Correction appended. Professor Kyu Ho Youm’s comments to the Emerald were related to students’ political speech.
Morse v. Frederick – or, more famously, the “bong hits for Jesus” trial – left the Supreme Court with a 6-3 decision that touched the core of students’ first amendment rights.
The case originated in Juneau, Alaska where Joseph Frederick – then 18 – displayed the provocative message on a banner as the Olympic torch passed through Juneau heading for the 2002 games in Salt Lake City. Deborah Morse, the principal of his high school, suspended him for promoting drug use. Frederick sued, losing in the district court but winning the appeal, and the case progressed to the Supreme Court where Frederick lost on June 25.
Despite skipping class, standing on a public sidewalk, and being 18, the court ruled that Frederick was, “at a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event,” and that Morse could reasonably infer “that those who viewed the banner would interpret it as advocating or promoting illegal drug use, in violation of school policy.”
The decision further limits high school students’ speech, altering the historic Tinker v. Des Moines case. In Tinker v. Des Moines, students protested the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school. In that case, the Supreme Court said speech that does not “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school” is protected under the first amendment.
“There is an unmistakable trend in the last 20 years,” said Kyu Ho Youm, a communication scholar and journalism professor. “The Supreme Court is fine tuning [Tinker].”
In its opinion, the court referred to many other cases involving student speech, and held this one was unique because its message could be interpreted as promoting illegal drug use.
“Nowadays, more than ever, speech gets more scrutiny, but overall, judges are still serious about protecting student speech” about politics, Youm said. “The courts want to maintain previous rulings.”
Charles Hinkle, a media law attorney with the Portland-based Stoel Rives, disagreed.
“It is a terrible restriction, not just to students but everyone,” he said. “The historical fact is that bong hits for Jesus was not disruptive. No one laughed,” said Hinkle.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Stevens, joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Ginsburg, wrote, “Although this case began with a silly, nonsensical banner, it ends with the Court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, at least so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message.”
Hinkle credited the court’s religious make-up for the decision.
“This is the first time in history that five Roman Catholic Justices have sat on the court,” Hinkle said. “The Supreme Court should reflect the pluralism and diversity of our society.”
Hinkle said the current Supreme Court is “result oriented,” and said, “the First Amendment exists to protect speech that we do not like.”
But both agreed that University students should not be greatly affected.
“By nature high school authorities are supposed to be involved,” said Youm. “The role is different.”