Will the Supreme Court Separate "Drug Speech" from Free Speech? (AlterNet)

[marmar]

Will the Supreme Court Separate "Drug Speech" from Free Speech?

By Daniel Abrahamson, AlterNet. Posted March 23, 2007.



Justices in the Supreme Court's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case appear to be interested in turning "Just Say No" into "Don't Even Say It," curtailing free speech rights.

On Monday, March 19, the Supreme Court heard a case concerning the scope of student speech in public high schools. The case, Morse v. Frederick, involved an 18 year old high school student who was punished by school officials for displaying a banner on a sidewalk across the street from his school. The banner was destroyed and the student was suspended because officials believed the banner, which read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," touted a pro-drug message in violation of the school's anti-drug policy.

The case has the potential to impact a wide swath of student expression. The Court, however, could walk a narrower path and carve out as undeserving of constitutional protection just one type of speech: drug speech. Based on the justices' questioning at oral argument, it appears that a majority of the Court may be inclined to refashion the Nancy Reagan's mantra "Just Say No" into "Don't Even Say It," when it comes to student speech that references drugs.

One of the most disturbing features of the Supreme Court argument was the fact that most of the justices appear to believe that because drugs in high schools are a scourge worth combating, student speech about drugs -- and by extension drug policy -- is likely to encourage student drug use. The justices, in other words, equated student speech about drugs with drug use itself, and a majority may permit school administrators to censor the former in the hopes of snuffing out the latter.

But this conflation of speech and conduct is unwarranted and dangerous. It was telling that the very same Ken Starr, who argued in favor of student censorship appeared on the Supreme Court steps for media interviews along with former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey who, a decade ago, warned physicians who spoke about the potential medical benefits of marijuana that they "sent the wrong message" to youth. McCaffrey was so convinced that physician speech would incite adolescent drug use that he threatened to punish doctors who recommended medical marijuana to their sick and dying patients. The federal courts struck down McCaffrey's plan because it violated doctors' First Amendment rights. Studies now show that adolescent marijuana use is actually lower in those states that protect the cultivation and use of marijuana for medical purposes. ....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/rights/49635/

[ms liberty]

1. K&R - this case is a clear 1st Amendment issue...

If the courts come down on the side of the school on this, it will be a travesty of justice.

Thanks for posting - I love Alternet!

[wuushew]

2. the term "most justices" is not helpful

which justices? What historical rulings can we sight from the Rehnquist court?

[Ezlivin]

3. What if more students die in automobile accidents than by using drugs?

Will they have to curtail speech that includes references to automobiles?

These Nazis won't be satisfied until the Brown Shirts are running every school and all the boys and girls are members of the Hitler Youth.

Freedoms, we hardly knew ye.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. "...displaying a banner on a sidewalk across the street from his school"

I don't get it. He was not on school property. By what right do they control what he did off school property? Was it because of a "1000 yard drug free zone" or something? Since when is a sign a drug?

This may be a win/win for the powers that be. If the kid loses, authoritarians increase their power to control others. If the kid wins, tobacco companies have grounds to fight the "no cigarette advertising near schools" laws that have sprung up across the country.

[TahitiNut]

5. Fair and balanced - a "First-Amendment-Free Zone"

It's educamational. :puke: