Pubdate: Tue, 26 Jun 2007
Source: Christian Science Monitor (US)
Copyright: 2007 The Christian Science Publishing Society
Contact: http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/contactus.pl
Website: http://www.csmonitor.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/83
Author: Warren Richey, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Bookmark: 
http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Bong+Hits+4+Jesus 
(Bong Hits 4 Jesus)

COURT RESTRICTS STUDENT EXPRESSION

The Supreme Court Ruled Monday That School Officials Retain 
Discretion To Censor Student Speech That They Believe May Encourage 
Illegal Drug Use.

Washington -- A high school principal did not violate the free speech 
rights of a student when she confiscated a 14-foot prank banner near 
school grounds during an outdoor school assembly.

In an important First Amendment decision limiting student free 
speech, the US Supreme Court ruled on Monday that school 
administrators and teachers retain discretion to censor student 
speech that they believe may encourage illegal drug use.

The 5-to-4 decision comes in a case involving an Alaska high school 
student who displayed a banner proclaiming "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

The nation's highest court said the principal of the high school had 
the authority to confiscate the banner even though it was being 
displayed on a public sidewalk across the street from school property.

The decision is important because it somewhat expands the authority 
of school officials to censor student speech when the students are 
present at school-sponsored events and the message of the student 
speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.

"The message on [student Joseph Frederick's] banner was cryptic," 
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "It is no doubt 
offensive to some, perhaps amusing to others. To still others, it 
probably means nothing at all."

Chief Justice Roberts noted that the student himself had claimed that 
the words were just nonsense meant to attract television cameras. 
"But Principal [Deborah] Morse thought the banner would be 
interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use," 
Roberts wrote. He adds that her interpretation is a "plainly a reasonable one."

In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that in his view the 
First Amendment protects student speech "if the message itself 
neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct 
that is illegal and harmful to students."

He added, "This nonsense banner does neither."

"The court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding 
- -- indeed lauding -- a school's decision to punish [the student] for 
expressing a view with which it disagreed," Justice Stevens wrote.

The principal's action was upheld by the school superintendent, the 
Juneau School Board, and a federal judge. But a three-judge panel of 
the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the federal judge, and 
ruled that the principal could be sued personally for money damages 
for violating the student's clearly established free speech rights.

In reversing the Ninth Circuit decision, Roberts wrote: "School 
principals have a difficult job, and a vitally important one. It was 
reasonable for [the principal] to conclude that the banner promoted 
illegal drug use -- in violation of established school policy -- and 
that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in 
her charge, including Frederick, about how serious the school was 
about the dangers of illegal drug use." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman