OK, I haven't read the details of the decisions, but it looks like the student made a minor mistake. Instead of unfolding the banner at or near the school gorunds, he should have purchased 15 seconds of add time on the local TV station, with video showing the banner and a somber voice advising viewers to call the school principal and ask why he opposes the banner.

Sorry, somebody took my dictionary off the desk. "SPEECH"

Nah, his mistake was not filing incorporation papers first. As a corporation his speech would have been more protected than as a citizen.

After all, if its a corporation and there is some question as to the meaning of the content, the benefit of the doubt goes to the corporation, but if its an individual and there is some ambiguity (are bong hits necessarily drug related? Is adding "for Jesus" necessarily advocacy) the benefit of the doubt goes to The Government.

Woo Hoo, Lets expand that wonderful decsion known as Santa Clara V Southern Pacific

As I recall you and your lib buds were blowing smoke about how the school had no jurisdiction because the sign was on public property and how specific permission with specific rules had to acquired and spelled out.

FYI

That wasn't an issue with either the majority opinion nor the minority opinion.

when it doesn't apply to them! Now that Talk Radio is hurting the Libs chances for the White House, they want to curb free speech on the airwaves. Sound kinda like Hugo down in Venezuela!!

There I fixed it for ya ;)

Degs, is there ANYTHING that doesn't raise the Santa Clara case for you? Give me a break. This was a bad decision, but not for the reasons your discussing.

This was a bad decision because it allows pea-brained school administer to attempt to control events off campus, which ought to be firmly outside their bailiwick.

This was a bad decision because it allows pea-brained school administer to attempt to control events off campus

I disagree with the ruling, though not on the grounds you cited - in fact, I think the Court got that part right.

I feel pretty confident in stating that no member of the Court would hold that school administrators have unbridled discretion to punish student speech no matter where that speech takes place. But here, the petitioner was attending a school-sponsored rally that was being held in lieu of regular classes. It seems to me not at all unreasonable to hold that student speech at school-sponsored events may be regulated under the standards set forth by the Tinker/Fraser/et al line of cases, even if that speech takes place without school property.

For full disclosure I am a high school teacher. I read this snippet from Time online yesterday.

We don't know whether the court took these factors into account in the Bong Hits opinion, but Roberts makes the point clearly enough. "School principals have a difficult job, and a vitally important one," he writes. "When Frederick suddenly and unexpectedly unfurled his banner, Morse (the principal) had to decide to act — or not to act — on the spot." She acted, of course, and for the good of the schools and students, maybe that wasn't such a bad thing.

That about sums it up for me.

First off, this wasn't a "school sponsored rally." The student was out of school, released from school to have the opportunity to see the passage of the Olympic torch. The student was also NOT on school property, which would be the area where the prinicipal's authority should reach. The school administrator has authority on school property, not off it.

Let's postulate that the student wasn't waiving his banner, but instead was wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with a marijuana leaf, which was considered stylish 25 years ago when i was in high school (and wasn't banned then, either, but that's a topic for another discussion). Would the principal have been right to "act" to force this student at a non-school event, off school property, to remove the shirt or turn it inside out? If so, is the school administrator ever forbidden from restricting ANY speech, happening anywhere?

I'm sorry, but the court is wrong on this one. It was right to allow free campaign speech in the other decision, and wrong to restrict student speech in this one. Given a choice between more restriction and more freedom the Supreme Court should always fall on the side of freedom first. It failed to do so in this case.