Supreme Court Arguments: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"

[DaJudge]

On January 24, 2002, several private sponsors and civic leaders organized
the ?Winter Olympics Torch Relay,? an event that wound through the
streets of Juneau, Alaska. Frederick v. Morse (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf), 439 F.3d 1114, 1115 (9th
Cir. 2006). Because the relay was deemed to have educational value,
students throughout the city were released from school to watch as the
torch was carried through the city streets. Brief for Petitioner (http://www.lawmemo.com/sct/06/Morse/brief_pet.pdf) at 3. Joseph
Frederick was then an 18-year-old senior at Juneau-Douglas High School.
Frederick v. Morse (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf), 439 F.3d at 1115. Frederick never made it to school
that day due to a delay caused by the snow in his driveway, but he was
able to make it to the public sidewalk directly across from his school. Id (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf).
Frederick was aware that the Olympic torch would pass by this sidewalk.
Id (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf).

After waiting for the appropriate moment, when television cameras were
sure to catch the action, Frederick and some friends unfurled a large
banner that read ?Bong Hits 4 Jesus? in plain view of the school?s student
body. Id (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf). After watching this event unfold across the street, Deborah
Morse, the school principal, crossed the street and confronted Frederick
about the banner. Id (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf). Responding to Morse, Frederick asked ?What about
the Bill of Rights (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html) and freedom of speech?? Id (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf). at 1116. Morse instructed
Frederick to take the banner down because ?it violated the policy against
displaying offensive material, including material that advertises or promotes
use of illegal drugs.? Id (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf). Morse then grabbed the banner from Frederick and
crumpled it. Id (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf). Morse suspended Frederick for ten days. Id (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf). at 1115.

Frederick argues that he had First Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html) protection because he was
not on school premises. He also contends that his actions do not fall under
the types of student speech normally susceptible to regulation by school
administrators. Moreover, Frederick argues that Morse is not entitled to
qualified immunity because a reasonable principal would have known that
she was violating Frederick?s constitutional rights.

On the other hand, Morse contends that the banner was displayed during a
school activity that was supervised by school faculty, circumstances that
normally limit students? First Amendment rights. Even if she did violate
Frederick?s rights, Morse argues that it is unfair to deny an official qualified
immunity when courts and officials reasonably disagree on whether a
constitutional violation occurred.

The district court sided with Morse, holding that Morse did not violate
Frederick?s First Amendment rights, and even if she did, no personal liability
would attach under the qualified immunity doctrine. On appeal, the Ninth (http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/)
Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/) granted certiorari to decide a case
that will have a significant impact on the Court?s student speech doctrine.
With this decision, the Court will determine whether it will extend the
categories of speech capable of being regulated by school administrators.
Also, the Court?s decision will decide the extent of school officials? liability in
student speech lawsuits.

Full discussion is here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-278.html).

[Steve]

I shudder to even imagine how much taxpayer $$$ is wasted on this kind of frivolous lawsuit crap. :(

Too bad it's out of the question for the Judge(s) to call the defendant and plaintiff into his/her office, give them a good spanking and send them away with an order to reimburse the taxpayers for all related costs.

[scottycards]

Whichever way this goes, these kids are AWESOME. Anyone that can think up something that funny, then pull off the stunt, are OK in my book.

Thumbs up to the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" crew.:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Yota]

I admit I laffed too.

But honestly, I'd give the school the benefit of the doubt here. The ACLU won't tho. And I'm sure they're behind this.

[sweater]

I admit I laffed too.

But honestly, I'd give the school the benefit of the doubt here. The ACLU won't tho. And I'm sure they're behind this.
Why would you give them the benefit of the doubt?

What kind of message is that to send to our kids: see this here Bill of Rights? As soon as you leave K-12 you'll be able to actually enjoy it.

Some teacher tries to pull that crap on my kid when they're not inside the school and they've got a fight on their hands.

I know of no good reason to limit this kind of speech, aside from the classic you-can't-shout-"FIRE!"-in-a-crowded-theater argument. In doing so, this teacher is merely reinforcing the idea that the individual exists at the whim of the government (in this case, represented by the school).

- mike

[Steve]

What kind of message is that to send to our kids: see this here Bill of Rights? As soon as you leave K-12 you'll be able to actually enjoy it.

As if there was really true freedom of speech on college campuses? Not quite...

[sweater]

As if there was really true freedom of speech on college campuses? Not quite...

I almost added that part, too. But kids aren't required by law in most states to attend college. They are, however, oftentimes required by law to attend school (casting aside the very small percentage of home-schooled kids out there).

Letting teachers get away with crap like this is a sign of one thing, and one thing only: the pussification of parents. I will never - never - let my child be treated by a teacher or principal like this if I can help it, and I'll be damn sure to teach my child to understand the difference between right (being able to speak your mind in accordance with the 1st Amendment) and wrong (having to listen to the made-up rules grounded in no laws with zero accountability or recourse and not a single shred of due process).

- mike

[Steve]

All discussions of free speech aside, what are you guys' opinions about:

1. What these kind of lawsuits cost all of us,

2. What their purpose (if any) is (since I don't believe for one second that the outcome of this one will have any effect on a teacher in the future) and;

3. Whether the student and/or his family should receive any monetary damages?

[scottycards]

1. This is a riduculous waste of even a dollar.
2. The teacher is out of line- kids will be kids, and they cause trouble from time to time. She is sorely lacking a sense of humor. Give them a day off from school and be done with it.
3. No money on either side.
Move on.

[Jake_Blues]

I admit I laffed too.

But honestly, I'd give the school the benefit of the doubt here. The ACLU won't tho. And I'm sure they're behind this.

Remember, protecting the first amendment is just as important as protecting the second. As they say, the second guarantees the first!

I personally think the students were exercising free speech that should have been protected (even idiots are free to spout idiocy), but I also agree with the principal in that she has qualified immunity, since the circumstances in this case are questionable.

I'd equate this to a police officer shooting someone who was running around with a toy gun that he believed was real. If you know all the facts it would probably be illegal, but if you put a reasonable person in that situation with only the knowledge available at the time, they would react the same way.

As for this being a waste of money, this is the sort of case that shapes law. I'd rather the money be spent on this than ten more ambulance chasers milking insurance companies on fabricated injuries.

-E

[DaJudge]

1. This is a riduculous waste of even a dollar.
2. The teacher is out of line- kids will be kids, and they cause trouble from time to time. She is sorely lacking a sense of humor. Give them a day off from school and be done with it.
3. No money on either side.
Move on.

Your #2 is what this lawsuit is all about. She gave him a 10 day suspension instead of 1 day as you suggest, but the principal's principle (Sorry, I couldn't resist) is the same. Does she have the authority to suspend him at all for that conduct, and if not, who pays, the school district or her personally?

[Jesus Christ]

Ahhh! Bong Hits 4 Me!

What else will these crazy kids come up with. The things that make you go hmmmmm.

[Steve]

Your #2 is what this lawsuit is all about. She gave him a 10 day suspension instead of 1 day as you suggest, but the principal's principle (Sorry, I couldn't resist) is the same. Does she have the authority to suspend him at all for that conduct, and if not, who pays, the school district or her personally?

Principal's principle. Nice. :thumbsup:

And as for who "pays," where is the monetary damage?

[Jake_Blues]

Principal's principle. Nice. :thumbsup:

And as for who "pays," where is the monetary damage?

I'd argue that the 10 day suspension is keeping me from getting into Harvard, becoming a CEO, and making 50 mil a year... total monetary damages, 50 million times life expectancy :D

-E

[scottycards]

You know, those are good points, Judge. I don't know if she has the authority to suspend for 10 days. I'd think and hope that common sense would prevail, she would back off the 10 days if the parents or whomever made a big stink about it, and they'd come to some sort of agreement before it ever got to the level of legal intervention.

I don't understand why either side would be so deeply entrenched in their convictions over this that they would not sit down and work it out. People love to run to the courts, it seems. I believe that some things should be settled person to person, in a reasonable manner. Now it's out of control.

It's a banner that says "Bong Hits" for christ's sake. It was a joke. As for payment, what she does acting as an agent of the school district- like what happened here- would put the district on the hook, not her personally, I would think.

10 days for a banner? Wow. When the students complained of the length of suspension, she should have offered an alternative compromise that would satisfy all involved- I would think that someone in that type of postition would want to teach the kids that what they did was out of line, and there should be some sort of repercussion.............................if she's effective is showing them that what they did was not productive, I would think they would understand.

[JKTODD]

I'm with Steve and ScottyCards on this one.

[Ghettojeep]

Ahhh! Bong Hits 4 Me!

What else will these crazy kids come up with. The things that make you go hmmmmm.

Hey man, I got that 5 bucks I owe you, just hit me up. :thumbsup:

[87xjco]

I'm not sure it's a waste of money in this case. This argument would probably have to be settled in the Supreme Court eventually, so the taxpayers money would be spent sooner or later anyways.

And it could be argued that here is an issue of law, badly in need of clarification.

[sweater]

All discussions of free speech aside, what are you guys' opinions about:

1. What these kind of lawsuits cost all of us,

2. What their purpose (if any) is (since I don't believe for one second that the outcome of this one will have any effect on a teacher in the future) and;

3. Whether the student and/or his family should receive any monetary damages?

1. Not enough if they're protecting rights. Sorry to put it all sappy-dappy like that, but it is a possible infringement on 1st Amendment rights.

2. To set precedent. To point at in the future and say "You fawker - you can't do that. See this here Supreme Court Ruling?" Because, as we all know, stupid, mean, evil people find themselves in positions of power.

3. No monetary damages. However, they should be allowed to recoup attorney's fees - not allowing that would set precedent (see that? It popped up again!) that would discourage the little guy from taking on the big guy in the future.

Authority deserves to be questioned. Always. And it'll have to defend itself sometimes. I would rather have it that way, with the associated costs, then the other way around.

- mike

[Yota]

Why would you give them the benefit of the doubt?

What kind of message is that to send to our kids: see this here Bill of Rights? As soon as you leave K-12 you'll be able to actually enjoy it.

Some teacher tries to pull that crap on my kid when they're not inside the school and they've got a fight on their hands.

I know of no good reason to limit this kind of speech, aside from the classic you-can't-shout-"FIRE!"-in-a-crowded-theater argument. In doing so, this teacher is merely reinforcing the idea that the individual exists at the whim of the government (in this case, represented by the school).

- mike

I didn't really get into the guts of this case and I'm not taking a firm position one way or other at this point.

What I thought I read was that the kids ditched school to go hold up their Bong Hits 4 Jesus sign. I would support a suspension in that case just for ditching school, but I'd let them off with a lighter sentence because their sign made me laugh. Im not getting drawn into this one... yet :flipoff2:

[Steve]

I didn't really get into the guts of this case and I'm not taking a firm position one way or other at this point.

Im not getting drawn into this one... yet :flipoff2:

Wishy-washy answer. :tisk:

:flipoff2:

[Yota]

Yeah I know, but I really didn't get much into this one.

In general, smart-ass kids deserve a hickory switch even if they make me laugh. :D

Darn whipper snappers.

[Jake_Blues]

Come on, the sandals, the long hippy hair and beard, the toga... Jesus was totally smokin a bowl.

-E

[scottycards]

Come on, the sandals, the long hippy hair and beard, the toga... Jesus was totally smokin a bowl.

-E

He was in the Middle East- no weed, just killer Afganhi BLACK HASH.:drool:

[Yota]

Come on, the sandals, the long hippy hair and beard, the toga... Jesus was totally smokin a bowl.

-E

The sandals (http://www.gurkees.com/)

Jebus was... like... definitely a hippie.

[scottycards]

The sandals (http://www.gurkees.com/)

Jebus was... like... definitely a hippie.

I have a pair- the Neptune model. Really. They are super sweet. I've been told they're kind of Metro, tho. Got them for my birthday.

Super comfortable.

[Jake_Blues]

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j226/Eurogirl76/buddy_christ.jpg

[Swat]

School did not organize it. The kids were off of school grounds. The principle was way out of line in doing what she did.

[DaJudge]

I didn't really get into the guts of this case and I'm not taking a firm position one way or other at this point.

What I thought I read was that the kids ditched school to go hold up their Bong Hits 4 Jesus sign. I would support a suspension in that case just for ditching school, but I'd let them off with a lighter sentence because their sign made me laugh. Im not getting drawn into this one... yet :flipoff2:

My emphasis added to case summary:

"The parties dispute whether the viewing of the Olympic torch relay off the
school?s premises was a regular school-sanctioned event. Id (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf). Frederick
contends that students were simply released from school for a period of
time to permit them to watch a privately sponsored event occurring on
public streets. Id (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf). Frederick notes that students were not required to
submit a parental permission slip to be released, which is usually the
primary requirement for school field trips and other supervised events that
occur off the school?s premises. Id (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf). Morse, on the other hand, calls the
release ?an approved social event or class trip,? noting that the school
band and cheerleaders greeted the torchbearers, and the school?s teachers
supervised the event. Id (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf).

After Morse handed down Frederick?s ten-day suspension, Frederick
appealed the decision unsuccessfully through every method and every level
of administrative and school board review. Id (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf). at 1116?17. After exhausting
all other options, Frederick filed a federal suit under 42 U.S.C. ? 1983 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html),
seeking a declaratory judgment that his rights under the First Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html)
had been violated; an injunction to remove the ten-day suspension from his
school records; damages; and other relief for Morse?s alleged misconduct.
Id (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf). at 1117.

The district court granted summary judgment for Morse and the Juneau
School Board, holding that Morse?s actions had not violated Frederick?s
constitutional rights, and that, even if constitutional rights violations had
occurred, Morse and the School Board were entitled to qualified immunity.
Id (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf). The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the lower court?s decision.
Brief for Petitioner (http://www.lawmemo.com/sct/06/Morse/brief_pet.pdf) at 12. The court acknowledged that the Olympic torch
relay viewing was an activity authorized by the school, and that the banner
expressed a positive message about drug use. Id (http://www.lawmemo.com/sct/06/Morse/brief_pet.pdf). The court, however,
decided that Frederick?s speech could not be suppressed because it was
neither plainly offensive, school-sponsored, nor substantially disruptive. See (http://www.lawmemo.com/sct/06/Morse/brief_pet.pdf)
id. at 12?14. Finally, the Ninth Circuit found that Morse and the School
Board were not entitled to qualified immunity, remanding the case to
determine Frederick?s money damages. Id (http://www.lawmemo.com/sct/06/Morse/brief_pet.pdf). at 14."

[Yota]

I have a pair- the Neptune model. Really. They are super sweet. I've been told they're kind of Metro, tho. Got them for my birthday.

Super comfortable.

x10

I've had multiple pairs over the years. Crocs are way more metro than Gurkees. :D

[Mr. Mojo]

He was in the Middle East- no weed, just killer Afganhi BLACK HASH.:drool:

What do think hashish is made from ?

[kdl_golden]

Nobody mentioned that the principal violated the students freedom of religion! Bong hits for Towelie is bad, but Bong hits for Jesus should be protected.:D

[supremebeholder]

The court, however, decided that Frederick?s speech could not be suppressed because it was neither plainly offensive, school-sponsored, nor substantially disruptive.

More retardedness from the ninth. I was young once, not that long ago, and I know exactly what was going through that kid?s mind when he made the banner. Its entire purpose was to be disruptive, and judging by the content of the banner, probably to be offensive. Exactly the kind of ruling we've come to expect from the ninth circuit.

I'm still not sure whether or not what they were doing can be considered a school sponsored event. That's a tough one but I'm leaning toward no.

[Jeepindog]

Ok, there are currently no public profanity laws in Colorado. You can say whatever you want to whomever you want, and display lewd bumper stickers on your vehicle if you so choose. Suppose some guy was standing across the street from a school, while it was in session, and began cursing up a blue streak. The students can hear him very plainly. Should he be quieted or removed, or would that be an infringement on his First Amendment rights?

[Yota]

School sanctioned is not the same as school sponsored.

If they let kids out of class specifically so that they could watch the torch pass, it was definitely school-sanctioned even if not -sponsored. Does that matter? Beats the crap outta me.

[DaJudge]

Ok, there are currently no public profanity laws in Colorado. You can say whatever you want to whomever you want, and display lewd bumper stickers on your vehicle if you so choose. Suppose some guy was standing across the street from a school, while it was in session, and began cursing up a blue streak. The students can hear him very plainly. Should he be quieted or removed, or would that be an infringement on his First Amendment rights?

If students can hear him plainly then he is disturbing the peace and can be cited for that. Requiring quiet in a school zone or hospital zone is a reasonable limitation on 1st amendment rights. There have been a number of abortion protestor cases that have upheld noise restriction ordinances/statutes.

[kfuss]

You will find out there is a fine line to walk, standing up for your kids and affording the school system the ability to control and discipline students.

Besides, IMHO, that kid did get to express his freedom of speech, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, this gets said again and again. The principal was wrong to rip the sign out of his hands, the 10-day suspension was absolutly correct.

This will be a low blow for the public school system, and will do nothing but make educating young people that much harder, like it isn't hard enough... :(

[Gunter]

All discussions of free speech aside, what are you guys' opinions about:

1. What these kind of lawsuits cost all of us,

2. What their purpose (if any) is (since I don't believe for one second that the outcome of this one will have any effect on a teacher in the future) and;

3. Whether the student and/or his family should receive any monetary damages?

it was a waste of time,better could have been spent hashing it out in bar over a few dozen cold beers.

[SUPERGILDO43]

Ahhh! Bong Hits 4 Me!

What else will these crazy kids come up with. The things that make you go hmmmmm.
:laughing: :spit: :laughing: :spit: :laughing: :spit:

did this not make everyone else laugh?

[Lost]

Here is link to the article from today...If I can get it to work...

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=6240610

[CLYDE]

Lets see, the kid was 18 years old at the time it occurred, and he hadnt been to school that day, so was not on the school rolls for the day. I would say he was on his own time, and therefore is in the right. now suspending him for laying out, yeah that I can see, but otherwise he was an adult on his own time, and the principle should not have confonted him until he returned to school, and then only for being absent. The key here is, he was 18, an adult by law.

[DaJudge]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/) http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gif[/URL]


March 18, 2007

Free-Speech Case Divides Bush and Religious Right

By [URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/linda_greenhouse/index.html?inline=nyt-per"]LINDA GREENHOUSE (http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&camp=foxsearch2007-emailtools01d-nyt5-511276&ad=animate2_namesake88x31.gif&goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/thenamesake/)

WASHINGTON, March 17 ? A Supreme Court case about the free-speech
rights of high school students, to be argued on Monday, has opened an
unexpected fissure between the Bush administration and its usual allies on
the religious right.

As a result, an appeal that asks the justices to decide whether school
officials can squelch or punish student advocacy of illegal drugs has taken
on an added dimension as a window on an active front in the culture wars,
one that has escaped the notice of most people outside the fray. And as
the stakes have grown higher, a case that once looked like an easy victory
for the government side may prove to be a much closer call.

On the surface, Joseph Frederick?s dispute with his principal, Deborah
Morse, at the Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska five years ago
appeared to have little if anything to do with religion ? or perhaps with
much of anything beyond a bored senior?s attitude and a harried
administrator?s impatience.

As the Olympic torch was carried through the streets of Juneau on its way
to the 2002 winter games in Salt Lake City, students were allowed to leave
the school grounds to watch. The school band and cheerleaders performed.
With television cameras focused on the scene, Mr. Frederick and some
friends unfurled a 14-foot-long banner with the inscription: ?Bong Hits 4
Jesus.?

Mr. Frederick later testified that he designed the banner, using a slogan he
had seen on a snowboard, ?to be meaningless and funny, in order to get on
television.? Ms. Morse found no humor but plenty of meaning in the sign,
recognizing ?bong hits? as a slang reference to using marijuana. She
demanded that he take the banner down. When he refused, she tore it
down, ordered him to her office, and gave him a 10-day suspension.

Mr. Fredericks?s ensuing lawsuit and the free-speech court battle that
resulted, in which he has prevailed so far, is one that, classically, pits
official authority against student dissent. It is the first Supreme Court case
to do so directly since the court upheld the right of students to wear black
arm bands to school to protest the war in Vietnam, declaring in Tinker v.
Des Moines School District that ?it can hardly be argued that either
students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech
or expression at the schoolhouse gate.?

The court followed that 1969 decision with two others during the 1980s
that upheld the authority of school officials to ban vulgar or offensive
student speech and to control the content of school newspapers. Clearly
there is some tension in the court?s student-speech doctrine; what
message to extract from the trio of decisions is the basic analytical
question in the new case, Morse v. Frederick, No. 06-278. What is most
striking is how the two sides line up.

The Bush administration entered the case on the side of the principal and
the Juneau School Board, which are both represented by Kenneth W. Starr (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/kenneth_w_starr/index.html?inline=nyt-per),
the former solicitor general and independent counsel. His law firm, Kirkland &
Ellis, is handling the appeal without a fee. Mr. Starr and Edwin S. Kneedler,
a deputy solicitor general who will present the government?s view, will share
argument time on Monday. The National School Board Association, two
school principals? groups, and several antidrug organizations also filed briefs
on the school board?s side.

While it is hardly surprising to find the American Civil Liberties Union (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/american_civil_liberties_union/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and the
National Coalition Against Censorship on Mr. Frederick?s side, it is the array
of briefs from organizations that litigate and speak on behalf of the religious
right that has lifted Morse v. Frederick out of the realm of the ordinary.

The groups include the American Center for Law and Justice, founded by
the Rev. Pat Robertson (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/pat_robertson/index.html?inline=nyt-per); the Christian Legal Society; the Alliance Defense
Fund, an organization based in Arizona that describes its mission as
?defending the right to hear and speak the Truth?; the Rutherford Institute,
which has participated in many religion cases before the court; and Liberty
Legal Institute, a nonprofit law firm ?dedicated to the preservation of First
Amendment rights and religious freedom.?

The institute, based in Plano, Tex., told the justices in its brief that it was
?gravely concerned that the religious freedom of students in public schools
will be damaged? if the court rules for the school board.

Lawyers on Mr. Frederick?s side offer a straightforward explanation for the
strange-bedfellows aspect of the case. ?The status of being a dissident
unites dissidents on either side,? said Prof. Douglas Laycock of the
University of Michigan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_michigan/index.html?inline=nyt-org) Law School, an authority on constitutional issues
involving religion who worked on Liberty Legal Institute?s brief.

In an interview, Professor Laycock said that religiously observant students
often find the atmosphere in public school to be unwelcoming and ?feel
themselves a dissident and excluded minority.? As the Jehovah?s Witnesses
did in the last century, these students are turning to the courts.

The briefs from the conservative religious organizations depict the school
environment as an ideological battleground. The Christian Legal Society
asserts that its law school chapters ?have endured a relentless assault by
law schools intolerant of their unpopular perspective on the morality of
homosexual conduct or the relevance of religious belief.?

The American Center for Law and Justice brief, filed by its chief counsel,
Jay Alan Sekulow, warns that public schools ?face a constant temptation to
impose a suffocating blanket of political correctness upon the educational
atmosphere.?

What galvanized most of the groups on Mr. Frederick?s side was the breadth
of the arguments made on the other side. The solicitor general?s brief
asserts that under the Supreme Court?s precedents, student speech ?may
be banned if it is inconsistent with a school?s basic educational mission.?

The Juneau School Board?s mission includes opposing illegal drug use, the
administration?s brief continues, citing as evidence a 1994 federal law, the
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, which requires that
schools, as a condition of receiving federal money, must ?convey a clear
and consistent message? that using illegal drugs is ?wrong and harmful.?

Mr. Starr?s main brief asserts that the court?s trilogy of cases ?stands for
the proposition that students have limited free speech rights balanced
against the school district?s right to carry out its educational mission and to
maintain discipline.? The brief argues that even if Ms. Morse applied that
precept incorrectly to the facts of this case, she is entitled to immunity
from suit because she could have reasonably believed that the law was on
her side.

The religious groups were particularly alarmed by what they saw as the
implication that school boards could define their ?educational mission? as
they wished and could suppress countervailing speech accordingly.

?Holy moly, look at this! To get drugs we can eliminate free speech in
schools?? is how Robert A. Destro, a law professor at Catholic University,
described his reaction to the briefs for the school board when the Liberty
Legal Institute asked him to consider participating on the Mr. Frederick?s
behalf. He quickly signed on.

Having worked closely with Republican administrations for years, Mr. Destro
said he was hard pressed to understand the administration?s position. ?My
guess is they just hadn?t thought it through,? he said in an interview. ?To
the people who put them in office, they are making an incoherent
statement.?

The solicitor general?s office does not comment publicly on its cases. But
Mr. Starr, by contrast, was happy to talk about the case and the alignment
against him of many of his old allies. ?It?s reassuring to have lots of friends
of liberty running around,? he said in a cheerful tone, adding: ?I welcome
this outpouring because it will help the court see that it shouldn?t go too far
either way.?

[DaJudge]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/images/MSNBC/msnbc_ban.gif MSNBC.com

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/070319/nc_scotus_freespeech_070319.300w.jpg

Supreme Court hears ?Bong Hits 4 Jesus?
Justices show no clear consensus on free speech vs. school limits

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A high school senior?s 14-foot banner proclaiming ?Bong Hits
4 Jesus? gave the Supreme Court a provocative prop for a lively argument
Monday about the extent of schools? control over student speech.

If the justices conclude Joseph Frederick?s homemade sign was a pro-drug
message, they are likely to side with principal Deborah Morse. She
suspended Frederick in 2002 when he unfurled the banner across the street
from the school in Juneau, Alaska.

?I thought we wanted our schools to teach something, including something
besides just basic elements, including the character formation and not to
use drugs,? Chief Justice John Roberts said Monday.

But the court could rule for Frederick if it determines that he was, as he
has contended, conducting a free-speech experiment using a nonsensical
message that contained no pitch for drug use.

?It sounds like just a kid?s provocative statement to me,? Justice David
Souter said.

Students in public schools don?t have the same rights as adults, but neither
do they leave their constitutional protections at the schoolhouse gate, as
the court said in a landmark speech-rights ruling from the Vietnam era.

Morse, now a Juneau schools administrator, was at the court Monday.
Frederick, teaching and studying in China, was not.

Kenneth Starr in court

Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, whose Kirkland and Ellis law firm
is representing Morse for free, argued that the justices should defer to the
judgment of the principal. Morse reasonably interpreted the banner as a
pro-drug message, despite what Frederick intended, Starr said.

School officials are perfectly within their rights to curtail student speech
that advocates drug use, he said. ?The message here is, in fact, critical,?
Starr said.

Starr, joined by the Bush administration, also asked the court to adopt a
broad rule that could essentially give public schools the right to clamp down
on any speech with which they disagree. That argument did not appear to
have widespread support among the justices.

Douglas Mertz of Juneau, Frederick?s lawyer, struggled to keep the focus
away from drugs. ?This is a case about free speech. It is not a case about
drugs,? Mertz said.

Conservative groups that often are allied with the administration are
backing Frederick out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools
clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose
homosexuality or abortion.

The outcome also could stray from the conservative-liberal split that often
characterizes controversial cases.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote several opinions in favor of student speech
rights while a federal appeals court judge, seemed more concerned by the
administration?s broad argument in favor of schools than did his fellow
conservatives.

?I find that a very, a very disturbing argument,? Alito told Justice
Department lawyer Edwin Kneedler, ?because schools have ... defined their
educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all sorts of political
speech and speech expressing fundamental values of the students, under
the banner of getting rid of speech that?s inconsistent with educational
missions.?

Breyer conflicted

Justice Stephen Breyer, in the court?s liberal wing, said he was troubled
that a ruling in favor of Frederick, even if he was making a joke, would make
it harder for principals to run their schools.

?We?ll suddenly see people testing limits all over the place in the high
schools,? Breyer said.

On the other hand, he said, a decision favorable to the schools ?may really
limit people?s rights on free speech. That?s what I?m struggling with.?

After the arguments, two dozen sign-carrying demonstrators chanted,
?Teachers should teach, not limit free speech.?

Scores of students waited outside the court early Monday for a chance to
listen to the arguments.

Ninth graders on a class trip from Mosinee, Wis., were in general agreement
on the issue. Cari Kemp, 15, said Frederick?s protest was ?just a joke? but
that ?the school took it too far.?

The justices, as they often do, sought to probe the limits of each side?s
argument by altering the facts one way or another.

What if, Souter asked, a student held a small sign in a Shakespeare class
with the same message Frederick used. ?If the kids look around and they
say, well, so and so has got his bong sign again,? Souter said, as laughter
filled the courtroom. ?They then return to Macbeth. Does the teacher have
to, does the school have to tolerate that sign in the Shakespeare class??

Justice Antonin Scalia, ridiculing the notion that schools should have to
tolerate speech that seems to support illegal activities, asked about a
button that says, ?Smoke Pot, It?s Fun.?

Or, he wondered, should the court conclude that only speech in support of
violent crime can be censored. ??Extortion Is Profitable,? that?s OK?? Scalia
asked.

A clear majority seemed to side with Morse on one point, that she shouldn?t
have to compensate Frederick. A federal appeals court said Morse would
have to pay Frederick because she should have known her actions violated
the Constitution.

At issue

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, particularly since the Columbine
massacre and the Sept. 11 attacks have made teachers and administrators
quicker to tamp down on unruly or unusual behavior.

Other student speech cases making their way through the courts include a
student who was pulled from class after taping an anti-gay message to his
shirt and a middle schooler who got into trouble for a shirt that uses
symbols of drugs and alcohol to criticize President Bush.

Unlike the Vietnam protesters who won their court fight in the late 1960s,
Frederick says he was not staking out a political position with the banner he
fashioned with pieces of duct tape as lettering.

"What the banner said was, 'Look here, I have the right to free speech and
I'm asserting it.' I wasn't trying to say anything religious, anything about
drugs," Frederick said in a telephone news conference from China, where he
now teaches English and studies Mandarin.

An array of groups, from advocates of drug law changes to gay rights
backers to supporters of religious freedom, have lined up behind him.

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.

Civil rights, financial liability

Frederick 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.

Morse saw the banner, confronted Frederick and suspended him. Frederick
said she doubled the suspension to 10 days when he quoted Thomas
Jefferson on free speech.

Frederick, helped by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the principal
and the Juneau school district. He lost in federal district court, but the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Frederick's rights were violated and that
Morse could be held financially liable for her actions.

Among the factors that could weigh in the decision, Frederick was standing
on public property, not school grounds when he displayed the banner. The
school said students were allowed to leave class to see the torch pass by,
making the event school-sanctioned. Frederick, however, never made it to
school that day before the event.

The other issue in the case is whether the principal should have to
compensate Frederick. The appeals court said Morse should have known
that her decision to suspend Frederick ran counter to Supreme Court
precedent. But Starr said she made a reasonable, on-the-spot decision
that, even if wrong, should not subject her to a "potentially ruinous
damages award."

Frederick, now 23, said he later had to drop out of college after his father
lost his job. The elder Frederick, who worked for the company that insures
the Juneau schools, was fired in connection with his son's legal fight, the
son said. A jury recently awarded Frank Frederick $200,000 in a lawsuit he
filed over his firing.

Joseph Frederick pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling
marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas,
according to court records.

A decision is expected by July.

[scottycards]

Apparently Jesus does not do "tubes".........bummer.

Jun 25, 2:03 PM EDT
Court Limits Student Free-Speech Rights
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.

[Zed Mikey]

Jesus is all about the bong.
http://widerquist.com/hangnwithjesus/bong.jpg

[DaJudge]

MORSE v. FREDERICK (No. 06-278)

Web-accessible at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-278.ZS.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-278.ZS.html)

Argued: March 19, 2007 -- Decided: June 25, 2007

Opinion author: Roberts
===============================================================
At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner
Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a
banner stating 'BONG HiTS 4 JESUS,' which she regarded
as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with established
school policy prohibiting such messages at school events,
Morse directed the students to take down the banner. When
one of the students who had brought the banner to the event-respondent
Frederick-refused, Morse confiscated the banner and later
suspended him. The school superintendent upheld the suspension,
explaining, inter alia, that Frederick was disciplined
because his banner appeared to advocate illegal drug use
in violation of school policy. Petitioner school board
also upheld the suspension. Frederick filed suit under
42 U. S. C. sec. 1983, alleging that the school board and
Morse had violated his First Amendment rights. The District
Court granted petitioners summary judgment, ruling that
they were entitled to qualified immunity and that they
had not infringed Frederick's speech rights. The Ninth
Circuit reversed. Accepting that Frederick acted during
a school-authorized activity and that the banner expressed
a positive sentiment about marijuana use, the court nonetheless
found a First Amendment violation because the school punished
Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened
substantial disruption. It also concluded that Morse was
not entitled to qualified immunity because Frederick's
right to display the banner was so clearly established
that a reasonable principal in Morse's position would have
understood that her actions were unconstitutional.

Held: Because schools may take steps to safeguard those
entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably
be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school
officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment
by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick.
Pp. 5-15.

(a) Frederick's argument that this is not a school speech
case is rejected. The event in question occurred during
normal school hours and was sanctioned by Morse as an approved
social event at which the district's student-conduct rules
expressly applied. Teachers and administrators were among
the students and were charged with supervising them. Frederick
stood among other students across the street from the school
and directed his banner toward the school, making it plainly
visible to most students. Under these circumstances, Frederick
cannot claim he was not at school. Pp. 5-6.

(b) The Court agrees with Morse that those who viewed the
banner would interpret it as advocating or promoting illegal
drug use, in violation of school policy. At least two interpretations
of the banner's words-that they constitute an imperative
encouraging viewers to smoke marijuana or, alternatively,
that they celebrate drug use-demonstrate that the sign
promoted such use. This pro-drug interpretation gains further
plausibility from the paucity of alternative meanings the
banner might bear. Pp. 6-8.

(c) A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment,
restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech
is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. In
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.,
393 U. S. 503 , the Court declared, in holding that a policy
prohibiting high school students from wearing antiwar armbands
violated the First Amendment, id., at 504, that student
expression may not be suppressed unless school officials
reasonably conclude that it will 'materially and substantially
disrupt the work and discipline of the school,' id., at
513. The Court in Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser,
478 U. S. 675 , however, upheld the suspension of a student
who delivered a high school assembly speech employing 'an
elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor,' id.,
at 678. Analyzing the case under Tinker, the lower courts
had found no disruption, and therefore no basis for discipline.
478 U. S., at 679-680. This Court reversed, holding that
the school was 'within its permissible authority in imposing
sanctions … in response to [the student's] offensively
lewd and indecent speech.' Id., at 685. Two basic principles
may be distilled from Fraser. First, it demonstrates that
'the constitutional rights of students in public school
are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults
in other settings.' Id., at 682. Had Fraser delivered the
same speech in a public forum outside the school context,
he would have been protected. See, id., at 682-683. In
school, however, his First Amendment rights were circumscribed
'in light of the special characteristics of the school
environment.' Tinker, supra, at 506. Second, Fraser established
that Tinker's mode of analysis is not absolute, since the
Fraser Court did not conduct the 'substantial disruption'
analysis. Subsequently, the Court has held in the Fourth
Amendment context that 'while children assuredly do not
???shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse
gate,' … the nature of those rights is what is appropriate
for children in school,' Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton,
515 U. S. 646 , and has recognized that deterring drug
use by schoolchildren is an 'important-indeed, perhaps
compelling' interest, id., at 661. Drug abuse by the Nation's
youth is a serious problem. For example, Congress has declared
that part of a school's job is educating students about
the dangers of drug abuse, see, e.g., the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act of 1994, and petitioners and
many other schools have adopted policies aimed at implementing
this message. Student speech celebrating illegal drug use
at a school event, in the presence of school administrators
and teachers, poses a particular challenge for school officials
working to protect those entrusted to their care. The 'special
characteristics of the school environment,' Tinker, 393
U. S., at 506, and the governmental interest in stopping
student drug abuse allow schools to restrict student expression
that they reasonably regard as promoting such abuse. Id.,
at 508, 509, distinguished. Pp. 8-15.

439 F. 3d 1114, reversed and remanded.

Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in
which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined.
Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Alito, J., filed
a concurring opinion, in which Kennedy, J., joined. Breyer,
J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part
and dissenting in part. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting
opinion, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

[Budman]

Joseph Frederick pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling
marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas,
according to court records.

Yeah, it was a religious statement he was tryhing to make...