In the Supreme Court case, Morse v. Frederick, Joseph Frederick, a senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, displayed a 14 foot banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” during the Olympic Torch Relay which took place in Juneau, Alaska on January 24, 2002. The term that Joseph Frederick displayed on the banner was one he used with his peers and is a slang reference for smoking recreational marijuana. This certainly was problematic since Frederick’s banner was displayed at an event which was part of a school supervised activity and marijuana use was illegal. Deborah Morse, the school’s principal told Frederick to take down the banner. She justified her actions by saying that her concern was that displaying this banner could be interpreted as advocating illegal drug activity which is against school policy. Joseph Frederick refused to comply with the principal’s request even though his peers did. Deborah Morse took the banner from Frederick and suspended him from school for 10 days for violating school policy, which forbids advocating the use of illegal drugs. Joseph Frederick argued that he was protected under the First Amendment since the display of the banner was not on school premises. He also mentioned that his actions did not fall under the type of student speech which is normally susceptible to regulation by school administrators. Frederick also argued that Morse would not be entitled to qualified immunity against the charges being brought against her for violation of his constitutional rights since a reasonable principal would have permitted the banner to be displayed. Morse, on the other hand, stated that since the banner was displayed during a school activity that was supervised by school faculty, these are limiting circumstances as regards students’ First Amendment rights. Frederick claimed that he was displaying the banner in a joking manner and the intent was just to attract television cameras.
` The main constitutional question raised in this case is in regards to the First Amendment right of free speech and free press. There is the constitutional question if public schools are allowed to ban students from promoting use of illegal drugs at school events which are faculty supervised. The other question is if school officials have qualified immunity from a damages lawsuit under 42 United States Code of 1983 when, in accordance with school policy, the principal disciplines a student for displaying a banner with a drug reference at an event which is under school supervision. A third question that can be asked is if Frederick’s free press was violated. There was a definite sense of censorship being enacted which was given justification by Morse’s claim that she was concerned about his message, since she viewed it as promotion of illegal drugs which the school policy bans. The clauses of the Constitution that are relevant to the case are the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause since these clauses are both a part of the First Amendment which talks about freedom of religion, assembly, press, petition, and speech. Fredrick is incorporating the freedom of religion (mentioning Jesus), speech, and press by trying to justify under these clauses of the First Amendment why his actions should be permitted since the First Amendment claims that government or an established higher power cannot take these rights away. There is a previous case that established a precedent relevant to the case study of Morse v. Frederick. This is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) In this case the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, finding that Morse violated Frederick’s First Amendment rights when she punished him for his message rather than for any disturbance, which is unconstitutional. According to the Ninth Circuit, Morse’s actions violated the principles of the Supreme Court’s landmark student speech precedent, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). The Ninth Circuit also ruled that Morse was not entitled to qualified immunity because it was established that Frederick had a First Amendment right to display his banner. Morse however, argued that the Ninth Circuit strayed from the Court’s later student-speech decision of Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988). The Supreme Court ruled that Morse did not violate Joseph Frederick’s First Amendment rights. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit by a 5-4 vote, ruling that school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages which promote illegal drug use. (Morse v. Frederick,,2007, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-278, Main opinion)
Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion stated that although students do have some right to political speech even while in school, this right does not extend to pro-drug messages that may undermine the school’s important mission to discourage drug use. The majority held that Frederick’s message was reasonably interpreted as promoting marijuana use when in his banner he indicated that bong hits are a desirable thing. In ruling for Morse, the Court affirmed that the speech rights of public school students are not as extensive as those which adults normally enjoy, and that the highly protective standard set by Tinker would not always be applied. In concurring opinions, Justice Thomas expressed his view that the right to free speech does not apply to students and his wish to see Tinker overturned altogether, while Justice Alito stressed that the decision applied only to pro-drug messages and not to broader political speech. Since the majority decided that no constitutional violation occurred, it did not address the issue of qualified immunity. (Morse v. Frederick,,2007, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-278, Main opinion) I believe that this case was decided appropriately. I believe that it is the role of educators to make certain that students are able to express how they feel in an open space, but that does not include promotion of illegal activity. Students should feel free to promote ideas, but when in a school environment there are policies in place to ensure that students are encouraged to not try to engage in illegal activities such as illegal drug use or underage alcohol consumption. In class, we discussed that the First Amendment established freedom of religion, assembly, press, petition, speech. However, we are well aware that there are still some restrictions. Since this incident happened at a school organized event, the faculty had the right to use their own discretion as to what the proper repercussions should be if a student promotes illegal drug use.
The court conceded that the principal should have had immunity from the lawsuit, but argued that the majority opinion was “deaf to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high-school students”(Morse v. Frederick, 2007, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-278, Dissent opinion). Justice John Paul Stevens advocated for the dissenting opinion and took the position that the school’s interest in protecting students from speech that can be reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use does not justify Frederick’s punishment for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement simply because it refers to drugs. Justice Stevens made several points in his dissent that were valid. First, he argued that prohibiting speech because it advocates illegal drug use, unless it is likely to provoke the harm sought to be avoided by the government, violates the First Amendment because it impermissibly discriminates based upon content. Secondly, even if the school had a compelling interest to prohibit such speech, Frederick’s banner was so vague that a reasonable person could not assume that it advocated illegal drug use. Finally, the dissent took issue with the majority’s justification that the speech could reasonably be perceived as promoting drug use because the constitutionality of speech should not depend on the perceptions of third parties. Some of the arguments of the dissent were outweighed by the arguments of the majority. For example, when the dissenting opinion states that constitutionality of speech should not depend on the perceptions of third parties, the majority opinion refutes that by saying it does. Frederick made the banner public for his peers and for national TV which people can view so obviously third parties will be involved. Since this was a school organized event, the schools’ policies are designed to protect their students. It was the school’s view that students who see that banner will receive a negative message which the school does not want. Additionally, another argument of the dissent was the statement that Frederick’s banner was so vague that a reasonable person could not assume that it advocated illegal drug use. The majority refuted this statement by saying that Fredericks’ banner was not vague, and clearly promoted drug use since he mentioned a “bong hit” which is one of the methods people can use to smoke an illegal drug. Therefore, Frederick’s message advocated for smoking the illegal substance.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that Frederick’s First Amendment rights were not violated and that schools may take steps to safeguard those who are entrusted to their care. Therefore the school was permitted to curtail any messages that could reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use. Most look upon the majority decision of Morse v. Frederick (2007) as the right one. Though weed is legal in Alaska now, at the time of this incidence it was still a prohibited drug. Had Frederick displayed his banner at a non-school event he would have not faced the repercussions that he did