Unforgivingly What?
---
Rumor has it that Ken Starr, who is -- yet again -- mouthpiecing against liberty, this time at Supreme Court oral arguments in Morse v. Frederick (a/k/a the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case), dismissed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the students' First Amendment rights as "unforgivingly libertarian." (His brief used the term "uncompromisingly libertarian vision.")
May I never, ever, be forgiven by Ken Starr. For anything.
---
I haven't blogged about Morse v. Frederick, mainly because it is such a sloppy case, both in terms of the facts of the incident and the politics surrounding it. To (utterly apolitical) me, it seems quite simple really: The only clearly recognized exception to a student's right to free speech is if such speech disrupts the educational environment that is the raison d'être of a school in the first place. Compare Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (students have a First Amendment right to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War) with Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) (school district permissibly sanctioned a student for a disruptive, sexually explicit speech at a school assembly).
The banner was not even on school grounds, let alone "disruptive to the educational mission." So why is this even a case, other than the fact that this particular school principal and this particular student had a history of animosity, and the "barbaric yawp" (not my term) of the banner message itself.
It is neither illegal not improper to advocate the repeal of a law -- see generally, "Prohibition." One wonders what would have been the school principal's reaction had the year been 2002 (i.e., before Lawrence v. Texas) and the banner had read "Butt Sex 4 Jesus." At least there the school might have had an obscenity argument within the ambit of Bethel. But "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"? I ask again: Why is this even a case?
I guess I'm just too unforgivingly libertarian to understand all the fuss.
---
A good primer on Morse v. Frederick at SCOTUSblog.
May I never, ever, be forgiven by Ken Starr. For anything.
---
I haven't blogged about Morse v. Frederick, mainly because it is such a sloppy case, both in terms of the facts of the incident and the politics surrounding it. To (utterly apolitical) me, it seems quite simple really: The only clearly recognized exception to a student's right to free speech is if such speech disrupts the educational environment that is the raison d'être of a school in the first place. Compare Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (students have a First Amendment right to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War) with Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) (school district permissibly sanctioned a student for a disruptive, sexually explicit speech at a school assembly).
The banner was not even on school grounds, let alone "disruptive to the educational mission." So why is this even a case, other than the fact that this particular school principal and this particular student had a history of animosity, and the "barbaric yawp" (not my term) of the banner message itself.
It is neither illegal not improper to advocate the repeal of a law -- see generally, "Prohibition." One wonders what would have been the school principal's reaction had the year been 2002 (i.e., before Lawrence v. Texas) and the banner had read "Butt Sex 4 Jesus." At least there the school might have had an obscenity argument within the ambit of Bethel. But "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"? I ask again: Why is this even a case?
I guess I'm just too unforgivingly libertarian to understand all the fuss.
---
A good primer on Morse v. Frederick at SCOTUSblog.
Posted by Kip on
19 March 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
