Tapsearch Com EditorBong Hits 4 Jesus!
March 21st 2007 23:23
A case out of Alaska is making a lot of waves, and the Supreme Court is in the process of sorting it out. A high school let its students out to watch a parade -- and sent teachers to supervise the students to some degree -- and at said parade, a student unfurled a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." A school official confiscated the banner and suspended the student.
I hate to do this, but I actually agree with the Ninth Circuit of Appeals on this: The message is protected under the First Amendment.
Let's backtrack a little bit. It was a school-related activity (as the Ninth ruled), and the student acted inappropriately. The official had every right to do what she did.
The problem, though, is that the school didn't justify the decision on the grounds that the student was misbehaving (or at least, the Ninth claimed the school didn't). Rather, it said the message on the banner ran contrary to the school's anti-drug stance. The school does not, by and large, have a right to police the opinions its students express -- under the school's argument, it could suspend a student for writing a serious pro-drug term paper.
Courts can only rule on arguments presented them, so there was no option of "you can't censor speech, but you can control bad behavior." It was "you can censor speech" versus "you can't censor speech."
As the Ninth said:
"Thus, the question comes down to whether a school may, in the absence of concern about disruption of educational activities, punish and censor non-disruptive, off-campus speech by students during school authorized activities because the speech promotes a social message contrary to the one favored by the school. The answer under controlling, long-existing precedent is plainly 'No.'"
The thing i worry about is that schools and students won't understand these nuances, and think that disruptive behavior is constitutionally protected. In reality, schools act "in loco parentis" and can stop behaviors -- from talking out of turn to waving banners around to wearing T-shirts that say "smoke crack" -- protected in adults.
Kenneth Starr (yes that Kenneth Starr), representing the school, disagrees here. His brief to the Supreme Court is here; contrary to the way the Ninth interpreted his arguments to that court, he repeatedly calls the display "distracting," etc.
By Robert VerBruggen
I hate to do this, but I actually agree with the Ninth Circuit of Appeals on this: The message is protected under the First Amendment.
Let's backtrack a little bit. It was a school-related activity (as the Ninth ruled), and the student acted inappropriately. The official had every right to do what she did.
The problem, though, is that the school didn't justify the decision on the grounds that the student was misbehaving (or at least, the Ninth claimed the school didn't). Rather, it said the message on the banner ran contrary to the school's anti-drug stance. The school does not, by and large, have a right to police the opinions its students express -- under the school's argument, it could suspend a student for writing a serious pro-drug term paper.
Courts can only rule on arguments presented them, so there was no option of "you can't censor speech, but you can control bad behavior." It was "you can censor speech" versus "you can't censor speech."
As the Ninth said:
"Thus, the question comes down to whether a school may, in the absence of concern about disruption of educational activities, punish and censor non-disruptive, off-campus speech by students during school authorized activities because the speech promotes a social message contrary to the one favored by the school. The answer under controlling, long-existing precedent is plainly 'No.'"
The thing i worry about is that schools and students won't understand these nuances, and think that disruptive behavior is constitutionally protected. In reality, schools act "in loco parentis" and can stop behaviors -- from talking out of turn to waving banners around to wearing T-shirts that say "smoke crack" -- protected in adults.
Kenneth Starr (yes that Kenneth Starr), representing the school, disagrees here. His brief to the Supreme Court is here; contrary to the way the Ninth interpreted his arguments to that court, he repeatedly calls the display "distracting," etc.
By Robert VerBruggen
| 36 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
