Monday, January 23, 2012
Student Speech
In its landmark 1969 ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court found that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." What is your reaction to the case involving student speech in the case of Morse v. Frederick?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First of all, the Supreme Court already said that students do not "shed their constitutional rights... at the schoolhouse gate." In this case, Frederick wasn't even AT the schoolhouse gate, or in school at all. He was at a public function. He wasn't even checked into school that day. Principal Morse had NO RIGHT to punish Frederick or ruin his sign and as a result this IS a breach of Frederick's constitutional rights
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Robert's decision. I believe that the "bong hits 4 Jesus" sign, though in bad taste, does not support drug use. I also disagree with Roberts other argument that principals are allowed to limit certain speech. If freedom of speech is still allowed at school certain talk should not be limited. Thus, I disagree with the outcome of Morse v. Frederick and believe that Tinker v. Des Moinse should apply to all speech at school.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the school overstepped its bounds in suspending Frederick. Frederick was not on school grounds, and I feel that it was more of a public situation than a school setting, so there were no real grounds for the school to punish him. While his sign did condone illegal activities, it did not directly incite illegal acts. Therefore, Frederick should be free to go. I am surprised by the court's decision.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the school's suspension of Frederick. I think that it was a knee jerk reaction to something officials saw as "hanus", and wasn't well thought through. The suspension was also unconstitutional since the law clearly states that students don't shed their rights when they go to school.
ReplyDeleteI firmly disagree with the school's suspension of Frederick. The school enforced there your outside of their walls and the banner was expressed by a legal adult on a public sidewalk where all rights are allowed for a citizen.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the court's decision, believing it to be a step in the "wrong direction" as far as restricting free speech. Frederick's sign, while perhaps immature and in bad taste, does not post any immediate risk besides the casual drug reference. It does not appear to be infringing on anyone else's rights anymore than ANY other drug reference that these students may encounter elsewhere. Frederick was on public property and not even technically attending school yet. For all intensive purposes, he was an individual bearing a controversial sign who just happened to be near a group of individuals who he happened to attend school with. And even if he had been in school, he does not shed his rights. This is no different than a student wearing a Rasta colored bracelet to school.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the court's decision. The location was at a school sponsored event outside of the gates. It was on public property and was not infringing upon other people's rights. The sign was in very poor taste but there is no proof that the sign openly promoted others to participate in illegal uses of drugs. If they do not shed their rights at the gates, how can their rights be shed at a school sponsored event? It is important that schools deter the use of illegal drugs by students, but their power to do so only lies on school property within the rights of the Constitution. The laws can be interpreted in many different ways, but the precedents seem clear
ReplyDeletei disagree with the court's decision to suspend frederick. the sign was not a proper way to express his "love for jesus" if you will but i think he does have a right to express his religion any way he pleases. he is an illegal adult and it was not on school property with makes it perfectly fine for him to exercise his freedom of speech although i think the way he carried it out was in poor taste. he should not have used a drug related reference at a very popular and important event especially one sponsored by a school.
ReplyDeleteI disagree heavily with the school's action in this case. Judging from the brief, it appears that Principal Morse acted immaturely in destroying Frederick's sign. Further, I don't think a person of authority should have confronted a student in such a way that she did. I do NOT agree with the court's ruling that the school's suspension of Frederick did not violated his First Amendment Rights. I disagree on the points that Justice Roberts made. Justice Roberts said that Frederick was at a school event. Frederick had not been to school that day. In essence, he was attending an olympic rally that a lot of his classmates happened to be attending as well. Second and finally, I don't think it was Frederick's intention for the message "Bong hits for Jesus" to promote illegal drug activities. If it were, then Justice Roberts would be correct in saying that the message violated the School District's explicit guidelines and regulations involving illegal drug activity and promotion.
ReplyDeleteI believe the school crossed the line by suspending Frederick. While at school, it has been established that students do not give up their basic rights. In this case, Frederick was not checked into school or even present. In a public place, Frederick enjoys the same rights as all Americans, even if his sign seems vulgar and innapropriate to some.
ReplyDeleteI do not support to court's decision to suspend Fredrick. Fredrick didn't go to school that day and he was not on school property when he held the banner. The school suspending him for this act is a complete overstep of their boundaries and inappropriate. The school is in charge of what happens within their walls and at their events and they cannot punish students for something they did not at school.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the main issue with Fredrick's situation was that his sign was referencing drug use. In our culture today so many things imply drug use that is the school would have to be suspending kids for the clothes they wear or music they listen to. The school district was out of line and should focus on problems that occur on their campus.
Fred had the right to display his sign, especially since he was a legal adult. I could see the argument for a school field trip, however students get attendance credit for school trips. But it seems that there was no direct connection to the group of students and a school function. They were simply given the day off to participate. I believe the school did violate his rights and that the court's decision was wrong.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, Fredericks was on a PUBLIC sidewalk so he automatically has the right to express his opinions in that aspect. Why Priciple Morse would even bother coming up to him when he is not in school is weird. He technically has no authority over him outside the building. Even more so, Fredericks was not inciting violence or causing disturbance until Morse came in. I think that Morse in the one in the wrong because he was infringing on Fredericks freedom to express his opinions and as for crumpling the banner, that seems to be a typical principle response.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the court. Fred was most importantly, not within the physical boundaries of the school. He is allowed to voice his opinion on a public sideway, as is anyone. The school had no right to suspend him despite his drug references. The school has no control over what Fred chooses to do outside of the school walls, and since he is not directly hurting the community, their suspension was wrong.
ReplyDeleteI do not think Frederick should have been suspended from the school. He was not within the boundaries of the school at the time and he is entitled to his basic rights just as every other student and human being around or in the school was. Even if his signs were offensive, his freedom of speech liberty protected him. Some people might not like it but that does not mean they can take it away from him because he was not hurting anyone or getting in the way of other peoples rights. The suspension was the incorrect thing to do.
ReplyDelete