SCOTUS Defends Political Free Speech for Students
Posted on June 30, 2007
It was Leftist speech that SCOTUS defended in this case but it offers a very useful precedent for political speech at schools and colleges generally:
“Putting its recent ruling on student speech into practice, the Supreme Court on Friday rejected a school district’s appeal of a ruling that it violated a student’s rights by censoring his anti-Bush T-shirt.
A seventh-grader from Vermont was suspended for wearing a shirt that bore images of cocaine and a martini glass-but also had messages calling President Bush a lying drunk driver who abused cocaine and marijuana, and the “chicken-hawk-in-chief” who was engaged in a “world domination tour.”
Williamstown Middle School Principal Kathleen Morris-Kortz said the images violated the school dress code, which prohibits clothing that promotes the use of drugs or alcohol.
An appeals court said the school had no right to censor any part of the shirt. On Monday, the court said schools could regulate student expression if it advocated illegal drug use. Justice Samuel Alito cautioned that schools could not censor political speech.
Drug advocacy is not political? So they tell us. I know many libertarians and Leftists who would violently disagree. But we must be thankful for small mercies. The rules now appear to be that non-drug political speech is protected.
More detail here. Apparently it is OK to mention illegal drugs (cocaine in this case) if you depict the President as using them! That is not encouragement of drug use, apparently. I guess that the Bush-haters would see it that way so maybe it makes some slight sense.
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
2 Responses to “SCOTUS Defends Political Free Speech for Students”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Now I’m going to disagree with you here, just a bit, and tell you why this is a good sign in the wake of a crappy ruling by SCOTUS.
The kid who held up the Bong Hits sign made a critical mistake at a very early juncture in this case — he acknowledged that he didn’t intend to have any particular meaning behind his sign, that he was just screwing around. If he had taken the position that his sign was, in fact, advocacy of drug legalization, I think the ruling might have gone the other way.
In this case, as the concurring opinion that really controls the scope of Morse v. Frederick indicated, we have a shirt that clearly does have political meaning and intent being held to be protected speech. That there is a drug-related theme associated with it makes the Court’s message that much clearer to school administrators — virtually any message of a political nature will have to be permitted, even if it does include a drug reference.
Now the question will be what happens in a case like Harper v. Poway where the message is one about homosexuality, or a case involving a message about abortion. Despite my initial concerns about the holding in Morse v. Frederick, this particular move by SCOTUS may yet be an indication that Morse v. Frederick may turn out to be a great friend to those engaged in conservative speech.
What social value is served by granting political free speech rights to 7th graders? Do they actually have something worthwhile to say on politics? No. Would it be likely to lead to violent insurrections if we shut up their peaceful speech? No. Was the Bill of Rights intended for minors? No.
It is probably worthwhile to encourage 7th graders to engage in political dialog, but allowing them to engage in disruptive and deliberately offensive political speech on school grounds? Tell the kid to go home and change his damn shirt.