Pubdate: Fri, 29 Jun 2007
Source: Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)
Copyright: 2007 Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Contact:  http://www.telegram.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/509
Note: Rarely prints LTEs from outside circulation area - requires 
'Letter to the Editor' in subject
http://www.mapinc.org/people/Joseph+Frederick (Joseph Frederick)

DUBIOUS RULING

Supreme Court Stretches Curbs On Free Speech

Based on a dubious interpretation of the facts of the case, the U.S. 
Supreme Court has issued a badly misguided ruling in Morse v. 
Frederick, dealing a blow to free speech rights.

The trouble began when Joseph Frederick, a Juneau, Alaska, high 
school student, unfurled a banner carrying the slogan "BONG HITS 4 
JESUS" at a parade held Jan. 24, 2000, when the Olympic torch passed 
through on its way to the Olympic Games. His principal, standing on 
the steps of the high school, ran across the street and grabbed the 
banner. The student later was suspended from school.

The school's action, struck down by the 9th Circuit federal court of 
appeals, was upheld by the Supreme Court in this week's 5-4 decision.

The courts consistently, and properly, have ruled that schools have 
the authority to limit disruptive, threatening and obscene speech. 
Had the incident occurred within school, the apparent advocacy of 
illegal drug use on the banner would have been a clear violation of the rules.

However, school had been dismissed so that students could watch the 
parade. Contrary to school officials' contention that the dismissal 
constituted "a class trip," the students were not organized in one 
place and were not being supervised by teachers. The student was not 
on school property when the parade took place, and had not been on 
school property that day.

It is a long stretch to conclude that the principal acted within the 
school's legitimate authority. Indeed, all of the precedents cited by 
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. involved student speech while in 
school, where school officials clearly do have jurisdiction.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the dissenting opinion, said the 
court's "indefensible" opinion "does serious violence to the First 
Amendment." Given the unusual circumstances of the case, the ruling 
actually may have rather limited impact.

Nonetheless, judicial historians are likely to judge this dubious 
curb on free speech to have been a low point in the Roberts court.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom