Tag: 上海楼凤飞机推荐


Warning: sprintf(): Too few arguments in /www/wwwroot/shyllm.com/wp-content/themes/hotelflix/inc/breadcrumb.php on line 252

‘Bong’ case could determine students’ free-speech rights

first_imgWASHINGTON – The Supreme Court dissected a teenager’s sign Monday and tried to divine whether its “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” message was advocating drug use or just talking nonsense. Students’ free-speech rights could hinge on the outcome of the case. Joseph Frederick was a high school senior when he held up the 14-foot “Bong Hits” banner in Juneau, Alaska, five years ago. He said he was testing his constitutional right to free speech. His principal thought he was delivering a pro-drug message and suspended him. If the justices side with Principal Deborah Morse, the result could be greater restrictions on student speech. “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. 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. 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 said he 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. 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 curtailing speech 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 that a ruling in favor of Frederick, even if he were 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.”last_img read more