,” said Anthony Hinds, a 17-year-old junior. “It opened up how much homophobia was in our schools. All of the sudden a filter was taken out of my mind. Now, when my friends say, ‘Oh, that’s so gay,’ I say, ‘Listen to what you’re saying. I know you’re not homophobic, so why would you say that?’ ”
Lucie Steiner, 17, a senior and the co-president of the alliance, said: “It forces you to learn about people and relate to people you don’t want to relate to. In the script, you see people as monsters saying things that your friends say every day.”
Sleepy Hollow High School students aren’t the first in Westchester to tackle “The Laramie Project.” Rye Country Day, Harrison, Croton-Harmon, Ossining, Pelham and John Jay high schools have all staged productions.
The students were tentatively scheduled to read the edited version of the play at the W. L. Morse School, a Sleepy Hollow elementary school, on Thursday. Many were still unhappy about the editing.
“It’s dangerous to be safe,” Lucie said. “The purpose of high school is to educate kids on things that matter, and this absolutely matters.”
Really good presentation of information. Well thought out and I can see that you put a lot of effort into it. Good Work!
The outcome of this case further demomstrates how free speech is does not apply to schools. There have been other case studys (some of them in this blog) that show how freedom of speech is not a gaurenteed right when in a public shcool. For some reason the laws of the Constitution don't apply to underaged, adolecence becuase certainly we don't have an opinion, rihgt? I'm not saying that every kids should be allowed to say whatever they want, but freedom of speech shouldn't just be limited to adults outside of school.
Students do not have free speech because every time a case goes to the surpreme court they interpret the 1st amendment in different ways.
Students do not have free speech because every time a case goes to the surpreme court they interpret the 1st amendment in different ways.
Listen Chris Judge sometimes I just wanna punch you in the face, but this blog is pretty well written and Im proud of you. Good Work, Son.
-WFT
It never ceases to amaze me how many citizens of this country believe the First Amendment to the US Constitution permits them to speak or write anything their heart desires. Not only is this as far from the truth as possible, freedom of speech is ultimately limited in the school environment. As demonstrated by the case mentioned in this post and others below, the Supreme Court has time and time again interpreted actions that do NOT disrupt the learning environment to be perfectly allowed. It's the actions that cause disruption (think the imminent danger test, etc) that are ultimately proven illegal. What is so hard to understand about such a simple concept?
with such wide interpretations of the 1st ammendment students and teachers have to be very careful about what they say and do and censor themselves. It is a shame that today everything you do is put under the microscop
^a.s.
The first amendment is always going to be a controversy because people can interprete it in different ways.
The Supreme Court interpretation of the first amendment has never been clearly defined, making it hard for people to know what they legally can and can not say. As in this case the students believed they were protected by their rights. Until the Supreme Court completely defines this right people will continually be caught breaking the law. -TB
the government preaches the right of free speech, but somtimes they feel some freedom is too much as people take it too far and say things like "bong hits 4 jesus", but although people find it rude or offending they have no right to say its wrong because those people have that freedom. they also say its not aloud because it in schools, but why are the rights different in schools? to me that makes no sense
Students should be able to voice their opinions about teachers, as long as its the truth, without fear of consequence.
AF
Great blog! It is presented nicely and there is a lot of information. The first amendment is probably the most debated amendment in America. Students should have freedom of speech in schools, we are American citizens aren't we?
i think that freedom of speech should apply in school as long as it doesnt put others' lives in danger. also we dealt with a this case in class already and the administration was scared to do a single thing to punish the girl after her father knew what the case was dealing with. GQ
"Students should be able to voice their opinions about teachers, as long as its the truth, without fear of consequence."
Totally agree
I think it is rediculouse how schooles prevent students' free speech even outside of school.
The outcome of this case just shows how freedom of speech does not apply to schools in most cases. Nice cartoon and articles.
Post a Comment