More thoughts on the Frederick decision

This one from Charles Haynes at The First Amendment Center. Most of the column is a rehash of the issues with Morse, but he closes with this gem, targeted at administrators who think the best way to control their schools is to control student speech:

From the conflicting accounts, I don’t know what actually happened at Frederick’s high school. But I do know that far too many schools mistakenly assume that the best way to maintain discipline is to control student expression. Draconian speech codes and censored school publications may create the appearance of order, but they breed alienation, distrust and rebellion.

It may seem counterintuitive, but students are far more likely to behave well in schools that take free speech seriously. Schools where students are given meaningful opportunities to express themselves – and to participate in decision-making about school rules – are schools where high school rebels like Joe Frederick have little or nothing to rebel against.

Thomas takes 'in loco parentis' to whole new level

In the wake of the Frederick ruling, a number of legal experts are looking at the silver lining in the ruling: That it seems to be narrow and only apply to drug-related speech.

However, some worry that administrators will try to stretch the scope of the ruling, a la Hazelwood.

Jordan Lorence, senior vice president of the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative free-speech advocacy group, agreed that the concurring opinion may limit the ruling but fears administrators will ignore that limit.

"The Alito concurrence, joined by Justice Kennedy, recognizes the potential dangers of the majority opinion and seeks to limit it to situations where students advocate illegal drug-use," Lorence said in a statement from his office. "However, school officials will undoubtedly try to expand the reach of the majority's opinion in order to censor student speech that dissents from the official school policy." ...

Francisco Negrón, general counsel for the National School Boards Association, said in a statement that the decision reaffirms "the school's role in regulating messages that are detrimental to student welfare."

"The Court clearly spoke to the health and well-being of our students, not their constitutional rights of free speech," Negrón said in a statement from the association.

Even scarier, however, was the concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas, who says he would do away with the Tinker standard if given the chance.

"I join the Court's opinion because it erodes Tinker's hold in the realm of student speech, even though it does so by adding to the patchwork of exceptions to the Tinker standard," Thomas wrote in his concurrence. "I think the better approach is to dispense with Tinker altogether, and given the opportunity, I would do so."

Thomas went on to say that he believes the framers of the constitution did not intend for the First Amendment to apply in schools, and that parents designate their authority to school officials.

Justice Alito rebuked that assertion -- "it is a dangerous fiction to pretend that parents simply delegate their authority — including their authority to determine what their children may say and hear — to public authorities" -- but that the line of reasoning even exists in any part of the Supreme Court is scary for all those interested in free student speech.

Seattle Times gives half-hearted rebuke of court's 'Bong Hits' decision

Apparently, The Seattle Times can't really decide how it feels about student free expression.

On the heels of the Times' sorry editorial endorsing opposition to House Bill 1307, the publication has now half-heartedly come out against the Supreme Court's decision to rule against Joseph Frederick in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case.

The U.S. Supreme Court needlessly chipped away at First Amendment free-speech guarantees with a ruling elevating a high-school prank to a dangerous promotion of drug use. ... Frederick's sign was ambiguous. Was the 18-year-old supporting drugs or Christianity? The ambiguity matters because it places Frederick's sign within the confines of protected speech.

You can read the entire editorial here, but that's really about as scathing as it gets.

The funny thing is, check out this excerpt from the Times from Jan. 14, 1988 -- the day after the court issued its landmark Hazelwood ruling.

From a practical standpoint, school authorities need to control actions that infringe the rights of others or disrupt class activities. Nothing of that sort is in the record of the Hazelwood case. The principal clearly violated the First Amendment's anti-censorship provisions and a high-court majority has let him get away with it.

E-mail me and I'll get you a full copy of the text of that Hazelwood editorial. As Brain Schraum put it when he passed it along to me, what a difference 20 years makes.

SPLC director reacts to 'Bong Hits' decision

The Student Press Law Center has put together its own, more detailed news flash regarding today's Supreme Court decision on "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

The SPLC concurs that the ruling seems to be rather narrow and apply only to speech that advocates drug use, but director Mark Goodman said it still sets a poor precedent.

“It’s disappointing that the Court once again felt the need to diminish student First Amendment protection at a time when teenagers’ understanding and appreciation for the First Amendment is so incredibly low,” he said. “The last thing the country needs is a court ruling that further diminishes its relevance to their lives.”

Again, we'll have more as we have a chance to really digest the ruling.

Supreme Court rules against student in 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' free speech case

I don't have a lot of time to post at the moment, but in case you haven't seen it, the Supreme Court ruled today against Joseph Frederick in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case.

I haven't had a lot of time to review the court's opinion yet, but it appears the justices -- in a 6-3 decision -- ruled rather narrowly on the case, choosing to focus on the school's anti-drug mission in ruling that the speech restriction was justified.

"It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent, worried about the ramifications of limiting speech, especially that which seemed to be harmless.

"This case began with a silly nonsensical banner, (and) ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message."

We'll have more analysis on the fallout in the coming days. Stay tuned.