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