The Dissenting Opinion: 4 votes for Frederick
The Majority Opinion: 5 votes for Morse
the banner
- John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer
- “…the school’s interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech “reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use,” ante, at 1, cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs. The First Amendment demands more, indeed, much more”
- “In my judgment, the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students. This nonsense banner does neither, and the Court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding—indeed, lauding—a school’s decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed.”-Justice Stevens
- John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr.
- “The common-sense understanding of the phrase ‘bong hits’ is that it is a reference to a means of smoking marijuana. Given [Frederick’s] inability or unwillingness to express any other credible meaning for the phrase, I can only agree with the principal and countless others who saw the banner as advocating the use of illegal drugs.
- “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.”
Effects of Morse v. Frederick and why this was a landmark decision
- Changed 1st Amendment rights
- Changed how people view the 1st Amendment
- Clarified what is appropriate and not appropriate in schools
- Helped students stand up for their freedom of speech in schools
- Event spread to different schools and school districts nationwide
students protesting
Pros/Cons: The Opposing Sides
Those for Morse, against Frederick
Those for Frederick, against Morse
- “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings,”
- Banner represented school poorly/innappropriate
- believed that “display of the banner would be construed by students, District personnel, parents and others witnessing the display of the banner, as advocating or promoting illegal drug use”—in violation of school policy
Works Cited/Picture Citations
- Punishing Frederick because he used drug references to get a camera crew’s attention is not justified
- The First Amendment protects student speech if the actual message doesn’t violate specific rules or expresses anything that is harmful to students and the banner held up did neither
- The court does violence to the First Amendment in supporting a school’s decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view that the school disagreed
Background
Personal Statements
- Joseph Frederick
- senior at Juneau-Douglas High School
- Deborah Morse
- Principal at Juneau-Douglas High School
- Juneau, Alaska
- 2002
- school-supervised activity during the Olympic Torch Relay
- "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner
- "MORSE v. FREDERICK." Oyez. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2015. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_278#sort=vote>.
- "Facts and Case Summary: Morse v. Frederick." United States Courts. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2015. <http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get- involved/constitution-activities/first-amendment/free-speech-school- conduct/facts-case-summary.aspx>.
- "Crisis Guide: Iran-Timeline." Cornell University Law School. Council on Foreign Relations, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. <http://www.cfr.org/interactives/CG_Iran/index.html#/timeline/>.
- "MORSE v. FREDERICK." Cornell University Law School. Council on Foreign Relations, 19 Mar. 2007. Web. 07 May 2015. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06- 278.ZO.html>.
- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Bong_Hits_for_Jesus.jpg
- https://www.aclu.org/files/images/freespeech/frederick.jpg
- http://s3.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20070625&t=2&i=1010507&w=1200&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=1010507
- https://www.law.louisville.edu/sites/www.law.louisville.edu/files/bong-hits-4-jesus-demonstrators-1_0.jpg
Background Cont.
- Frederick originally suspended for 10 days
- U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska rules for Morse
- said that Frederick's action was not protected by the First Amendment
- 5 votes for Morse, 4 votes for Frederick
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revised and held that Frederick’s banner was constitutionally protected
- Because Frederick was punished for his message and not for causing disturbance, the Circuit court ruled that the punishment was unconstitutional
NOTICE: The following presentation contains copyrighted materials used under the Multimedia Guidelines and Fair Use exemptions of U.S. Copyright law. Further use is prohibited.
Morse v. Frederick
2002-"Bong Hits 4 Jesus"; First Amendment
By Leticia Monteiro and Jane Adams