Free Speech Is Supposed To Be Disruptive. How Else Could It Inspire Change?
This week the United States Supreme Court* heard arguments on the U.S. Court of Appeals case, Morse V. Fredrick, better known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case.
*It turns out that the Supreme Court is just a regular court with sour cream and tomatoes.
As a high school senior, Joseph Frederick was suspended for 10 days for displaying a banner that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus". He did this across the street from his high school during the 2002 Winter Olympics Torch Relay.The council for the school district is Kenneth Star who is the former Clinton Impeachment Czar, Chief Player Hater, and now a federally appointed buzz kill. Starr has said that schools "do not have to tolerate a message that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission".
As Justice Alito said, "I find that a very, very disturbing argument. . .because schools have defined their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all kinds of political speech". Which is absolutely true. A school could define that their educational mission is to be fiscally responsible and that criticism of the schools continued use of antiquated history books printed during the Eisnehower administration is in conflict with the schools "educational mission".**
** We all know the true purpose of public schools has devolved into keeping half-witted bureaucrats and administrators employed.
I was a senior in high school during the tragic murder-suicides at Columbine High School. Weeks after Columbine, a student from my high school was suspended because, outside of school he was suspected of possessing firearms that were not registered.
During art class I made the remark that, "It doesn't make sense that they would suspend him, because his time out of school only gives him more time and opportunity to plot our violent and bloody demise". I was critical of school policy through a satirical remark. It was not obscene and it did not present a clear and present danger. I was suspended for three days because I made an effective criticism of Principal Douchebag's*** poor decision making. I threatened to contact the ACLU, but they made it clear to me that they were in a position to fuck with me in numerous ways, regarding things including but not limited college admissions.
*** Names have been changed to protect the douchey.
We should all be concerned about this not just because students rights are at risk, but the wrong decision on this case could set an ugly precedent. Essentially the criteria for limiting the speech in this case is that if the said speech is disruptive to the goals and ideas of a government institution then it is not protected. Will this prevent newspapers and full grown adults from being able to criticize the White House, Congress, The Supreme Court, the schools, and the IRS? Will this author be sent to Gitmo based upon this blogpost? Maybe, he could use the sunshine and ocean views, though he is not so much interested in the electrical testicular trauma and water-boarding.
The Deputy Soliciter General Edwin Kneedler said that they might pursue a ruleing that would narrowly limit speech that they say advocates drug use.
First, how do you get that out of this case? The banner "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" promotes drug use about as much as it promotes Jesus. Second, is it so wrong for a student to be critical of a school or government's drug policy? It can be argued that that drug policy in the U.S. is shallow, condescending, racist, inaccurate and hypocritical. If this particular topic is not protected speech would it not appear that no topic is protected speech?
What it will come down to is whether or not the Olympic Torch Relay was a school event and if the banner was disruptive. The main reason why speech is protected is because thoughts and ideas are powerful. Critisisim is the ultimate enemy of tyrants and oppressors. Free thought, free assembly and a free press are the pre-eminent players in the marketplace of ideas that moves our civilization forward.
The "Tinker Test" based on the landmark Tinker v. Des Moines ruling from 1969, which defined a student's first amendment rights. The 7 to 2 ruling said that the schools must have a constitutionally valid reason for limiting free speech.
The Tinker case came from three students who wished to protest the Vietnam war by wearing black armbands with peace signs. The students were suspended for this action based on the idea that they were disruptive. The majority opinion said that the students were unjustly suspended, ". . .based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression". Ultimately the Tinker Test says that sometimes Free Speech can cause controversy but if it doesn't cause a profound disruption to classroom activities, such speech is protected.
If this Supreme Court has any regard for court precedent, it will vindicate Joesph Fredrick. He will then be able to sue the school district for millions of dollars and he will have a lifetime supply of Funions and he will be able to live out the rest of his life playing XBox.
God Bless America. And may his son toke it.
And then the LORD said, "Duuuuuuuuuuude I ate so many communion wafers, you have no effing idea!".
Posts
