'Bong Hits 4 Jesus': Student Protest Goes to Supreme Court

danarhea · 03-16-07, 04:03 PM

This case is an interesting one. On one hand, should the Supreme Court have taken a case that normally should be the jurisdiction of state and local government? On the other hand, since the student was not on school property, did the school have the right to suspend him, thus violating his civil rights? The third element in the case is the student himself, who displayed the banner across the street from the school in order to tick off the principal of the school. Still, does the school have jurisdiction when the act does not occur on school property, even if the intent of the student was to anger the principal?

With that, here is a poll.

Article is here.

jallman · 03-16-07, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

This case is an interesting one. On one hand, should the Supreme Court have taken a case that normally should be the jurisdiction of state and local government? On the other hand, since the student was not on school property, did the school have the right to suspend him, thus violating his civil rights? The third element in the case is the student himself, who displayed the banner across the street from the school in order to tick off the principal of the school. Still, does the school have jurisdiction when the act does not occur on school property, even if the intent of the student was to anger the principal?

With that, here is a poll.

Article is here.

If you read any of my posts about schools and students, you know that I am a hard-liner when it comes to discipline in our education system. However, the student was not a student at the time of the incident as he was A) not on school property and B) not on an approved off-campus, supervised field trip. The school has absolutely no right to censor or exact punitive measures against the a youth when they are not under the supervision of a school official.

If the sign had been a threatening or obscene message or if the kid had been trespassing on the property across the street, then he would be under the jurisdiction of law enforcement and still not the school.

This is one instance where the student, though his actions were a bit foolish, is clearly having his civil rights violated by the school and a vindictive principal who really needs to lose his job for not exercising restraint as an adult in charge of kids should.

Voidwar · 03-16-07, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

This is one instance where the student, though his actions were a bit foolish, is clearly having his civil rights violated by the school and a vindictive principal who really needs to lose his job for not exercising restraint as an adult in charge of kids should.

I agree 100%.

Was also sad to see other organizations trying to circle the wagons and defend this crap. Everyone in the Educational community should hae disavowed these actions as beyond a principal's jurisdiction. Otherwise, I'm open to suing the principal whenever any kid does anything. The allies this idiot principal has drawn are shortsighted. Their plate is already full. They should not claim this jurisdiction, or I will hold them to it, and sue them for anything a kid registered at their school does off campus. If their authority stretches there, then so does their legal liability.

talloulou · 03-16-07, 05:41 PM

I agree with jallman 100% as well. Though in the news lately you have had a few stories about schools cracking down on students myspace pages as well. Which is similar since the students myspace pages have nothing to do with school. Interesting. But yeah if the kids do crap outside of school that is for the parents or law to deal with not the principal. At the same time though if I were this kids parents my kid would be in trouble for being an arrogant disrespectful smarta$$. Unfortunately the kid will probably and should definitely win in any Supreme Court ruling which will inevitably make him even more of a disrespectful smart a$$. Hopefully his mother had the good sense to smack him upside the head before they began lugging this crapola through the judiciary as a matter of principal.

RightOfCenter · 03-16-07, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

This case is an interesting one. On one hand, should the Supreme Court have taken a case that normally should be the jurisdiction of state and local government? On the other hand, since the student was not on school property, did the school have the right to suspend him, thus violating his civil rights? The third element in the case is the student himself, who displayed the banner across the street from the school in order to tick off the principal of the school. Still, does the school have jurisdiction when the act does not occur on school property, even if the intent of the student was to anger the principal?

With that, here is a poll.

Article is here.

He's not on school property and school was out, leave him the hell alone.

danarhea · 03-16-07, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightOfCenter

He's not on school property and school was out, leave him the hell alone.

Here is the kicker. Do minors have rights before their 18th birthday?

RightOfCenter · 03-16-07, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

Here is the kicker. Do minors have rights before their 18th birthday?

Not the right to vote, but the right to speak their minds? Certainly.

Ikari · 03-16-07, 07:00 PM

It's an interesting case. On one hand, I'm not sure that the federal government has much of a say. However, considering this wasn't on school property this court case is going to have a big impact. Now a days, school codes are written to extend past the school yard, extending the reach of the school into the daily lives of the children. I don't like when the government overreaches, but I think that with this case there is a larger issue which goes past just what this case is dealing with. Does a school's authority over speech extend to include the full activities of the student even when off the campus. I would have thought the obvious conclusion would be that it isn't. A school can regulate behavior on its property, but once a person is no longer on that property they can't be held to the specific rules of that property owner.

So perhaps there is cause for the Supreme Court to consider this case. Can a persons innate and inalienable rights be usurped when they are not on the property of the offended?

Jerry · 03-16-07, 07:01 PM

Frederick v. Morse, No. 03-35701 (9th Cir. March 10, 2006)

Quote:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that a Juneau, Alaska high school student's right to free speech was violated when he was suspended for off-campus speech during a school-authorized activity-speech that the school district argued promoted a message contrary to the school's educational mission. The court went further, ruling that the school's principal was not entitled to qualified immunity from the lawsuit. Students at Juneau-Douglas High School (JDHS) were released to watch the Olympic torch pass by the school. During the passing of the torch, Joe Frederick and some classmates held up a sign that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Principal Deborah Morse crossed the street, grabbed and crumpled the banner, and suspended Joe. He appealed the decision through all levels of administrative and school board review and then sued, claiming that his First Amendment rights had been violated. The U.S. district court granted the school district's motion for summary judgment, holding that the principal had authority under school district policy to discipline students for display of offensive materials, including materials that could be reasonably construed as advocating drug use, and that this authority extended to off-campus, school-sponsored events.

<snip>

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner; Student free speech in public school

Quote:

High school students were released to view a parade. Student Joseph Frederick stood across the street from the school grounds and unfurled a banner that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The school principal suspended him for 10 days.

Frederick sued, and the 9th Circuit held that suspending him for this was a violation of his first amendment rights.

The 9th Circuit relied on Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 US 503 (1969). In Tinker, three students were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam. The US Supreme Court held that a prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The 9th Circuit pointed out that Frederick's banner did not cause any significant interference with the school's activities, and concluded that this meant he was protected by the first amendment.

The 9th Circuit also held that the principal (Morse) had no immunity from a legal action for money damages because any reasonable principal in her position should have known that Frederick's conduct had constitutional protection.

<snip>

Question presented:

1. Whether the First Amendment allows public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal substances at school-sponsored, faculty supervised events.

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit departed from established principles of qualified immunity in holding that a public high school principal was liable in a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when, pursuant to the school district’s policy against displaying messages promoting illegal substances, she disciplined a student for displaying a large banner with a slang marijuana reference at a school-sponsored, faculty supervised event.

Morse v. Frederick - Respondent's Brief (2/20/2007)

Quote:

Description: Whether school officials violated the First Amendment when they suspended a high school student for holding up a sign that the principal interpreted as a pro-drug message when the sign caused no disruption, was displayed at a public event on the public streets, and the student had not yet arrived at school for the day.

*Download

Morse v. Frederick
No. 06-278

Quote:

Title: Deborah Morse, et al. v. Joseph Frederick

Subject: First Amendment, Civil Rights, Free Speech, Education Law, Illegal Substances

Question: Whether the First Amendment allows public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal substances at school-sponsored, faculty-supervised events.

Whether the Ninth Circuit departed from established principles of qualified immunity in holding that a public high school principal was liable in a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when, pursuant to the school district’s policy against displaying messages promoting illegal substances, she disciplined a student for displaying a large banner with a slang marijuana reference at a school-sponsored, faculty-supervised event.

Decisions:
U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit Opinion Filed: March 10, 2006
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: December 1, 2006

Resources:
Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

tryreading · 03-17-07, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightOfCenter

Not the right to vote, but the right to speak their minds? Certainly.

If The kid displayed a sign that recommended illegal activity, wherever he did it, and I were the principal, I would suspend him. The religious reference is not important. He can be religious or not, and express it as long as he isn't disruptive. But advocating drug use is punishable, I think. There was something in the article about marijuana use currently being debated there, but still, if the message suggested illegal drug use the kid can be punished.