So, our good buddies the Supremes (already used band name!) have been dishing out loads of shiny new judicial goodness this week. Let’s talk about Morse v. Frederick, the “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” case.
Personally, I’m not thrilled with this one, but I think it could have been a lot worse. The court held that speech that could be reasonably interpreted as promoting illegal drug use is a “substantial disruption” to the anti-drug work of the school, and thus punishable under the Tinker standard. Not great - I’d have vastly preferred it come out the other way, with a holding that drug-related speech can only be punished when the preponderance of the evidence suggests it’s advocating illegal use.
However, I’m very, very glad that the court declined to find for the school under the Fraser offensiveness standard. That, I think, would have opened the door far too wide for crackdowns on student speech. At present, student speech usually has to be profane or sexually explicit to be “offensive” and regulable under Fraser.
Oh - and the Thomas concurrance is interesting. He really, really wants Tinker to just go away.
I didn’t read the decision and am not even sure of the facts. were the students on something like an organized school field trip? or were they just coincidentally at the rally?
This does not seem to be the kind of case that will rally the free speech troops.
Bong Hits for Jesus ,is kind of nonsensical. It does not mean what you first think. How does it advocate drugs? It does not stir readers into some action. Suggests none and implies none. The school was being pricky and the courts were too.
“Bong hits for Jesus” is a wonderful phrase, containing references to both drugs and religion. However, I agree that it’s nonsensical: it does not allege a particular fact, advocate a particular position, or urge any particular action. It got into trouble because of the drug reference, even though it doesn’t advocate drug use.
I think the decision is problematic, because it allows schools to forbid debate on one side of an argument, regardless of how temperate the debate is (and holding up a sign like that is pretty temperate). It may be true that “drugs are bad for you”, but that particular proposition should still be open to debate just as anything else is under the First Amendment.
So, school-sanctioned/supervised, and attendance allowed (i.e., getting out of school) by the school. Not unreasonable that the school has some authority here, despite the fact that the offending student was not on school property at the time.