Finally, some chipping away of the madness of McCain-Feingold. Hooray to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law. The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections.
While it is very discouraging that this was only a 5-4 decision…. I’ll take it!
But SCOTUS Chief John Roberts is THE MAN!
“Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. “Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.”
Score one for free speech. The law [McCain-Feingold] trampled the basic right of the American people to participate in their democracy. It also purported to reduce the influence of money in politics, but we now know that influence is greater than ever. McCain-Feingold was a poorly-crafted bill. Today’s decision restores, in part, to the American people a right critical to their freedom of political participation and expression.
Now, is it any wonder why Senator McCain’s 2008 Presidential Election prospects are looking increasingly dim? He wants to restrict political free speech (incumbent protection!) and degrade our national security at the borders (amnesty!). What on earth kind of conservative does he think he is?
[RELATED STORY — A SCOTUS “mixed message” on Free Speech?]
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Kudos to Romney as well, for openly repudiating McCain-Feingold.
Per the AP, there was an interesting split on the Court.
– Roberts and Alito wanted to allow the issue ads, but to do so in a ‘mild’ way or the way least-damaging to McCain-Feingold.
– Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy wanted to go farther against McCain-Feingold, i.e., to overturn a 2003 SCOTUS decision that had upheld it.
The surprise there for me is that Anthony Kennedy would join Thomas and Scalia in feeling so strongly about it. A surprise, because Kennedy is normally a big government, “living document”, liberal-ish kind of guy. Then again, he has sort of a libertarian streak to him (a very weak one – better than nothing), and he seems to enjoy overturning previous Court decisions when he gets the chance.
Excellent news! I was hoping for this one.
My excitement is tempered by the disappointing/scary result in the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case, as that will lead to many, many conservatives students’ rights being furthered weakened, but at least we’re helped advance the freedom of political speech.
many conservatives students’ rights being furthered weakened…
Conservative students in liberal locales, Liberal students in conservative locales, and any and all students who chance upon an issue that an administrator can shoe-horn an “Educational Purpose” onto.
Not good.
Only if conservative students feel the need to promote illegal drug use.
What I find particularly entertaining is that the student in question admitted that he made the banner as a deliberate attempt to upset and provoke the principal — because she had disciplined him previously.
Bluntly put, if you want to claim First Amendment rights that were predicated on adult behavior, you can act like an adult.
If you choose not to act like an adult, you need not be treated as one.
A good start to killng the “law,” but why just the anti-abortion group? Was it initially their case, perhaps? I will read the decision, but it was more than corporate / union / anti-abortion the pols feared. As Clinton acknowledged, it was the NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION that turned the 1994 election.
I missed the part in the First Amendment that says “predicated on adult behavior” only.
Where exactly is that, ND30?
Yes, let’s give any and all Presidential candidates kudos for having the balls to jump at the chance to campaign against a competitor!
* * * * * * * * * * *
Completely agree with Roberts on this one and take it further: The censor always rings twice.
I believe ND30 is invoking the little known “If I think you’re a tool, undeserving of 1st Am. protections, I can revoke them. Or the court can. Or whatever.”
ND30, really. I can’t imagine you actually believe in this one. The court ruled that “Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use.” So, essentially, it’s *another* little known exemption to the 1st Am: “The right to speech shall not stand if referring to drug use.” Also, and far more chilling, is the “can be interpreted” line. SCOTUS blog nailed it: In the campaign finance case, Roberts said:” In defining what qualifies as “express advocacy,” “the court should give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship.” From Bong hits case: ”The message on Frederick’s banner is cryptic. But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one.”
So when students talk, any “reasonable” interpretation wins. When corporations and unions talk, speech wins.
Still defending this?
McCain-Feingold is pure evil, HardHobbit. When any Presidential candidate stands up against evil, let’s give thanks.
Oh, I forgot – We’re not supposed to praise any candidate you don’t like, ever. 😉
So when students talk, any “reasonable” interpretation wins. When corporations and unions talk, speech wins.
Still defending this?
Yes.
Students are not adults.
Students who do something that they know is wrong as a deliberate attempt to provoke and retaliate against a school administrator who previously disciplined them are ESPECIALLY not adults, or acting like them.
I do not think our law was designed so that an immature child who chose to be deliberately disruptive could use it to punish a school administrator who dared to discipline him.
NDT, great seeing you yesterday at Pride and thanks for the eye candy!
13: The guy in question who displayed the banner was 18 years old at the time so, he is in fact a legal adult.
Interesting how folks here are all for free speech by large campaigns that are backed with gobs of money, but you cheer when the free-speech rights of a single individual are trampled.
#11:
Yes, torrentprime, that’s NDT in a nutshell. He’s a classic authoritarian conservative.
#14:
Since when do assless chaps constitute eye candy? 😉
Unfortunately for your argument, Kevin, this child — in every sense of the word — did something with the full intent of it being disruptive and with malicious intent towards a school administrator.
Bluntly put, he is using “free speech” as an excuse to avoid consequences for his deliberate actions — and to punish a school administrator who dared to discipline him.
That is a perversion of the First Amendment.
Bluntly put, he is using “free speech” as an excuse to avoid consequences for his deliberate actions — and to punish a school administrator who dared to discipline him.
That is a perversion of the First Amendment.
There isn’t a “perversion exclusion” in the First Amendment.
If I may:
The guy in question who displayed the banner was 18 years old at the time so, he is in fact a legal adult.
He was still in HS. He was NOT immune from any discipline of the school based on his age.
Interesting how folks here are all for free speech by large campaigns that are backed with gobs of money, but you cheer when the free-speech rights of a single individual are trampled.
Funny how people like you pretend to give a damn about free speech, but you cheer those hell bent on stifling it ie. the liberals, Chavez, I’minajihad, AQ etc. Free speech is great as long as it coincides with your twisted, bastardized world view.
There isn’t a “perversion exclusion” in the First Amendment.
Nor is there a clause which allows you to duck punishment for obnoxious behavior by spinning it into a “free speech” issue. He should have grown a pair, accepted his punishment, learned from his mistake as a man does and moved on.
However, he chose to waste time and money on a frivilous issue. Further, it’s another notch in the belt of liberals who despise punishment for their children. The automatic response to holding their child accountable for anything is to sue.
The only winner in this case is the Tort Bar.
He was still in HS.
But he was not at the HS. School had been dismissed for the day.
He was on public property, in a mixed crowd of students, teachers, faculty, and the general public, participating in a public event.
Further, it’s another notch in the belt of liberals who despise punishment for their children. The automatic response to holding their child accountable for anything is to sue.
As my dad says to my mom, “Yes, Dear.”
NDT is a moron…period. Of all people I would have though even he would have sided with free speech. Bong Hits for Jesus. Who cares? We have a right in this country to petition and ask for the right to smoke pot. We may not get it, but we are given the right to ask and argue and say out loud we promote and want it. There are a LOT of people in this country who think smoking pot should be legal. Many, many, many of which are conservatives, republicans and libertarians like myself. The student in question was a legal adult, was not at school which had been dismissed and regardless of his personal relationship/issues with the principal who disciplined him STILL has the right that you and I and everyone has to say what he wants. Clearly this ruling is a HUGE strike against the very freedoms you hold up as worthy of defending in Iraq and Afghanistan. You think there aren’t a lot of soldiers fighting for our freedoms over there who think that student should have the right to say what he wants? Otherwise, why are we even bothering?
He was on public property, in a mixed crowd of students, teachers, faculty, and the general public, participating in a public event.
Uh huh.
Though he was standing on a public sidewalk, the school argued Frederick was part of a school-sanctioned event, because students were let out of classes and accompanied by their teachers.
And I repeat what the student himself admitted:
Now 24, he told reporters in March that he displayed the banner in a deliberate attempt to provoke a response from principal Morse, by whom he had been disciplined previously.
So, again, we have a child who admits his actions were done out of malice and retaliation towards an adult who had previously disciplined him, and that his response to additional discipline for his admittedly-malicious act was to file a lawsuit against the administrator and the school in retaliation.
This is a bratty, spoiled child who is perverting the legal system to punish a school administrator for doing her job and holding him responsible.
NDT, thanks for the CNN article. Permit me to summarize. Frederick was on a school outing. He did something clearly improper for a school outing. The school administrator ordered him to stop (i.e., to take down the banner). He, Frederick, decided to literally make a Federal case of it. The school administrator defended herself.
That’s what went on here, assuming the article is accurate. I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I’m sorry SCOTUS had to make an official ruling here – surely they have better things to do – and one that strengthens certain limits on speech rights. On the other hand: we have Joseph Frederick to thank. SCOTUS just did their job – applying the law and Constitution to the best of their understanding. All the initiating or “driving” actions here, leading to the unfortunate (and I think inevitable) result, came from Frederick.
“The only winner in this case is the Tort Bar.” TGC, can you possibly explain what you mean here? Was this a personal injury case? Just how does the so called “tort bar” benefit from this case? As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about and now show yourself to be incapable of even knowing when to pull out the appropriate right wing slogan.
TGC, can you possibly explain what you mean here? Was this a personal injury case? Just how does the so called “tort bar” benefit from this case? As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about and now show yourself to be incapable of even knowing when to pull out the appropriate right wing slogan.
Brendan, please read this before commenting further.
In fact, I will cite specifically for you what you need to see.
As used in this Article, the term “constitutional tort action” encompasses all claims for damages brought against government officials for violating an individual’s federal constitutional rights.
Now, Brendan, since you won’t have the balls to comment here again for a while, I suggest that TGC write down the link to this post and save it for future use when you once again rear your uninformed head.
Or you can apologize and admit you were wrong. I personally care not.
NDT is a moron…period. Of all people I would have though even he would have sided with free speech.
The problem is, CarrieB, that this is an attempt to cite FREEDOM of speech as an excuse for a deliberate, premeditated, and malicious ABUSE of speech.
You’re simply not going to get me to say that a student can be deliberately disruptive and provocative towards a school administrator out of his or her need for retaliation, then claim “freedom of speech” to avoid any responsibility.
Actions have consequences. The Constitution and the First Amendment were never meant to prevent consequences; they were meant to prevent governmental abuses. A school administrator disciplining a student for inappropriate, provocative, and deliberately-malicious behavior done out of a need for petty revenge is not a governmental abuse.
There is a very simple answer to all this: privatize the schools. 😉
(As you point out, the Bill of Rights is all about preventing governmental abuses. And what is government even doing, trying to run schools as its own bloated, arrogant semi-monopoly? Take the money and give parents vouchers, especially poor parents, so they can pick the right school for their kid. But that’s a libertarian discussion, for another time.)
“The problem is, CarrieB, that this is an attempt to cite FREEDOM of speech as an excuse for a deliberate, premeditated, and malicious ABUSE of speech.”
Are you really this dumb? The distinction you attempt to draw could be made in any freedom of speech case where what one person calls freedom of speech someone else calls abuse of speech. Have you been appointed commissioner of the 1st amendment?
As for your defence of TCG–sorry it does not work. That there is a legal doctrine that is referred to as “constitutional tort actions” is certainly not what TCG was referring as these actions are not commonly brought by the so called “tort bar”. These are also not the type of cases that bring in large contigency fees and are the subject the right wings attack on tort law. So no apologies here.
Regardless of Frederick’s actual intent 6 years ago as stated to a newspaper at age 24, unless it was part of the court record, it would have been inappropriate for the SCOTUS to base its ruling on that. If it had been part of the record, this case still would not have been easily disposed of. Although the language of Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. Sch. Dist. (the students-can-wear-armbands-to-protest-the-Vietnam-War case) specifically mentions disprution of the school’s purpose, it requires a material and substantial disruption. It is doubtful that annoying an administrator at a privately sponsored off-campus event rises to that level. Juvenile? Yes. Materially and substantially disruptive to the purpose of education? Not so much.
Besides, I don’t want a humorless NEA-entrenched Bureaucrat deciding whether what I say is protected political satire or unprotected endorsement of illegal activity.
The distinction you attempt to draw could be made in any freedom of speech case where what one person calls freedom of speech someone else calls abuse of speech.
And usually is.
And the judge usually rules in favor of the defendant when it can be shown that the plaintiff acted in a deliberate and malicious fashion with full intent to provoke and out of retaliation towards said defendant.
As in this case, where the plaintiff openly admitted it.
That there is a legal doctrine that is referred to as “constitutional tort actions” is certainly not what TCG was referring as these actions are not commonly brought by the so called “tort bar”.
Unfortunately, Brendan, you are attempting to argue that a “tort” only involves a specific type of case and must always involve contingency fees.
I am pointing out, as is correct legal terminology, that depriving someone of their constitutional rights is considered a tort under Federal law. Whether or not contingency fees are involved concerns the arrangement made for payment for legal services, and has no effect on the law itself.
Perhaps you are confusing attorney’s fees, which are recoverable under law, and contingency fees, which are a private arrangement made between the individual and counsel involving a fixed percentage to be paid to counsel of any monetary judgment granted.
As for your defence of TCG–sorry it does not work. That there is a legal doctrine that is referred to as “constitutional tort actions” is certainly not what TCG was referring as these actions are not commonly brought by the so called “tort bar”.
Quit screaming and take your fingers out of your ears.
NDT – The reasons behind it or the intent are moot. Either he has the right to hold up a sign that says Bong Hits 4 Jesus or he doesn’t. He was not on school property when he held up that sign. I am not questioning whether the kid is a prick or whether he was going it to be disruptive to authority. But frankly, the principal had no right to discipline him as a legal adult not on school grounds for something that was not explicitly against any rules. I should have the right as a citizen to stand on the sidewalk and hold up a sign that says Bong Hits 4 Jesus. Maybe its my way of calling for the legalization of marijuana. You may not agree with me on that view, but I should have the right as an American to protest for changing the drug laws in that manner. If he was yelling in class which is against the rules and was disruptive in that manner, I would side with you that he should be allowed to be disciplined. But just because his intent was to be disruptive does not ignore that as an 18 year old adult on a public sidewalk, he has the right to act in whatever manner he wishes within the bounds of the law. He wasn’t breaking any laws or rules. The school had no jurisdiction over him outside of school property.
According the CNN article you referenced:
“Joseph Frederick was 18 when he unveiled the 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002.”
Clearly even the article says it was a public sidewalk.
Also, “‘It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use– and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge,’ Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court’s 6-3 majority. ”
So I suppose that now we have to interpret whether our speech is sending a powerful message that MIGHT be deemed inappropriate, even when we are in a public forum? So if I want to call an end to the illegal status of marijuana use, I should fear that my speech will be squashed because it might send a powerful message to someone? A message that might question the authority of our government or the laws under which we live?
While I will not say Frederick’s purpose was to question those laws, it doesn’t change the fact that limiting a student’s right to question our government, the authority under which they live as well that we aren’t sending an even more powerful message to students everywhere? That they don’t really have the freedoms our men and women in uniform are dying to protect? It’s a very very dangerous and unfortunate precedent set by this ruling.
Carrie, the article also made unmistakable that it was a school outing. Frederick’s behavior was inappropriate for a school outing and yes, school administrators get to control the behavior of their students on such outings.
So I suppose that now we have to interpret whether our speech is sending a powerful message that MIGHT be deemed inappropriate, even when we are in a public forum?
Yup.
Same as yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater.
Actually it isn’t the same at all, but if you want to think so feel free. Yelling fire is illegal because it can cause people to injure themselves in an attempt to escape a fire. It can also mean police and firemen are called. If there is a fire in a crowded theater, I think its perfectly acceptable to yell that there is a fire. The issue is lying and causing harm in doing so. Not at all the same.
And the fact it was an outing is moot as well. He was not on school grounds. Schools and administrators like to believe that they have authority over students outside of school but they do not. Nor was that the issue in this case, though it should have been. If he had not held up a sign but had said that he believed that marijuana use should be legal, should he have been suspended? Whether he did it because he knew the principal would find it inappropriate or because he honestly felt that way? The result would have been the same, it could have been interpreted by the principal as a statement that would support the use of drugs that are currently illegal. Right? If you think its okay to censor such things, then you clearly have issues. That student has as much a right to voice an opinion on that issue as you or me or any American. If we cannot in our own PUBLIC schools teach students the value of having an opinion and the understanding they have a right to exert their freedom of speech in whatever manner that is legal, then it’s a sad time for all Americans.
Carrie, may I remind you of your previous argument?
So I suppose that now we have to interpret whether our speech is sending a powerful message that MIGHT be deemed inappropriate, even when we are in a public forum?
That implies there should be NO restriction on speech in a public forum because it might be deemed inappropriate.
Yet here you are arguing that yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater is inappropriate and should be punished.
The student was let out of class to attend the event and was under the supervision of teachers. Your argument that he was not on “school grounds” means that teachers and administrators would have absolutely zero authority on field trips or other such situations in which the student is under teacher or administrator supervision, but is not on the school grounds.
Finally, though, we get somewhere.
If he had not held up a sign but had said that he believed that marijuana use should be legal, should he have been suspended?
Probably not.
Discussing whether or not a drug should be legalized is not an automatic encouragement of its use. But what this student did wasn’t anywhere close to that.