Bong Rips For Justice Kennedy

Bong Rips for Justice Kennedy

Aaron Ryall

University of Phoenix

His/311

Chester Adams

September 12, 2007

Bong Rips for Justice Kennedy

Of all the freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment, it is probably the freedom of speech that is most often cited. Perhaps this is due to Americans' predilection for speaking their minds, even if their opinions are unpopular, or even illegal. Throughout the years that we have had this crucial freedom, it has been protected by the courts on several occasions. At times, however, this freedom has been limited because the privilege, it is said, has been abused. There are times when people use speech either for illegal purposes or to promote them. One classic example of such promotion occurred in 2002 when a student in Juneau, Alaska displayed a provocative banner outside of his high school.

In 2002, Joseph Frederick, an eighteen-year-old senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, led a group of students who unfurled the banner at a national relay leading up to the 2002 winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City (James, 2007). "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" was the controversial message emblazoned on the student's fourteen-foot banner (Mears, 2007). Frederick and his friends said that they just wanted to be on television...and to enrage their principal. They succeeded in both these goals, as news coverage was extensive, and the school's principal, Deborah Morse, was irate. Morse confiscated the banner, and issued a five day suspension to Frederick, which was later increased to 10 days. (James, 2007). Frederick, however, would not take the assault lying down, and he sued Morse and the school for violating his first amendment rights, and sought monetary damages (Reynolds, 2007).

Morse argued that the banner contained an implied pro-drug message, which was in contrast with the school's educational mission (James, 2007). Many stoners, however, argue against this, saying that when one inhales marijuana smoke through a water pipe, it is not called a hit but rather a rip. Morse's entire case, they argue, is based upon the banner's alleged use of stony vernacular, and this argument, they say, is nil (that, 2007). This issue, however, was never discussed in court.

Frederick initially lost in U.S. district court, but he appealed the case and won in the U.S. Ninth Circuit. The court ruled not only that Morse had violated Frederick's right to free speech, but held Morse personally liable (Feature, 2007). It seemed a time of celebration for Frederick and for pot-smokers everywhere, but Morse and the school decided to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The petitioners (Morse and the Juneau School Board) cited in their brief several previous cases that they believed would help their cause. Most prominent among these were Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, Bethel School District v. Fraser, and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (Starr, Richmond, Hagan, Kirkland, and Ellis, 2007). Morse's primary attorney was Kenneth Starr, who is most famous for his investigations into various scandals involving former president William Jefferson Clinton.

The brief argued that Tinker, 393 U.S. 503, justified the principal's actions, because it allows schools to prohibit speech that interferes with the work of the school. The brief also cited the district courts opinion that "[w]ithout a doubt, part of the school's work is to deter drug and alcohol abuse." (Starr, et al). Starr and the other attorneys also agreed with the district court in its opinion that in the case of Fraser, it was determined that schools had the right to regulate speech that they find to be "'plainly offensive' because such speech 'might undermine the school's basic educational mission.'" (Starr, et al). Kuhlmeier, the brief argued, "allows student speech restrictions in school-sponsored activities when pursuant to legitimate pedagogical concerns." (Starr, et al). The brief also argued that although the students were not on school grounds, it was a school-sponsored event under faculty supervision (Starr, et al). The brief made other arguments as well.

The brief also referred to Frederick's defiant attitude. Starr and the others claim that Frederick refused to set down the banner upon Morse's request, and refused to accompany her to her office when asked. Furthermore, he showed up on his own time, and was mocking and rude when questioned. As an example, they claim that Frederick stated that the banner was acronymic for "Better Olympic National Games, Head into Town 4 Jesus." (Starr, et al). Starr also made the point that Frederick had skipped his first period class, and made up a story about his car being stuck in the snow.

Ultimately, the position of Starr and the other attorneys was that the banner contained a pro-drug message that was in opposition of the schools stated mission, that they could confiscate the banner and suspend the student because it was a school-sponsored event, and that past cases exemplified these rights. These claims, however, while seemingly solid, were not as cut-and-dried as the petitioners claimed, and the respondents would show this.

Frederick originally sued because he felt that the principal had violated his free speech rights, but that was not the only reason. When he first sued in the district court, he claimed that the seizure of the banner and subsequent disciplinary action had caused him "emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and mental anguish." (Starr, et al). However, Chief Judge Sedwick, in a detailed opinion, only discussed the free speech issue, concluding that Frederick's rights were not violated, and upholding the schools position that it could limit disruptive speech.

The Ninth Circuit Court, however, would not share this view. The court held that schools are "not entitled to suppress speech that undermines whatever mission it defines for itself." (Starr, et al). The court also ruled that the "plainly offensive" standard put forth in Fraser applied only to speech of a sexual nature, since such speech can stimulate disorder among those new to adult hormones (Starr, et al). The Ninth Circuit Court reversed the ruling of the district court, and held Morse personally liable for her actions.

When the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States, it would be a firestorm of opinion and controversy. Discussions were complex and opinions