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.

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.

Yup.

Same as yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater.

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.

Quit screaming and take your fingers out of your ears.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

That is a perversion of the First Amendment.

There isn’t a “perversion exclusion” in the First Amendment.