Preview

Celebrities as Role Models

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2328 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Celebrities as Role Models
Name of Case: Frederick Vs. Morse
'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case limits student rights

Share this on:
JulyBy Bill Mears CNN Washington Bureau
The Supreme Court ruled against a former high school student Monday in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner case -- a split decision that limits students' free speech rights.
Joseph Frederick was 18 when he unveiled the 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002.
Principal Deborah Morse confiscated it and suspended Frederick. He sued, taking his case all the way to the nation's highest court.
The justices ruled that Frederick's free speech rights were not violated by his suspension over what the majority's written opinion called a "sophomoric" banner."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 6-3 majority. Breyer noted separately he would give Morse qualified immunity from the lawsuit, but did not sign onto the majority's broader free speech limits on students.

Roberts added that while the court has limited student free speech rights in the past, young people do not give up all their First Amendment rights when they enter a school.
Roberts was supported by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito. Breyer noted separately he would give Morse qualified immunity from the lawsuit, but did not sign onto the majority's broader free speech limits on students.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "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."
He was backed by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Marvin Pickering was a high school science teacher from Will County, Illinois who was fired by the Board of Education for writing a letter to the editor. The letter was published in a local newspaper and contained many negative and inflammatory statements toward the school board regarding their use of taxpayer’s money. Specifically, Pickering was upset about the use of bond money to athletic programs, instead of fixing facilities and paying teachers. The Board of Education concluded that Pickering’s letter was “detrimental to the efficient operation and administration of the schools of the district” (Essex, 2012). Pickering argued that being fired for writing a letter as a private citizen violated both his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to Free Speech and Due Process under the U.S. Constitution.…

    • 726 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    After reviewing the case of Morse v Frederick, on a vote of 4-0, the court concluded that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it. On January 24, 2002, Principal Deborah Morse of Juneau-Douglass High School created a school-sanctioned event. This event allowed students to participate in the Olympic Torch Relay. The torch was on its way to Salt Lake City Utah, when Joseph Frederick, in front of the televised event, revealed a banner that read, “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Morse removed the banner from Frederick and suspended him for ten days. Frederick believed that Morse’s actions violated his…

    • 380 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    In the court case of Ingraham vs. Wright, James Ingraham an 8th grade student sued his school for cruel and unusual punishment when he got severely beaten for failing to promptly leave the stage of his school auditorium when told by his teacher. He was sent to the schools principle Willie J. Wright and Ingraham told him he was not guilty of the accusation's against him. Wright Obviously didn’t care and followed to bend James over to hit him with the a paddle but struggled. Wright called in the assistant principle and his personal assistant to help hold his arms and legs down and continued to beat James Ingraham. In the text it said "The paddling was so server that he suffered a hematoma requiring medical attention and keeping him out of school for several days." After the 20+ licks Wright gave to Ingraham he made a complaint in 1971 along with the help of another student named Roosevelt Andrews who had also been beaten badly by Wright. They claimed that the school violated the Eight Amendment that…

    • 988 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    This case deals with the eighth amendment and shows, the freedom to “ Be able to be heard before physical punishment is given.” In the end of this case the supreme court took a vote on who went with the “ Wright ” side or the “ Ingraham “ side. Ingraham lost with the vote of 5-4. The court says that “ Public school student could be paddled without being heard.’ The court says they ruled this was because “ The eighth amendment doesn’t contain the word “Criminal” so the court should not impose that limitation.…

    • 96 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Supreme Court has a long history of upholding citizens' protections against unreasonable searches and seizures a right guaranteed by the 4th Amendment. In 1914, the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police illegally is not admissible in federal court a practice known as the exclusionary rule. In 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, New Jersey, found T.L.O. and another girl smoking in a restroom a place that was by school rule a nonsmoking area. The two girls were taken to the principal's office where T.L.O.'s friend admitted that she had been smoking in the restroom. T.L.O. denied smoking there. She denied that she smoked at all. An assistant vice-principal demanded to see T.L.O.'s purse. Searching through it he found a pack of cigarettes. He also found rolling papers, a pipe, marijuana, a large wad of dollar bills, and two letters that indicated that T.L.O. was involved in marijuana dealing at the high school. T.L.O. was taken to the police station where she confessed that she had sold marijuana at the school. A juvenile court sentenced her to a year's probation. The State Supreme Court overturned the decision, stating that T.L.O.'s 4th Amendment rights had been violated. But White agreed with a lower court finding that a “school official may properly conduct a search of a student's person if the official has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or reasonable cause to believe that the search is necessary to maintain school discipline….” In other words, in a school, a search could be reasonable under the 4th Amendment without probable cause, so long as it was supported by reasonable suspicion or reasonable cause. The assistant vice-principal's search was considered reasonable under this definition. In 1985, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 margin, ruled that New Jersey and the school had met a "reasonableness" standard for conducting such searches at school. The high court…

    • 451 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    School Board of Norfolk, 801 F.Supp. 1526 (E.D. Va. 1992). Here, a middle school student, Kimberly Broussard, wore a t-shirt that read “Drugs Suck”. Her parents sued on her behalf claiming that her shirt was a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States. Here, the courts ruled in favor of the school board, saying that although the shirt displayed an anti-drug message, the word “suck” was considered a vulgar word with a sexual connotation and therefore not allowed in school because it interfered with the classroom learning environment. Id. at…

    • 656 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In a town named Vernonia, Oregon, the local public schools faced a major problem regarding the drug use of students while participating in high school athletics (3). The Vernonia School Board were disturbed that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury (4), so they approved an anti-drug policy, the Student Athlete Drug Policy, which requires random drug testing of the school’s student athletes (5). However, this became a conflict with the parents of a child named James Acton. The parents refused to sign a consent form to allow their kid to take the drug test because they felt it went against the 4th Amendment’s prohibition against “unreasonable” searches (6). The case was dismissed in the Federal District Court and was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the 9th District (7). This court favored the Acton families’ complaint, but random drug testing in public schools was ruled allowable in 1988 in Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin (8). The case went on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to conclude conflicting court decisions (9).…

    • 1137 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Des Moines court case was written by Justice Abe Fortas. Its contents contribute to the ideas of those who believe certain kinds of speech should not be prohibited within an educational setting. In this majority opinion statement, Justice Abe Fortas reveals that there is an “absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate [students’] speech” (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District by Justice Abe Fortas par. 9). Because of this absence of reason, students should be allowed to express their opinions and views on topics of their choice. Justice Abe Fortas justifies his statement by referencing another court case that says “school officials cannot suppress ‘expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend’ Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749” (par. 9).…

    • 840 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In an earlier case Dennis v. United States the Supreme Court concluded that there was a distinction between the mere teaching of communist philosophies and active advocacy of those ideas. Because of this the Smith Act was upheld and the act did not violate the First Amendment. In another case Brandenburg v. Ohio the Supreme Court ruled that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. Imminent lawless action is for defining the limits of free speech and imminent lawless action is the precedent used today.…

    • 587 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Alfred Smith and Galen Black were fired from a drug and alcohol treatment agency where they worked as counselors for admitting they used peyote, which is an illegal drug, for the use of “religious ceremonies.” The use of illegal drugs violates the agencies policy and according to the agency, were grounds for “immediate termination from employment.” Smith and Black were denied from unemployment benefits so they decide to sue. After winning in Oregon Supreme Court, the State appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where it was sent back down for judge clarification. After being reaffirmed, the State appealed a second time to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment provides that Congress can pass no law establishing or prohibiting a religion.…

    • 346 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    - court agreed that searches by school officials do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the official has “ reasonable grounds to believe that a student possesses evidence of illegal activity or activity that would interfere with school discipline…

    • 361 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the request to suppress evidence. The New Jersey Supreme Court then reversed the decision and ruled that the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment applies to the searches and seizures made by school officials. The case then went to the United States Supreme Court. The first thing the U.S Supreme Court did was ordered to rehear the argument about the question of whether the assistant principal violated the Fourth Amendment in T.L.O’s case. After rehearing the argument the court in a 6-3 decision written by Justice Byron R. White ruled that the search of T.L.O’s purse was reasonable under the circumstances. They stated that even though the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizure also applied to public school officials, they may conduct reasonable searches of students with proper authority and probable…

    • 647 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Volokh, Eugene “Symbolic Expression and the Original Meaning of the First Amendment”. Georgetown L. Rev. 97 (2009): 1057-1084…

    • 2295 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Herbeck, Tedford (2007). Boston College: Freedom of Speech in the United States (fifth edition) Cohen vs. California 403 U.S. 15 Retrieved on March 2, 2008 from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/cohen.html…

    • 1858 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Tinker's didn't do anything to effectively mess with the learning in the school, so they didn't stop the school from doing their job, and they were able to maintain their rights. In the Fraser case, Fraser openly made sexual jokes in front of the whole school, as their representative. He did so in a way that was hard for the school to justify that what he did was too inappropriate for the school. His goal was to be funny, without real justification for what he was doing. The Supreme Court decided that what he did, did prevent the school from doing their job. Therefor he had his free speech largely effected in school, while common good was thought to be improved with this decision. Fraser in order to prevent anything like his situation again they made it obvious that free speech in school can be restrained in order to keep the learning environment. In the Tinker case the judges left the case open for discipline on students who "interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students." Which means that they narrowed the spectrum onto where the schools can interfere with individual rights, and where they can't. In the Fraser case, these same principals are applied, saying "The First Amendment does not prevent the school officials from determining that to permit a vulgar and lewd speech, such as respondents would undermine the school's basic educational mission." Fraser's speech was thought…

    • 898 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays