Testing the Limits of Free Speech for Students

In this case, I was interested in the fact that Kenneth Starr refered to the Olympic Torch Relay as a "school sanctioned event." In fact, the Rally was sponsored by Coca-Cola and other private groups and drew a crowd of citizens. The high school did release their students for the event, and there were administrators and teachers among the students, but the student Frederick had not been in attendance at school that morning.

I feel that the case rests on whether this was an actual field trip in which students are expected to conform to a code of conduct, also whether the conduct itself was disruptive to the lessons, and whether or not the banner itself was "political" speech. Under the Tinker case, political speech is protected unless it's disruptive and that is the legal rule that the Supreme Court was asked to uphold.

I didn't think that the banner was political. I saw it as humerous, perhaps poking fun at the student clubs, or having a group of the high school student trying to get attention for themselves.

While the augument could be made that the students had to conform to the normal code of conduct, the Supreme Court was asked to make it's ruling based on the content of the banner. It was argued that the banner glorified drug use, in conflict with the district policies of education to prevent drug abuse. So, it wasn't that the banner itself was considered disruptive, it was the thoughts conveyed on the banner that the high school principal was disturbed by. The message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as Frederik told CNN, was "just a joke."

The student says that he was being deliberately provacative to test his free speech rights. In an telephone conference with reporters on March 2, 2007, just prior to the Supreme Court ruling, Joseph Frederick said “I conducted my free speech experiment in order to assert my rights at a time when I felt that free speech was being eroded in America. “The high school I attended advocated that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not apply to students. I was skeptical of my own free speech rights and I wanted to know more precisely the boundaries of my freedom. I guess we'll get to find that out soon.”

I did not see this public rally as a controlled field trip. Therefore, as a public event, this student was free to exercise his normal guarenteed rights of speech, political or otherwise. For instance, if he and his friends had worn a t-shirts that said "Bong Hits for Jesus," they would not have been suspended for ten days, or told to remove their clothes. In an earlier case, the Supreme Court has already given guidelines in which "Students, for example, cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises whether in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours unless the school shows that the speech would substantially interfere with the work of the school." Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 266 (quoting Tinker, 393 U.S. at 512-13 .)

The School Board claimed that the banner was a reflection on the school administrators, and that if they didn't punish the student they would be accused of condoning the message of the banner. However, the public is understanding enough to know that this banner was the work of a student, on his own volition, and had nothing to do with what is being taught in school, other than the principle of free speech.The school felt that the banner had changed the message of the event and appeared to endorse or promote drug use, which was contradictory to the mission of the school. In a classroom, if a student were to stand up and take out a banner, that would disrupt the class and would be subject to punishment. But in the case of the public display of a humourous and nonsensical banner, nothing was disrupted. The rally continued and the school day continued.

In the Amicus Brief of the Student Press Law Center, they quoted a legal precedent "There is, of course, no constitutional exception for subject-altering speech. The government may not select which issues are worth discussing or debating in publicfacilities. Carey, 447 U.S. at 463."

Inside the classroom, I think that students should be allowed the freedom to state their opinions or their questions freely, even controversial ones. Where abusive languages comes into the picture, a treacher should also have the freedom to protect the rights of the victims of verbal abuse. The problem comes in when one person's right to free speech steps on another person's right to be protected from harassment or hatespeech.

I value the freedom of speech that we enjoy in the United States. I know that in many parts of the world, our freedoms are envied. The laws that protect my ability to state my opinions in a wide variety of public forums, and in the privacy of my own home as well are extremely important and worth defending, and testing, so that future generations will enjoy the same hard won freedoms we have.