Betsy's Page
HOME
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Betsy neither necessarily uses,
nor endorses,
the products advertised on this site.
The truth about Avesil
Cheap Hosting
Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney
Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney
Wikio
Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights
Online Bachelors Degree
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Bong Hits 4 Jesus and the Supreme Court
Some writers such as Dana Milbank and Dahlia Lithwick are having a lot of fun trying to insert as many pot-related metaphors into their descriptions of the hearing yesterday on the case of Morse v. Frederick, concerning a high school that let out to watch the Olympic torch pass by their school. One boy, Joseph Frederick brought out a 14-foot banner with the memorable slogan "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as the torch went by just in time to get his banner on TV. The principal suspended him for 10 days. He is suing her for money saying that she infringed his free speech rights.
The justices seem to be troubled by the idea that they would give administrators unlimited authority to bar speech that they feel would be contrary to the school's educational mission. As Lyle Denniston points out, there does seem perhaps to be a consensus that schools should be allowed to bar speech that advocates illegal activity. Administrators should have at least that discretion in trying to maintain order in school. There also seems to be little likelihood that the Court will allow the student to get money out of the principal for what she did in performance of her educational duties, especially since it doesn't seem obvious from previous Court rulings where the bright lines are for what speech an administrator can and cannot bar.Marty Lederman doesn't think, however, that there is much support for a broad grant of deference to administrators to ban any speech that they think interferes with their mission. Justice Alito was troubled that a school's educational mission could be defined so broadly that they could bar any speech that they wished.
I'm all for giving deference to administrators. I don't want courts having to decide what was an acceptable and not acceptable. Allowing principals to bar speech advocating breaking the law seems quite reasonable. What troubles me is that the kid was punished for something that he held up outside of school. Even if it is across the street, I don't think that a principal should be able to suspend a student for what he does off school property even if he was just across the street. If he'd unfurled his banner in school, he could have gotten in trouble if his banner had interfered with a particular class focusing on the day's lesson or if he'd blocked traffic in the hall. If he'd held up his banner across the town from the school, the principal wouldn't have been able to suspend him. Are we now going to draw a zone of authority around a school, extending beyond the physical land of the school, where principals can bar expressions of free speech?Labels: Education, Supreme Court
0 comments
Comments:
Some writers such as Dana Milbank and Dahlia Lithwick are having a lot of fun trying to insert as many pot-related metaphors into their descriptions of the hearing yesterday on the case of Morse v. Frederick, concerning a high school that let out to watch the Olympic torch pass by their school. One boy, Joseph Frederick brought out a 14-foot banner with the memorable slogan "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as the torch went by just in time to get his banner on TV. The principal suspended him for 10 days. He is suing her for money saying that she infringed his free speech rights.
The justices seem to be troubled by the idea that they would give administrators unlimited authority to bar speech that they feel would be contrary to the school's educational mission. As Lyle Denniston points out, there does seem perhaps to be a consensus that schools should be allowed to bar speech that advocates illegal activity. Administrators should have at least that discretion in trying to maintain order in school. There also seems to be little likelihood that the Court will allow the student to get money out of the principal for what she did in performance of her educational duties, especially since it doesn't seem obvious from previous Court rulings where the bright lines are for what speech an administrator can and cannot bar.Marty Lederman doesn't think, however, that there is much support for a broad grant of deference to administrators to ban any speech that they think interferes with their mission. Justice Alito was troubled that a school's educational mission could be defined so broadly that they could bar any speech that they wished.
I'm all for giving deference to administrators. I don't want courts having to decide what was an acceptable and not acceptable. Allowing principals to bar speech advocating breaking the law seems quite reasonable. What troubles me is that the kid was punished for something that he held up outside of school. Even if it is across the street, I don't think that a principal should be able to suspend a student for what he does off school property even if he was just across the street. If he'd unfurled his banner in school, he could have gotten in trouble if his banner had interfered with a particular class focusing on the day's lesson or if he'd blocked traffic in the hall. If he'd held up his banner across the town from the school, the principal wouldn't have been able to suspend him. Are we now going to draw a zone of authority around a school, extending beyond the physical land of the school, where principals can bar expressions of free speech?
0 comments
Some writers such as Dana Milbank and Dahlia Lithwick are having a lot of fun trying to insert as many pot-related metaphors into their descriptions of the hearing yesterday on the case of Morse v. Frederick, concerning a high school that let out to watch the Olympic torch pass by their school. One boy, Joseph Frederick brought out a 14-foot banner with the memorable slogan "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as the torch went by just in time to get his banner on TV. The principal suspended him for 10 days. He is suing her for money saying that she infringed his free speech rights.
The justices seem to be troubled by the idea that they would give administrators unlimited authority to bar speech that they feel would be contrary to the school's educational mission. As Lyle Denniston points out, there does seem perhaps to be a consensus that schools should be allowed to bar speech that advocates illegal activity. Administrators should have at least that discretion in trying to maintain order in school. There also seems to be little likelihood that the Court will allow the student to get money out of the principal for what she did in performance of her educational duties, especially since it doesn't seem obvious from previous Court rulings where the bright lines are for what speech an administrator can and cannot bar.Marty Lederman doesn't think, however, that there is much support for a broad grant of deference to administrators to ban any speech that they think interferes with their mission. Justice Alito was troubled that a school's educational mission could be defined so broadly that they could bar any speech that they wished.
I'm all for giving deference to administrators. I don't want courts having to decide what was an acceptable and not acceptable. Allowing principals to bar speech advocating breaking the law seems quite reasonable. What troubles me is that the kid was punished for something that he held up outside of school. Even if it is across the street, I don't think that a principal should be able to suspend a student for what he does off school property even if he was just across the street. If he'd unfurled his banner in school, he could have gotten in trouble if his banner had interfered with a particular class focusing on the day's lesson or if he'd blocked traffic in the hall. If he'd held up his banner across the town from the school, the principal wouldn't have been able to suspend him. Are we now going to draw a zone of authority around a school, extending beyond the physical land of the school, where principals can bar expressions of free speech?
Labels: Education, Supreme Court
Comments:
Post a Comment
