Bong Hits 4 Jesus Supreme Court Case
 

Since there's so much freedom of speech debate on the boards, I figured I'd throw an actual case out there and see what people think.

Students at Juneau High School in Juneau, Alaska were released early from school to watch the olympic torch relay when it passed through on it's way to the winter olympic games in Salt Lake City in 2002.

Joseph Frederick, an 18 year old high school senior, did not attend school at all that day. After the other students had been released to watch the relay, he, across and down the street from the school, displayed a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus". At the time he said it was partly for freedom of speech and partly to get on TV. His parents were there and knew what he was doing.

The principal of the school saw the banner and approached Frederick asking him to take it down. He refused stating that it had nothing to do with school (school was closed for the function) and she had no right to tell him to take it down.

When he arrived at school he was then suspended for 10 days for making statements that promoted illegal drug use. He went to court and won. The court decided that the event had nothing to do with the school and just because teachers and the principal were on site did not make it a school event. While courts have upheld the rights of schools to limit freedom of speech with regards to assemblies and student newspapers, this was seen as a separate, non-school event that did not endanger the school's mission in any way. In addition, the principal, at the scene, had summoned the police who informed her that there was nothing illegal in the banner and nothing they could do about it. They also decided that the banner did not actually advocate drug usage and was basically a gibberish message designed to draw attention. The school later started proceedings to expel the boy, but the court stopped them. He was, however, kept from graduating with his class on stage for violating the policy, in addition to the suspension. The suspension also placed him over the allowable days absent in some classes causing him to fail those classes by default.

It has now been appealed, by the school board, all the way to the Supreme Court. Many local courts around the nation have upheld the rights of schools to punish students for acts committed outside of the school day, off of school grounds, and having nothing to do with school. This test case could determine what rights school have to punish kids in conjunction with non-school activities.

What do you think? Do students have freedom of speech rights when school projects, meetings, newspapers, and assemblies are not involved? Should a school be allowed to punish a student for activities not related to school? One pending case that could be affected regards a student who was caught by security guards stealing lip gloss at a Walmart during summer vacation from school. The kid returned the gloss and made some kind of restitution to the store (the records are sealed do to the minor status of the child, but some community service type stuff or monetary reimbursement is standard). When the child returned to school, she found that she had been expelled for the act. The courts have upheld the rights of the school to remove her from the student body as she created a "danger to other students".

There are several groups taking unexpected sides in this case. There are a few far right religious groups who are supporting the student for fear that limiting the freedom of speech could affect kids who wish to protest abortion or show support for the war in Iraq. Most, however, support the school district. Some school boards are opposing the the Juneau board for fear that they will then be held responsible to punish kids for outside of school activity that they may not be aware of and the consequent liability if a child repeats an act in school that had previously been committed outside of school.

So, what do you think?

I think the kid could bend that school over if it went to the supreme court given that the police already said there was nothing they could do.

I don't think schools should have any say in non-school activities. Yeah, it leaves a big open for bullies to pull shit and not get caught (which I've experienced first hand), but this shit isn't cool either.

I gotta agree, STE. School's need to be able to control things that happen in their environs, but only if it creates a danger. The case law that backs this up actually stems from a case back in the early 70's where a court decided that students had the right to wear peace signs and anti-vietnam war buttons in school. To me it's just another scary example of infringement on rights by schools that suspend people for out of school activities, companies that fire people for off work activities, and punishments meted out based on some pompous principal when it's not even against the law. Granted, the kid was a bit of an idiot with the sign, but a danger to other students??

Take this from a teachers perspective and B.O.T rep elective
He did not attend the rally??
it was a non school event.??
The only ppl bringing unwarranted attention to the school are the board of trustees and the principal...unless the student had the schools name advertised on the banner..then 'yes' they do have cause for complaint as it will be portrayed that the school condoned the wording.
They can also take him for being absent without any reasonable cause as school was still in attendance untill they were released in order to watch the rally..