This decision is a disappointment. Not in its result, because I strongly believe this is the correct decision. What is disappointing is that the Supremes chose to issue another decision that doesn't announce a guiding principle, and which applies only the present case. This reminds me of a classic Calvin & Hobbes cartoon, in which our heroes created an army of Snow Goons to battle the evil Susie Derkins. But the Snow Goons eventually turn on Calvin & Hobbes. After finally defeating the Snow Goons, Calvin says to Hobbes, "Well, we sure learned a valuable lesson today. And that lesson is this: Snow Goons are bad news!" To which Hobbes replies, "That's a lesson that ought not to have any applicability elsewhere in life."

This is a Snow Goons decision. It stands for the extremely narrow proposition that school districts can forbid expressions that appear to advovate recreational drug use. What about other messages that are contrary to the educational mission of the school? We don't know, because the Supreme Court is only interested in resolving for us the extremely pressing issue of whether "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" is acceptable speech in an educational environment. Heaven help any school administrator who looks to this decision for guidance.

Justice Thomas is the only one who got it right. In his concurrence, he wrote that he would give school administrators broad authority to limit any student speech that was inconsistent with the messages the school was trying to promote. Some might see this approach as doing violence to the First Amendment, but as I have said before when commenting on this case, a high school is not the public square, and children are not adults. A school district can and should restrict certain speech even if it is not "disruptive". The majority justices in today's decision obviously believe this to be true, or else they would have ruled in favor of the student. However, they draw an invisible line as to what speech must be tolerated and what speech may be restricted. You may think Thomas' position goes too far, but I would submit to you that having a bright line drawn in the wrong place is better than having an invisible line that nobody can discern. This case will only prompt more litigation, forcing school districts to divert money away from education and towards defending lawsuits that will inevitably be brought by students who will try to bait school administrators into restricting their speech with other such messages. Next year's landmark decision: "METH 4 MOSES"

School was canceled so that the students could (if they chose) go see the Pope when he visited the town. The banner "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" was not raised on school property, nor was it done during a school activity. It was raised by a student, also a citizen with all the rights protected by the Constitution, on a public street, during a time when the student was not in school, nor expected to be in school. It clearly was the manner and the content of the speech (read Robert's decision) that the school was punishing, at an activity in which the school had no authority over the student's activities.

I would point that it wasn't the Pope, but the Olympic torch being carried past, but otherwise I agree with your point. It is my point as well. If it had been done in the school environment (on a field trip with the school or on school property) sure. It was done by an 18 year old citizen of the United States on his time on a public sidewalk.

<If it had been done in the school environment (on a field trip with the school or on school property) sure. It was done by an 18 year old citizen of the United States on his time on a public sidewalk.>

1) The student did not show up to school in the morning (i.e. he was truant).

2) The students were let out with the objective being to see the torch go by in close proximity to the school. The majority of those near him when the banner was unfurled were fellow students.

3) Although questionable as to whether his "performance" was very disruptive, I am unclear how a school administrator at the scene should not be given latitude to determine that.

4) How is a school supposed to maintain any sense of order or discipline if it cannot advocate following the law? I find it interesting that he had some issues later at college concerning possession of marijuana. It would seem, in a certain sense, he was "ex post facto" at least advocating marijuana use.

Among the missions of any school is preparing students to be members of a free society. I'm not certain they can do this in any meaningful way given the restrictions on students today -- which include speech and dress codes that would have been anathema to all even 15 years ago.

We should all be shocked and apalled by this decision. If a high school administrator's authority extends to speech off school grounds and not during school sessions, is there any place to which that authority doesn't extend? I don't know about you, but I spent 10 years as a newspaper reporter and a lot of that time I spent in school board meetings watching the work of adminstrators who didn't have sense enough to pour, ahem, water out of a boot with instructions for doing so printed on the heel. Now these same people can regulate, what? The posters a kid hangs on the wall of his room? The T-shirt he wears to a rock concert? What about an armband that opposes speech codes? Where does the line get drawn?

Personally, I think we need to be teaching kids more freedom of expression, not less. We're turning out a generation of drones.

Why should every SC decision be sweeping? As an attorney, you must realize that the strongest precedents are those that are built upon many previous precedents which approximate the principles which the judge/justices believe are relevant. Such strong precedents also help to make the decision "bullet proof"--unlikely to be overturned, later on or higher up in the court system.

Ummm....exactly what court "higher up in the court system" is going to overturn the US Supreme Court?

I don't have to have every decision be "sweeping", but for God's sake, a little guidance would be nice. Furthermore, cases are supposed to be decided according to legal principles. When every S.Ct case is simply decided according to ad hoc reasoning, the law becomes the hideous mess that it is today.

Yes he was truant. I fail to see how that affects his Constitutional rights. He was still an 18 year old citizen of the United States on a public sidewalk.

"The student was truant" Hence, he was NOT participating in a school sanctioned event: he was not present at school to be able to participate. The scope of the event, the carrying of the torch went beyond the scope of the school: others were present who had no affiliation with the school and whose motives for being present did not include the school. The truant student clearly, being truant and unable to participate in the school event, falls into the latter category.

Furthermore, the school's policy regarding the event, "school is out for students to participate in the event, should they choose to do so" gives the students choices as to whether they wish to participate in the event as envisioned by the school or not to participate as evisioned by the school. Also clearly, this student choose the latter course.

The real question here, ignored by the Court, is the extent of the reach of the school. This student's activity was not on school property; his sign did not mention the school; school was not in session -- whether or not he was truant earlier when it was in session is fundementally irrelevant) school was out of session for all students: those who chose to participate as well as for those who chose not to; the Olympic Flame would have been carried on the given route whether or not school was dismissed: the actual event was NOT a school event; his activity was not school related.

The school administration was out of line and so is the Supreme Court.

Having said all of that, I clearly am an advocate of disruption of the school's mission and authority as envision by the school administration. What are they going to do about it? Sentence me to dentention? Suspend me? What is the reach of the school's authority? Bring it on.

Rather than snow goons, I think the relevant Calvin and Hobbes reference is to the rules of Calvin ball (there are none except what pleases Calvin at the moment.)

Calvin Ball ruleZ and the Supremes are the l33t players.

trapdoor:

Personally, I think we need to be teaching kids more freedom of expression, not less. We're turning out a generation of drones.

That's the point. We can't have our citizens thinking for themselves, now can we?

Subsequent courts CAN and HAVE overturned legal doctrines

established by earlier SCOTUS--but I was thinking in terms of

all levels of the court system, state and federa.

<<If a high school administrator's authority extends to speech off school grounds and not during school sessions>>

Not very accurate. As the court stated,"The event in question occurred during normal school hours and was sanctioned by Morse as an approved social event at which the district’s student-conduct rules expressly applied. Teachers and administrators were among the students and were charged with supervising them. Frederick stood among other students across the street from the school and directed his banner toward the school, making it plainly visible to most students. Under these circumstances, Frederick cannot claim he was not at school."

For instance, a field trip would be "off school grounds". Would that mean a code of conduct could not apply?

<<The posters a kid hangs on the wall of his room?>>

His house, not "at school"; no problem. If at school, depends.

<<The T-shirt he wears to a rock concert?>>

If not as part of a school group where there is sanctioned oversight (e.g. school trip), no problem.

<<What about an armband that opposes speech codes?>>

Based on the Tinker decision, this would seem to be fine.

<<Where does the line get drawn?>>

It would seem in matters in which the student is "at school", it would be determined by administation and/or teachers, modulated by courts based on the concurring opinion concerning political speech...; but basically if it may "reasonably" advocate illegal activity, it can be "disciplined".

Madd_Libby:

Yes he was truant. I fail to see how that affects his Constitutional rights. He was still an 18 year old citizen of the United States on a public sidewalk.

He was "at school" according to the court (across the street at a function... Read my other posts). It would be a bit of a stretch to say that because a student breaks one law (truancy), that he could not be subject to the code of conduct for the school when the other students at the event could be.