Monday, March 19, 2007

Update on Bong Hits Hearing From CNN 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 Roberts said Monday. [...] "It sounds like just a kid's provocative statement to me," Justice David Souter said. [...] 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." Justice Stephen Breyer, in the court's liberal wing, said he was troubled a ruling in favor of Frederick, even if he was making a joke, would make it harder to 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." [...] 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 okay?" 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. More from Reuters "It's political speech, it seems to me. I don't see what it disrupts," a sceptical Justice David Souter said. "And no one was smoking pot in that crowd," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, referring to the group of students standing near the banner as the Winter Olympic torch relay passed by in January 2002. [...] Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Kneedler if the principal could have required the banner be taken down if it had said "vote Republican, vote Democrat". Kneedler replied the principal has that authority. It'll be June or July before we have a decision. Update: Much more: SCOTUSblog, as always, has great analysis: here, here, and here The Supreme Court on Monday toyed with the notion that public school officials should have added discretion to censor student speech that they may interpret as advocating use of illegal drugs. But this was only a flirtation, not a warm embrace. During the argument in Morse v. Frederick (06-278), a clear majority of the Justices showed significant skepticism about creating a wide exception to the curb on suppression of student speech that the Court spelled out in 1969 in Tinker v. Des Moines School District As blog colleague Marty Lederman has pointed out in the post below, a sweeping exception to Tinker had the visible support Monday of only Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Antonin Scalia, who seemed to be competing to lay out the most generous view of officials' discretion to enforce school-preferred messages. Hearing transcript available here (pdf) Coverage from PBS 4:08:45 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Serious levity at the Supreme Court today The most important student free-speech conflict to reach the Supreme Court since the height of the Vietnam War... Yes, today is the day that nine Supreme Court Justices convene in the highest court in the most powerful country in the world and discuss... Bong Hits 4 Jesus Oh, I wish I could be there when Ken Starr, who has already altered the national status of blow-jobs, explains to the Supreme Court that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" threatens the fabric of our nation and our educational system. Of course, the reality is that this is a serious case. At its worst, the Supreme Court (no friend to any case involving even the hint of drugs) could rule that schools have broad authority to regulate student speech that is contrary to their educational message, even if they are not in school and the speech is not disruptive. And there's also a deep significance as to the philosophy of educating citizens. It concerns me that authoritarians are pushing to train young people that the proper order of things in a free democracy is submission to authority. Get used to peeing in a cup on demand. Get used to being controlled in what you think, what you say. That's what the world is about. For the most comprehensive look at the case, check out my resource guide: http://bong.drugwarrant.com If you're in DC today, SSDP will be holding a rally at the Supreme Court . 12:19:14 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []