In recent years, the Supreme Court has been making some interesting decisions. Most of them have been, I feel, correct for the most part, but everyone has been holding their breath over the first boneheaded ruling of the freshly-right-leaning Court. Here it is.
The Supreme Court upheld a school principal's right to confiscate a banner put up by a student solely because it appeared to advocate drug use. The court case out of Juneau, Alaska, upheld the actions of high school principal Deborah Roberts, which included confiscating the banner, which read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus", and suspending the student Joseph Frederick for violating a school policy banning the advocacy of illegal drug use.
According to the Reuters article of the ruling, Frederick claimed the banner's language was meant to be nonsensical and funny, a prank to get on television as the Winter Olympic torch relay passed by the school in January 2002. But school officials say the phrase "bong hits" refers to smoking marijuana, and Morse suspended Frederick for 10 days because she said the banner advocated or promoted illegal drug use in violation of school policy.
I think we all understand that laws and court cases, especially free speech cases, are usually decided at the fringes of generally accepted behavior. But this ruling appears to run blatantly into the mundane. Now, any school official can silence a student for any speech concerning drug use. This is far too broad a ruling to be reasonable. Could a principal discipline a student for writing a research paper supporting the legalization of drugs? After this ruling, it appears so.
What bugs me is not just the ruling, which is absurd. If the Supreme Court had ruled that the Federal government had no jurisdiction in what is really a state case and is leaving well enough alone, that would at least show a bit of thought put into it. But instead, the War on Drugs rears its ugly head, as the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts actually said a principal may restrict student speech at a school event when it is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.
The 1st Amendment is one of those concepts in American law where usually it is totally obvious to everyone, in both political parties and on both ends of the political spectrum, that only the most agregious of expression may be restricted. But this ruling suggests that any Constitutional right may be curtailed if it does not come down on the side of the War on Drugs that the Neo-Cons are on.
This is a scary ruling, boys and girls.
The Supreme Court upheld a school principal's right to confiscate a banner put up by a student solely because it appeared to advocate drug use. The court case out of Juneau, Alaska, upheld the actions of high school principal Deborah Roberts, which included confiscating the banner, which read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus", and suspending the student Joseph Frederick for violating a school policy banning the advocacy of illegal drug use.
According to the Reuters article of the ruling, Frederick claimed the banner's language was meant to be nonsensical and funny, a prank to get on television as the Winter Olympic torch relay passed by the school in January 2002. But school officials say the phrase "bong hits" refers to smoking marijuana, and Morse suspended Frederick for 10 days because she said the banner advocated or promoted illegal drug use in violation of school policy.
I think we all understand that laws and court cases, especially free speech cases, are usually decided at the fringes of generally accepted behavior. But this ruling appears to run blatantly into the mundane. Now, any school official can silence a student for any speech concerning drug use. This is far too broad a ruling to be reasonable. Could a principal discipline a student for writing a research paper supporting the legalization of drugs? After this ruling, it appears so.
What bugs me is not just the ruling, which is absurd. If the Supreme Court had ruled that the Federal government had no jurisdiction in what is really a state case and is leaving well enough alone, that would at least show a bit of thought put into it. But instead, the War on Drugs rears its ugly head, as the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts actually said a principal may restrict student speech at a school event when it is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.
The 1st Amendment is one of those concepts in American law where usually it is totally obvious to everyone, in both political parties and on both ends of the political spectrum, that only the most agregious of expression may be restricted. But this ruling suggests that any Constitutional right may be curtailed if it does not come down on the side of the War on Drugs that the Neo-Cons are on.
This is a scary ruling, boys and girls.
[Originally commented by elmegil on 6/25/2007]
ReplyDeleteInteresting that when it comes to election financing, they err the other way.
[Originally commented by buzzchick on 6/25/2007]
ReplyDeleteRandom thought: wonder what would have happened if the banner said "Ritalin pills 4 Jesus"
I totally agree with Justice Stevens who basically said that it was a "nonsensical" banner.... it wasn't meant to advocate ANYTHING, and as such is not indecent or disruptive (nor was it meant to be).
I also thought it was interesting that the conservatives think this might have negative repercussions for religious speech in schools. Unlikely bedfellows.