Symbolic speech is a form of free speech, where the speech in question is not written out directly but in a different form. In Stromberg v. California (1931), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of symbolic speech, believing that a red flag (a symbol of revolution) was protected under the First Amendment.
The same occurred during the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) case, where students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War were pardoned in the same vein.
The situation suddenly turns on its head, however, in the Morse v. Frederick case, commonly known as "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." A student displayed a banner at a school event with the aformentioned phrase emblazoned across it.
So, firstly, isn't this symbolic speech? What's the difference? The Court ruled it as "sophomoric" but surely that's not a good enough position to outlaw it. Here's three reasons why:
1. Schools have jurisdiction over constitutional rights of enrolled students.
The reason for this is because of In loco parentis, which is silly political jargon for "in place of parents." Therefore, a teacher or administrator can intrude on constitutional rights if it needs to.
2. The symbolic speech promoted illegal drug use.
This is a violation of the direct incitement clause of Brandenburg v. Ohio, since the message encourages illegal drug use. The clause states that speech (even symbolic speech) used to incite illegal activities are not protected under the First Amendment.
3. Schools have a compelling reason to discourage drug use.
This is honestly just a blend of the previous two statements. Since the banner was displayed on school grounds, it was righteously removed as an extension of the responsibilities of the school administration. Not to mention illegal drug use being, well, illegal.
And that's all.
OH NO SCALE: No oh no.
No comments:
Post a Comment