WWUD (What would U do?)
Juneau resident Joseph Frederick had no idea that his actions would ignite a nationwide debate on freedom of speech when he unfurled his fourteen-foot long banner as the Olympic torch was passing by. Douglas and fellow students were allowed to leave the grounds of Juneau-Douglas High School so they could watch the torch. Douglas’s sign was meant to get him on TV. It wound up costing him a ten day suspension.
What did the sign say"
"BONG HITS 4 JESUS"
Frederick claimed that the suspension violated his rights, citing the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines This case held that students to have the right of free speech, which can be suppressed only when speech disrupts school activities or the learning environment. The San-Francisco based 9th Circuit United States Court of Appeals agreed.
The case has made it all the way to the Court of Last Resort, the USSC. The Bush administration is even weighing in, arguing that schools have the authority to limit talk about drugs because of the importance of keeping drugs away from young people.
Nobody doubts that Frederick’s message was inappropriate. However, did it significantly interfere with any learning environment? In other words, was the experience of seeing the Olympic torch lessened in any way for the other students because of this sign?
More importantly, if the Court does rule in favor of the student (side note: Kenneth Starr, former prosecutor of the Clinton impeachment case, is arguing for the district), will students be granted more discretion over choices they make concerning their self expression?
If you’re clerking for Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Thomas, Stevens, Scalia, Alito, or Souter, how do you advise them on this case?
posted by CitizenPatriot at 5:08:00 PM
6 Comments:
Technically the "War on drugs" is still going on. Also the United States federal and state governments have spent millions on drug control and anti-drug campaigns. There is currently nolegal religion that promotes drug use as a means of worship.
This kid is just trying to stir up a ruckus and is costing the government way to much time and effort. It would be in the governments best interest to throw it out, but since we cant do that I would advise the Supreme Court shoot him down and suggest he enjoy his three week vacation.
12:45 AM
BONG HITS FOR JESUS!
:)
8:28 PM
Obviously no one would disagree that the content of this kids sign was purely to grab attention from the public. Yes, the sign is not directly causing problems in the learning area, but it still will distract students indirectly from class even if the poster was in a crowd. Kids talk a lot and this is an example of what they could talk about. And last i knew, talking in class was considered a distraction and problem in the classroom. And this poster could be motivation for other students to try and pull off the same stunt by using religion as a tool to try and loophole the law.
11:19 AM
Freedom of Speech is arguably the most important right we have. It allows us to openly discuss our concerns with our government, ultimately providing for the democratic process we cherish. A right so crucial, which was specifically enumerated in the Constitution can only be abridged if the Strict Scrutiny test is met. In other words, the objective the government is seeking (i.e., control in the classroom and in schools) must be so crucial and further, the means the government uses to achieve that goal (i.e., prohibiting this sign) must be narrowly tailored to achieve the objective.
Surely, control of our nation's children in schools and other places of learning is a very crucial objective of our government, surely, one of their most primary functions. But, is prohibiting this individual from holding a sign off of school grounds, during the momentous occasion of seeking the Olympic torch narrowly tailored enough to achieve the goal of control in the classroom?
Like the Tinker case, I would agree that this student's speech cannot be suppressed in this instance because it would not directly disrupt school activities or the learning environment. The big factor for me is that this took place off of school grounds, and not as if this student posted this sign across the blackboard before the teacher walked into the room in the morning.
12:31 PM
The kid was not supporting drugs he just wanted to get noticed and have his 15 minutes of fame which have turned into much more than that. Secondly on the transcripts from the actual hearing at the supreme court many of the justices were asking questions of the lawyer saying things like " school was not in session and therefore the sign was not disrupting learning" The court should use the precedent of the tinker case and take the side of the student.
8:29 PM
John i have a question for you. Why does it matter if any religion promotes drug use as a means of worship? The problem i see here isn't with freedom of religion it is with freedom of speech. His statement does not incite any violence, and causes no harm to anyone. I would agree that this sign is ignorant and is in bad taste, but that does not make it so he should not be able to have the sign.
"I do not agree with what you have to say but i will defend to the death your right to say it" (Voltaire)
10:53 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home