Are you familiar with the free speech case of Joseph Frederick? He was the student who unfurled the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner during the olympic torch procession through his hometown in 2002 (during school hours).

 

He got a 10 day school suspension, but now he has a free speech case in the Supreme Court.

 

Excerpts from this Article.

Students do not leave their right to free speech at the school door, the high court said in a Vietnam-era case over an anti-war protest by high school students.

But neither can students be disruptive or lewd or interfere with a school's basic educational mission, the court also has said. How to strike that balance is the question,

So, what say ye? Is this a free speech issue or was the school right to punish him for displaying the banner promoting drugs?

Interesting how this student was arrested for selling marijuana at a college. That seems to go against his statement that the sign was meaningless.

 

However, I am not sure that the school had a right to suspend him. He had not been to school that day, so I do not see him falling under their jurisdiction in that particular incident. Of course, I wouldn't expect the principal to have memorized the absentee and know that.

Interesting how this student was arrested for selling marijuana at a college. That seems to go against his statement that the sign was meaningless.

 

However, I am not sure that the school had a right to suspend him. He had not been to school that day, so I do not see him falling under their jurisdiction in that particular incident. Of course, I wouldn't expect the principal to have memorized the absentee and know that.

 

It also sounds like he was picking a fight.....

 

Frederick had previous run-ins with school administrators before the banner dispute. He said he first saw the slogan on a snowboard and thought it would make a good test of his rights because, though meaningless, it sounds provocative.

 

And to the bolded point

 

He chose to display the banner during a school-sanctioned event to watch the Olympic torch relay as it passed through Juneau on its way to the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City.

 

This would make it no different than attending an away basketball game even though you didn't attend school that day or showing up at a marching band concert even though you weren't at school.

As with Roe v Wade and many other "rights" cases, it would be interesting to know who is bankrolling the matter. It is very costly to get a case to the SC. I feel sure that some liberal groups are paying the bill as was the case in Roe.

 

As for the outcome, I would be surprised if the Court rules against the boy. The present legal climate in the country would seem to indicate that this will be the case.

 

If the case is heard, look for no worse (or better) than a 5-4 decision for the boy with Kennedy casting the deciding vote. The framers would be appalled at how their document has been "extended" through the years beginning with the tinkering by the Depression Court and the trashing by the Warren Court.

Scooter if you are correct, this might be the thing that gets a Republican back in the White House in 2008. Follow my line of thinking here....

 

The evangelicals are an important voting block for the Republicans. Presently, there is no candidate that excites them.

Presently, there is no issue (gay marriage in 2004) that will drive them to the voting polls.

 

And then you come along and have what would be considered liberal justices saying it is okay to make such a comment about their Savior in Jesus Christ.

 

That might be the thing that riles them up, the liberals (Democrats unfortunately carry that label) will get the blame and if there is a decent Republican candidate for President in 2008, rides it into the White House.

You make some good points, ladiesbballcoach. You may well be correct. I will really be surprised if the Court rules against the boy. If so, it will be on some basis other than his right to have a sign with that type of message.

 

He may lose on some "in loco parentis" type of application but I can't see him, in the present climate, losing on the content of the message.

 

To be honest, and consistent, I would have to vote in favor of his right to have such a sign. I thoroughly oppose what the sign states. However, the freedom of speech (expression) has been rather extended since Eisenhower made what he called his most serious mistake and nominated Warren as CJ.

 

Evangelicals will not be impressed with, nor in truth will most of them even comprehend, the legal arguments. They will react. And that reaction could well be to overlook the "flaws" of Giuliani and/or McCain and vote accordingly.

You make some good points, ladiesbballcoach. You may well be correct. I will really be surprised if the Court rules against the boy. If so, it will be on some basis other than his right to have a sign with that type of message.

 

He may lose on some "in loco parentis" type of application but I can't see him, in the present climate, losing on the content of the message.

 

To be honest, and consistent, I would have to vote in favor of his right to have such a sign. I thoroughly oppose what the sign states. However, the freedom of speech (expression) has been rather extended since Eisenhower made what he called his most serious mistake and nominated Warren as CJ.

 

Evangelicals will not be impressed with, nor in truth will most of them even comprehend, the legal arguments. They will react. And that reaction could well be to overlook the "flaws" of Giuliani and/or McCain and vote accordingly.

 

I am not an expert in school law but it seems the schools have some right in what the students can say or have banners on in a school sanctioned event.

 

I held up a sign once in my younger days at a Bracken County Polar Bear rivalry game that said "kick them in the ice hole." Principal rightfully took the sign and I got in trouble. Shouldn't the school have a right at a school-sanctioned event to limit inappropriate things?

 

If not, why can't a student be allowed to cuss me out as a teacher with no punishment?

LBBC, I agree with what you are saying entirely and that is they way I feel that it should be.

 

However, I just don't see it turning out that way. I think that they student will argue that he was not attending the event as a student.

 

Now if you were to have used that argument in your "polar bear" example, it would have been invalid as the ballgame would not have existed without school approval. However, the "torch run" would have happened regardless of whether the school made accommodations or not. Since the student didn't even attend school that day, I think that he will argue (and win) that he was acting as a private citizen.

LBBC, I agree with what you are saying entirely and that is they way I feel that it should be.

 

However, I just don't see it turning out that way. I think that they student will argue that he was not attending the event as a student.

 

Now if you were to have used that argument in your "polar bear" example, it would have been invalid as the ballgame would not have existed without school approval. However, the "torch run" would have happened regardless of whether the school made accommodations or not. Since the student didn't even attend school that day, I think that he will argue (and win) that he was acting as a private citizen.

I think it changes from private citizen when he puts himself in the MIDDLE of teh students that are there as a student. He stands on his own AWAY from the school's section of the run and I can see that.

 

But he places himself in the middle of the school group. He unfurls his banner with what I assume are students that were at the school that day. I think he puts himself under the student category when he chose to mix with the students.

Will the fact that he was on public property, not school property, be a big issue in the outcome?

 

I know the students were excused to attend the event, but it was not like a basketball game, etc., that would have been on school property. It was on a public street.

I am not an expert in school law but it seems the schools have some right in what the students can say or have banners on in a school sanctioned event.

 

I held up a sign once in my younger days at a Bracken County Polar Bear rivalry game that said "kick them in the ice hole." Principal rightfully took the sign and I got in trouble. Shouldn't the school have a right at a school-sanctioned event to limit inappropriate things?

 

If not, why can't a student be allowed to cuss me out as a teacher with no punishment?

 

You are pretty much referring to "in loco parentis". In this case, I think True blue will be correct and "protected expression" will win the day. But, as ladiesbballcoach has stated, it could be a real eye-opener for those social conservatives who see no difference between the leading candidates of the two parties. They might, and should, conclude that just sitting home and not voting would be a mistake.

Here is the Vietnam-era ruling on student speech, for those so inclined. Tinker

 

I think the fact that the display took place outside of school, but more importantly that it was not a school event, anyone in the community could attend, leaves the principal with no jursidiction. The sign also didn't incite harm or violence, which would give him some kind of basis for it. With the current composition of the Court I assume it will be a close case, but I think the odds are in the kid's favor.

When you are in a school environment, I feel that you have to live by their rules.

When you are in a school environment, I feel that you have to live by their rules.

 

Were they in a school environment? A case could be made both ways.

 

This is like the principal agreeing to excuse students to go watch the St Patricks Day parade downtown. Johnny, who never even went to school that day, shows up at the parade and joins some of his friends. They get in trouble for cursing the floats.

 

Should Johnny get a school punishment or not?

I am enjoying this discussion, good thread 2C.