On Faith: Guest Voices: Crumpling the First Amendment

The Supreme Court has just ruled against Frederick. What a farce, this punk should pay the court costs. He was a minor when he did this,then his parents (and supporters) should belly up also.It was our tax dollars that ended up setting this idiot (and all his supporters)in their place.
This wasnt about free speech it was about I can do what I want to and not face any consequences.
Same old 1960s agenda. These very people try and stifle any speech contrary to their own, they are not interested in free speech--just their own.

June 25, 2007 2:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on June 25, 2007 14:46

KinaRumin:

Hello.
I liked your site. Very useful resource. THE BEST.
Thanks.

Sincerely,

Kina

June 1, 2007 3:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on June 1, 2007 15:37

RenatyKiyLi:

Hello.
I liked your site. Very useful resource. THE BEST.
Thanks.

Sincerely,

Renat Li

May 24, 2007 11:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 24, 2007 11:48

Eric:

Hi. Some of the Supreme Court justices found it laughable that Frederick would try to get mileage, as they put it, out of being truant that day.

Scalia pointed out that Frederick joined his classmates at an event that he knew the school was going to let kids watch. Frederick went to classes afterward. As Scalia put it, Frederick simply showed up at school late.

The defense attorney tried to compare it to a kid being truant and showing up at the zoo when the school just happened to be having a field trip there.

But as Justice Roberts pointed out, Frederick was there BECAUSE it was a school event. He could have stood anywhere else on the 10-mile relay route and not been noticed by school officials.

It's reasonable to think that a truant student who shows up at a school event is a student.

By the way, as a minor aside off the legal topic, I have to wonder if Frederick was telling the truth when he said he couldn't get to school on time because of snow.

After the fact, it looks like he intended to trick the school into confronting him, at which point he'd say, in effect, "ha, ha, I'm not really a student now and this is a public sidewalk so you can't touch me."

It just makes me wonder whether something so integral to his legal argument wasn't the result of intentionally not showing up to school on time.

April 13, 2007 8:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on April 13, 2007 20:01

lepidopteryx:

Eric,
If the kid did not attend his first period class, then he was absent from school that day, and was therefore not attending the event under the school's aegis, and therefore he was not under the school's authority that day. The most that the principal could have called him on was an unexcused absence. I don' know about Alaska schools, but here, an unexcused absence simply means that the student is not allowed to make up any assignments missed that day, and gets a 0 for them. More than 10 unexcused absences per school year, and the student has to repeat the grade. If he skipped school that day, then the principal had no authority over him, especially if he was not on the school grounds. And she certainly had no right to confiscate and destroy

April 9, 2007 3:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on April 9, 2007 15:38

John Conolley:

Steve:

Did I fall off a nut tree? Nice. Charming conversationalist, you.

Schools should teach children to think, without giving them any information to use when thinking? You sound just like John Dewey. Education should be about filling children's heads with information. They'll figure out how to think no problem.

Children don't get enough education? Why do you suppose that is? Here, I'll help you, since thinking for yourself is obviously not your long suit:

It's because of public education! Before public education, children learned Greek and Latin in grade school. Now they don't even learn their native language.

Public schools should be made to work? Teachers should be made to educate? How do you propose to do that? Oh, wait, you have no proposals.

That's because no sensible proposal is possible. Public schools are operated by bodies that change at every election. The philosophy of education is John Dewey's insane utilitarianism. Everybody and his dog has a different idea what children should be taught, and the teachers are products of education colleges who don't know anything at all.

Prove that last statement? Sure: A college student I know had to go over to the education college and see someone. When he asked at the front desk for that person, he was handed a piece of colored plastic and told to find the door with that color on it.

Public schools are a disaster from front to back, and can be nothing else. They need to be closed and turned into gas stations.

March 30, 2007 6:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on March 30, 2007 18:59

Danny B.:

Eric,

Thanks for the clarification.

Are you from there? You seem to know a lot about this.

March 30, 2007 1:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on March 30, 2007 13:44

Eric:

Hi. It's me again. I won't repeat myself.

To Danny B: Students weren't given the afternoon off. They took some time off in the morning, roughly the second period of the day, and were supervised.

The Supreme Court agreed with a school that restricted the speech of a kid who used double entendres (mainly about erections), not even profanities, in a speech nominating a kid for the student government. The court decided that was disruptive enough, although it only provoked laughter.

I don't agree with that decision, but I cite it to show that the court has allowed restrictions on student speech that wouldn't apply to adults in a public setting. In this case, they thought the speech was disruptive.

The court has confused matters by seeming to allow restrictions based on disruptiveness OR messages that are contrary to the school's mission. That's pretty vague.

Part of the problem is that society has extended schools' missions far beyond algebra and history to include health and safety. That makes possible speech restrictions that bother some of us. They border, if not trespass, on political issues.

In the Frederick case, Frederick was saying, in effect, "I wasn't disruptive. What's the problem." The district was saying, "Your message works against our anti-drug policy, which is part of our schools' mission to have a safe school with healthy students."

If students' rights are identical to adult rights in public, why do we have these complicated court cases at all? Why doesn't the Supreme Court just instantly say that it's obvious that every type of speech is allowed -- case closed.

By the way, Frederick's length of suspension was partly due to his actions and interactions with the principal after his sign was taken down. The content of the sign did indeed trigger the school's action, but the suspension was about more than that. His suspension was reduced by the superintendent, who nonetheless supported the principal in her reasoning about drug messages.

I think an important issue in this case is whether the adults who run a school have the right to set a school climate based on certain values, such as substance-free lives or a harassment-free atmosphere. Or are schools public forums for any speech or expression.

As adults, we can walk down the street wearing T-shirts that say "Hitler was right" or "Gays burn in hell." Should we allow students to wear those slogans in school?

Do we let gangs wear their colors in school? If Frederick wins, can schools have a dress code as a way to ban clothes that bear or contain messages?

Can skinhead students use school basketball games as forums to suggest that Hitler was right in killing Jews and gays? Arguably, that's political speech about an event studied in history class.

Do we say to the Jewish and gay students that they have no right to attend a public school free of those messages? There's no constitutional right to be free of harassment or to not be the object of hatred.

If there's violence, we'll just call the police and mop up the blood. No prior restrictions on speech.

I know what I think, but I acknowledge that it's not a clear decision for some people.

I will repeat myself on one point: in the Frederick case, it's not Frederick or Morse who matter in the long run. It's the precedent set by the decision.

March 30, 2007 1:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on March 30, 2007 13:14

ama:

Apparently he was at a school-sponsored event off school grounds. So the decision might turn on the extent of a school officials' authority to regulate student behavior away from school.

March 30, 2007 11:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on March 30, 2007 11:09

Chip:

Eric wrote "And please don't tell me "Bong Hits for Jesus" isn't a reference to drugs and isn't in some way an encouragement to use drugs. If he said "Bourbon Shots for Buddha," you wouldn't doubt it was a positive reference to drinking."

So what if it was in support of marijuana? The prohibition against it is irrational, unsupported by science, and based solely on Christian notions of sin. The only reason its illegal is that it offends people's religious sensibilities. So the banner was intended to yank people's chains. Good! It also was nicely ironic given the religious underpinnings of our nation's incredibly cruel, destructive, and hypocritical drug policy. While there was nothing at all illegal about the banner or its display it was still clearly intended as an act of civil disobedience. Frankly we could desperately use a lot more of it. Kudos to Mr. Frederick for provoking debate. Countless thousands of Americans have had their lives destroyed, not by illegal drugs, but by the laws that put them in prison for a victimless crime. When will people stand up to this tyranny? But is anyone talking about that? No. Instead it's "unruly hooligan makes baby Jesus cry!" We the sheeple.

March 30, 2007 11:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on March 30, 2007 11:05

Danny B.:

Anonymous,

Good one! I speak Spanish, and am surprised that didn't occur to me. Ha!

March 30, 2007 11:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on March 30, 2007 11:04

Anonymous:

AMA,

1) He wasn't on school property.

2) He could have been talking about some Hispanic guy named Jesus! (I just came up with that one!)

March 30, 2007 10:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on March 30, 2007 10:46

ama:

Pro-Jesus advocacy, such as "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," should not be permitted on public school grounds. If Frederick was on school grounds, toleration of his speech by school officials would effectively favor one religion over others in violation of the Constitution. If he was off school grounds, his free speech rights were violated. Simple case.

March 30, 2007 10:35 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on March 30, 2007 10:35

Marco Polo:

Tom:

That is the best pro marijuana argument anyone could ever make!

March 30, 2007 9:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on March 30, 2007 09:13

person unknown:

A couple of observations...

Dan - I agree about Jacob

The rest of you - this is one of the best series of posts I've seen in a long time. Much better than most of the threads in this area. Some actual thought going on.

March 30, 2007 8:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on March 30, 2007 08:54

steve:

I also have to say that John Conneley what kind of a nut tree did you fall from . A big part of the problem that the world has with its childrenis that they do not get enough education in the first place. (but at least this kid seems to have learned something). The way to solve the problem is not to bet rid of public education ,but to make it actualy work for the public. Children would not hate school if the teaching and other educational professionals were actualy made to educate them. When people know how to think and form their own thoughts then they and everyone else are better off for it. When they are only taught what to think then we all suffere for it. (Ask Hitler it)

March 30, 2007 8:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on March 30, 2007 08:11

Steve:

Shcools should stick to teaching children how to think and leave them to decide for themselves about what to think

Guest Voices

Crumpling the First Amendment

All Comments (122)