Pubdate: Tue, 26 Jun 2007
Source: Des Moines Register (IA)
Copyright: 2007 The Des Moines Register.
Contact:  http://desmoinesregister.com/index.html
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/123
Bookmark: 
http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Bong+Hits+4+Jesus 
(Bong Hits 4 Jesus)

FREE SPEECH VANISHING AT SCHOOL GATE

Court Extends Government Control Of Expression

In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court famously declared that students do 
not "shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech or 
expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Maybe they don't shed them completely, but the Supreme Court has in 
subsequent rulings made it clear that the memorable quote from Tinker 
vs. Des Moines means less than it was thought to mean at the time. It 
means even less following Monday's ruling in an Alaska student-speech case.

In a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts and endorsed by 
four other justices, the court declared its fealty to the concept of 
free speech for students expressed in the 38-year-old Tinker 
decision, which upheld the rights of Des Moines public-school 
students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. But 
the court nonetheless ruled that Juneau-Douglas High School did not 
violate a student's First Amendment rights when it suspended him for 
exercising that right on a public street outside the school.

Monday's ruling is not entirely surprising, given how the court has 
backtracked from Tinker over the past 20 years. But the court's 
failure to give more serious consideration to First Amendment rights 
of students is nonetheless disappointing, and suggests a new era of 
increased acceptance by the court of government control of speech.

Roberts took pains to explain away Tinker, but his explanation boils 
down to this simple principle: Students do not have the same 
constitutional rights as adults under the First Amendment if they 
advocate illegal activity in school.

In this case, the student was holding up a large banner during an 
Olympic torch-bearing parade outside the school. The banner bore the 
phrase "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS," which the school's principal judged to be 
inciting students to break the law by smoking marijuana.

It's a fair question whether this was, in fact, a school-sponsored 
event. But assuming, as the court does, that the school's authority 
extends to a banner held up on a public street across from the 
school, the question is whether the banner amounted to an incitement 
of illegal activity by students.

The banner could be read in any number of ways. Even the majority of 
the court admits the message was "cryptic." It hardly amounted to 
incitement to lawbreaking that justified government punishment of a 
student's free expression. The best take on that came from Justice 
John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent: "Most students ... do not shed 
their brains at the schoolhouse gate, and most students know dumb 
advocacy when they see it."

Besides refusing to underestimate kids, Stevens showed the keenest 
appreciation for the meaning of Tinker: "Censorship based on the 
content of speech, particularly censorship that depends on the 
viewpoint of the speaker, is subject to the most rigorous burden of 
justification."

Instead, the court accepted without question the school officials' 
conclusion that the student's speech was so offensive that it 
deserved no First Amendment protection.

Using such a flimsy standard for assessing student speech, it is hard 
to see how the Roberts court, had it been in place more than three 
decades ago, would have ruled in favor of the Des Moines students who 
lodged a quiet protest against a highly polarizing war. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman