Free Speech 4 Students Rally

In 2002, Juneau-Douglas High School student Joseph Frederick and his friends unfurled a large banner that read "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" as the Olympic Torch passed his high school. When the principal of the high school asked the students to take down the banner, all complied except Frederick, who asserted his First Amendment rights. Morse grabbed and crumpled the banner and suspended Frederick. Frederick sued and initially lost, but then won in the 9th Circuit court. The school board has appealed the case to the Supreme Court, led by attorney Kenneth Starr (known primarily to the public for his role as special counsel in the Monica Lewinski case), who essentially argued for a drug exception to free speech right in public schools. Because a ruling against Frederick could have effectively banned all speech regarding drugs or drug policy, SSDP submitted an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of the student, and held a widely publicized student rally at the Supreme Court on March 19th.
video source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfCjfod8yuw

SSDP (Students for Sensible Drug Policy) states that is committed to providing education on harms caused by the War on Drugs, working to involve youth in the political process, pushing for sensible policies to achieve a safer and more just future, while fighting back against counterproductive Drug War policies, particularly those that directly harm students and youth.

40 Anniversary of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

On Febraury 24, 2009, The Student Press Law Center and high school students across the country celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Tinker v. Des Moines. The video show Mary Beth Tinker 40 years later. She discusses what motivated her to stand up for student free speech in 1965 and how she has continued to fight for social justice throughout her life.

video source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wjBoo1s8ik

MORSE v. FREDERICK (2007)

At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS,” which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down the banner. When one of the students who had brought the banner to the event—respondent Frederick—refused, Morse confiscated the banner and later suspended him. The school superintendent upheld the suspension, explaining, inter alia, that Frederick was disciplined because his banner appeared to advocate illegal drug use in violation of school policy. Petitioner school board also upheld the suspension. Frederick filed suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that the school board and Morse had violated his First Amendment rights. The District Court granted petitioners summary judgment, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that they had not infringed Frederick’s speech rights. The Ninth Circuit reversed. Accepting that Frederick acted during a school-authorized activity and that the banner expressed a positive sentiment about marijuana use, the court nonetheless found a First Amendment violation because the school punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption. It also concluded that Morse was not entitled to qualified immunity because Frederick’s right to display the banner was so clearly established that a reasonable principal in Morse’s position would have understood that her actions were unconstitutional. Frederick's argument that this is not a school speech case is rejected. However, the Court agrees with Morse that those who viewed the banner would interpret it as advocating or promoting illegal drug use, in violation of school policy. At least two interpretations of the banner's words--that they constitute an imperative encouraging viewers to smoke marijuana or, alternatively, that they celebrate drug use--demonstrate that the sign promoted such use. This pro-drug interpretation gains further plausibility from the paucity of alternative meanings the banner might bear.
source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-278

Top image: http://radicalcrossstitch.com/wiki/images/9/95/Bonghitsbanner.jpg
Bottom image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/Bong_Hits_4_Jesus_banner.jpg

Does it violate my First Amendment rights if a school official reads over my graduation speech before I give it?

I think if a school officials reads over a speech that you would like to read, isn’t violate your First Amendment. In my opinion, the right thing for a school official read the speech before you do because a school official could help you write your expression in a better way and also to make sure that you are using properly language. According to research, it states that it doesn’t violate a student First Amendment. The courts have said school officials may review a graduation speech before it is given. They may also censor parts of that speech as long as they can show it is reasonably related to a legitimate educational concern. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1985 case Bethel School District v. Fraser, asserted that “The determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board.” In its 1988 ruling in Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court wrote that “educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” Meanwhile, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case (Cole v. Oroville Union High Sch.) that dealt specifically with the issue of graduation speeches, issued an opinion in 2000 that stated in part, “The principal retains supervisory control over all aspects of the graduation, and has final authority to approve the content of student speeches.”
source: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/studentexpression/faqs.aspx?id=21259&#q21259

WESTSIDE COMMUNITY BD. OF ED. v. MERGENS (1990)

Westside High School, a public secondary school that receives federal financial assistance, permits its students to join, on a voluntary basis, a number of recognized groups and clubs, all of which meet after school hours on school premises. Citing the Establishment Clause and a School Board policy requiring clubs to have faculty sponsorship, petitioner school officials denied the request of respondent Mergens for permission to form a Christian club that would have the same privileges and meet on the same terms and conditions as other Westside student groups, except that it would have no faculty sponsor. After the Board voted to uphold the denial, respondents, current and former Westside students, brought suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They alleged, inter alia, that the refusal to permit the proposed club to meet at Westside violated the Equal Access Act, which prohibits public secondary schools that receive federal assistance and that maintain a "limited open forum" from denying "equal access" to students who wish to meet within the forum on the basis of the "religious, political, philosophical, or other content" of the speech at such meetings. In reversing the District Court's entry of judgment for petitioners, the Court of Appeals held that the Act applied to forbid discrimination against respondents' proposed club on the basis of its religious content, and that the Act did not violate the Establishment Clause.
source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=496&invol=226

image source:

http://ebooks-imgs.connect.com/product/400/000/000/000/000/107/453/400000000000000107453_s4.jpg

What rights to freedom of epression do student have?

I think that all students should have all rights to express themselves as long as they do it in a correct way, as such used proper language. According to the research, Public school students possess a range of free-expression rights under the First Amendment. Students can speak, write articles, assemble to form groups and even petition school officials on issues. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that students "do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate." However, there is a fundamental distinction between public and private school students under the First Amendment. Public school officials act as part of the government and are called state actors. As such, they must act according to the principles in the Bill of Rights. Private schools, however, aren’t arms of the government. Therefore, the First Amendment does not provide protection for students at private schools. Though public school students do possess First Amendment freedoms, the courts allow school officials to regulate certain types of student expression. For example, school officials may prohibit speech that substantially disrupts the school environment or that invades the rights of others. I feel that private school should have the same rights as a public school. The student that attends to private school could have a way of feeling and believing the same ways.
Source: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/faqs.aspx?faq=student_rights

What is Freedom of Expression?

Freedom of expression is to have the ability of an individual or a group of people to express their thoughts, beliefs, ideas, and emotions about issues free from government censorship. As everyone knows that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of individuals to freedom of speech, religion and press. Some scholars group several of those freedoms under the general term “freedom of expression.” Most state constitutions also contain provisions guaranteeing freedom of expression, and some provide even greater protection than the First Amendment. Freedom of expression is essential to individual liberty and contributes to what the Supreme Court has called the marketplace of ideas. The First Amendment assumes that the speaker, not the government, should decide the value of speech. In these courts cases show the amounts of students that used this freedom to express themselves on what they belief. The students protested by walking out, clothing wearing and writing down ideas or beliefs.
Source: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/faqs.aspx?id=31&#q31