finethen wrote:
Will a funnier case ever go before the Supreme Court than Morse v. Frederick? If you don't know the story already, a witty (and apparently litigious) high school student unrolled a large banner stating, simply: "Bong Hits for Jesus" in front of his school.

,,,with a few words changed it could have been a political or religous expression.

Do those few words make a difference?

All in all, I think speech rights are fairly safe for now.

Why did they grant cert? The appeals court ruled for the student. Wouldn't freedom of speech be safter if they decided the circuit was so obviously corrent that it wasn't worth reviewing? Why did they decide to review it? Is the student really interested in money? How much was he awarded?

Decius wrote:
Do those few words make a difference?

They do make a difference, because this sign was basically interpreted by the court as irreverant nonsense. Read the transcript- they spend half the time grilling Starr about whether this would have been removable if the sign had said "repeal the marijuana laws" or something similarly political. But "Bong Hits for Jesus"? The kid admitted he used this phrase because he thought it was funny and would attract media attention, but its not even clear that it makes any real statement about pot or Jesus. This is why the school though they could get away with this- its not protected political speech, its just druggie nonsense! The court really didn't seem to buy it.

Why did they grant cert? The appeals court ruled for the student. Wouldn't freedom of speech be safter if they decided the circuit was so obviously corrent that it wasn't worth reviewing? Why did they decide to review it?

Read my blog and I have some links to the transcript and a slate article that puts this case in context. My understanding (as far as cert) is that this case was unique because the expression wasn't exactly on school property, but took place at a school sponsored event. Also, because drug and violence speech is usually repressable within the school, it made an interesting question that hadn't been looked at since Tinker. The circuits were split on what exactly were the bounds of the school's authority in this kind of case.
I do think that this will be good for free speech if they come down for the students, because schools have been tightening the kinds of speech for years, and allowing them to regulate it in and out of school according to school policies (which of course, could be totally arbitrary) would be scary.

Is the student really interested in money? How much was he awarded?

The answer is yes, he sued for damages, I'm guessing punitive. Like I said, this kid seems like kind of a jackass. The case isn't over yet so damages haven't been awarded yet, but Justice Roberts indicated that big damages weren't likely. (He was like, come on! Its a principle who was acting under the school's rules, you're really gonna ream her on damages?)
I bet they get awarded court costs, which are fairly significant, but nothing else.

finethen wrote:
Its not protected political speech, its just druggie nonsense!

Does the first amendment only protect political speech? Do I not have a right to spew druggie nonsense?

I do think that this will be good for free speech if they come down for the students, because schools have been tightening the kinds of speech for years, and allowing them to regulate it in and out of school according to school policies (which of course, could be totally arbitrary) would be scary.

Particularly if you consider the Internet.

The Times has an editorial today about the BHFJ case- pretty interesting stuff. This letter was most interesting to me, as it offered an educators perspective:

To the Editor:

As educators, we are charged with the duty not just to educate our young people but to help mold them into moral adults. This “mission” does not always agree with the precept of free speech.

No student in my middle school classroom may speak to me or to any other student with disrespect or in a hurtful manner. I also expect my students to limit conversations during class time to the topics I pick. Does this violate the students’ rights to free speech? You bet it does! Should it carry out of the classroom? I believe that it should.

I hope that any educator who sees his student behaving in a destructive manner will step in and speak up. I hope that someday my students thank me for this “violation” of their constitutional rights, just as I hope that the Alaska student realizes someday that his principal was acting in what he believed to be the student’s best interest.

Claire Hirschhorn
Fair Lawn, N.J., March 20, 2007

But Decius, to answer your question: there are limitations on free speech in plenty of situations ("shouting fire" in a crowded theater, for example.) In school this is particularly true. The courts have given schools wide discretion in surpressing speech that is sexual, gang-related, and drug-related, among other things deemed "disruptive." However, for the most part political speech is protected, even if it is mildly disruptive (black arm bands, for example.)

So yes, the content really made a difference here. But all the same I think the court will come down for the kid because of the extenuating circumstances (and also because the school's argument was just really unconvincing.)

RE: Whose Bong Would Jesus Hit?

>>How much was he awarded?

BONG HITS FOR JESUS!!!!!