Another Blow to the First Amendment

§

The U.S. Supreme Court today administered yet another blow towards the diminution of the Constitution with it's ruling against student's free-speech. Official slip opinion.

The case, Morse v. Frederick, a First Amendment free-speech issue, landed on the steps of the Supreme Court on appeal from the appellate courts ruling that the high school principal did in fact violate the student’s constitutional right to free-speech when she ripped down a banner the student unfurled displaying the words “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” A violation of the student's constitutional right as was firmly established and clearly defined decades prior by the landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines.

The Supreme Court, after hearing oral arguments this past March, has now today decided in an all too familiar 5-4 decision, that student free-speech rights should be based on the message - subject to the interpretation of whomever - and not “the right” to express it. In this case, “because the principal said ‘the phrase was a pro-drug message”’ even though the student “denied that he was advocating for drug use,” the Court believed the principal was justified in her actions. The Court, however, insists that this ruling "goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use." (Associated Press-Texas)

Isn’t that the point of “free speech,” to advocate one’s disagreement/opposition, concurrence, etc., whether in compliance with what another (being/agency) believes is permissible, acceptable? What is “reasonable” and in what context? What if the banner would have said “Get High with Jesus” would that be the equivalent? One “reasonable” mind could interpret the phrase to advocate illegal drug use simply for the use of the words “get high” while another “reasonable” mind could interpret it those same words to mean a “natural” emotional feel of excitement, as in "high on life." Every word or phrase displaying a message is subject to interpretation, is one individual’s interpretation more “reasonable” than another’s, in other words, is a principal’s interpretation, however ignorant it may be, more reasonable than that of a students? And would the establishment of the "reasonableness" of such interpretation of speech be a matter of law or fact?

Cheers ~