BONG HITS 4 JESUS

banner advocated illegal drug use in violation of school policy

Roberts + Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito

Held: Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick.

 

Tinker vs Des Moines 1969  "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the schools" was the test, the standard

Bethel School District vs Fraser upheld suspension for a speech employing "an elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor" 1986

Principles

1 The constitutional rights of students in public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings"

2 Tinker's mode of analysis is not absolute, leaving out "substantial disruption"

Hazelwood School District vs Kuhlmeier 1988

"must be applied in light of the special circumstances of the school environment"

 

Thomas  overrule Tinker

Uncle Clarence thinks that public schools should be the same fascist dictatorships that he and I endured in parochial Catholic schools!

 

Alito limited this opinion to: hold a public school may restrict speech interpreted as advocating illegal drug useand provide no supposrt for any restiction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue...

 

Stevens + Souter, and Ginsburg

The message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressively advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to sutdents

Tinker

1 Censorship based on the content of speech, particularly censorship that depends on the viewpoint of the speaker, is subject to the most rigorous burden of justicifiation

2 Punishing someone for advocating illegal conduct is constitituional only when the advocacy is likely to provoke the harm the government seeks to avoid

Brandenburg vs OH 1969 (the Ku Klux Klan case)

 

Beyer

simply hold qualified immunity bars the sudent's claim for monetary damages and nothing more, especially on the First Amendment