Talk:Morse v. Frederick

incorrect sentence?
What is Principal Morse's failure to act against the banner "would send a powerful message to the students in her charge, including Frederick, about how serious the school was about the dangers of illegal drug use." supposed to mean? Principal Morse did act on it, and wouldn't not acting not send that message?

70.131.103.14 (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a poorly-written sentence, no doubt. That's all too common in appeals court opinions, unfortunately, and the "supreme" court is no exception.  What the court was saying, rightly or wrongly (more likely the latter), was that if the principal hadn't taken down the sign, that would effectively send a "powerful" message about how serious the school was (i.e., not very ) about the dangers of illegal drug use.  Mr. Roberts would have done a much better job of getting his point across if he had simply said, "Principal Morse's failure to act against the banner would send a message to the students in her charge that the school was not very serious was about the dangers of illegal drug use."  Not that that's true, of course, but at least the sentence would have been clearer and easier to understand.  Captain Quirk (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

sic?
I see someone put a [sic] after the words from the banner. I don't think a [sic] is called for when the alternative spelling is clearly intentional (or we'd have to [sic] every prince song, and 50% of advertising slogans.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * It's not just the "4", though; it's also the weirdly capitalized "HiTS". --zenohockey 03:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate analysis of the 9th circuit ruling
The section on the 9th circuit ruling is incorrect when it states: "ruling that the incident did not take place during any school-related activity and punishment therefore violated his First Amendment rights."

In fact, the 9th circuit ruled that this was a school related event. Contrary to popular preception, this fact does not automatically mean that Frederick loses the case. The 9th circuit simply used student speech cases such as Tinker to decide if Fredericks speech was protected. Here is a quote from the 9th circuit opinion supporting this:
 * "Even though supervision of most students was minimal or nonexistent, the school could have supervised them more if it chose to, as it did with the gym class and perhaps the pep band and cheerleaders. Frederick was a student, and school was in session."

-I fixed it

case name?
What is the official case name? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Morse and the Juneau School Board et al. v. Frederick 71.228.27.6 15:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The official case name is Juneau School Board v. Fredrick 06-278, according to AP news via Yahoo.com 209.193.40.223 10:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused; I thought cases were always of the format "Plaintiff v. Defendant". Why isn't it Frederick v. Morse? —Angr 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You should change it then. see google SqueakBox 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Given Google I have changed the name, SqueakBox 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been changed back. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/JuneauSchoolBoardCertPetitionFINAL20060828.pdf gives it as "JUNEAU SCHOOL BOARD; DEBORAH MORSE, Petitioners, v. JOSEPH FREDERICK, Respondent." —Angr 21:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

When cases are appealed, the names of the Plaintiff and Defendant often switch. Hashbrowncipher 05:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When a case comes before the Supreme Court, the first party in the case name is always the party that lost in the lower court (state supreme court or federal court of appeals, usually), and the second party is the party that won in the lower court. Many American courts have abandoned this format to avoid precisely the confusion that's going on here.  ---Axios023 05:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Advertising
I don't think that the bonghits4jesus.com link should be in the references section; all it does is link to a cafepress page with 'Bong hits 4 Jesus' T-shirts on. The link is not informative in any way. I'm going to remove it. 82.35.16.220 09:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
The article, as of 12/3/06, has several inaccuracies. 1) Joseph Frederick was an adult at the time, 18 years old; 2) the relay event was not school sponsored, it was sponsored by the Coca-Cola company and the only contribution of the school district was that students were allowed to leave classes to watch; and 3) the relay event did not take place in a school parking lot, but on a public street. All these facts come from the official court record and are not controverted. D.K. Mertz, attorney for Joseph Frederick.


 * The relay was coke sponsored, but the school viewing was a school event, coke had nothing to do with it. The viewing was thew school parkinglot, not the street. I was there for the whole thing, got out of my history class for it - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 03:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How was it a school event if it was across a public street? Maybe the students from the school were in the school's parking lot but it's understood that the event happened across the street? --Nutschig 23:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The CS Monitor says the Fredericks (father and son) are in "exile" teaching English in East Asia. Anybody know which country? Taiwan, Korea, or Japan? GeorgeS


 * A quote from an article on ABC.com (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2953653&page=2):
 * "I never professed to be a saint," Frederick, now 23 and teaching English in China, told reporters at an ACLU teleconference.
 * That's all I know. 68.9.204.119 18:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've read it in the court briefs (which everyone should read before voicing a strong opinion either way), the relay was considered school sponsored because teachers supervised a school sponsored viewing of the event during school hours. Its kind of like a class field trip to the zoo or a public park. Teachers still have the ability to discipline students even if they are outside of school premises and even if they are over 18 if they are being disruptive at a regular field trip. Furthermore, the board buttresses this assertion by saying that it even provided material aid to the event by letting the band play while the olympic runner passed by. MasonicLamb 02:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But that still doesn't explain why the article calls it a "school-sanctioned" event, as well. MisterSquirrel 01:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean?
What does 'Bong hits 4 Jesus' mean? Presumably humorous, but anyone able to explain it? Ben Finn 23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the respondant, he saw the slogan on a snowboard and thought it would be a funny joke. I'm assuming you know what a bong is, so you can probably see that there's really no purpose to it. Firestorm 23:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Which just makes the court's decision that much sillier. Captain Quirk (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Arguing for Morse?
Should the article bring up that Kenneth Starr is arguing for Morse (and thus tighter controls on free speech)? Gary Seven 06:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of bong picture?
I don't understand the relevance of the picture of the bong, particularly in light of the fact that it is specified as a bong used for smoking crystal meth Riptor3000

Incredible
I just wanted to say how disgusted I am that, in the United States, this even happened, let alone that there are those (in our very government no less) who would wish to defend the actions of this principal, a woman who blatantly attacked the free speech rights of a U.S. citizen who, at the time of the incident, was beyond her realm of jurisdiction.

The boy had not attended school that day and was not on school property, giving her no right to jump forward and seize his sign, or to suspend him for what he did during his own free time.

I mean, she might as well have gone over to some random man, anyone, and attempted to silence him. She had no business doing what she did.

Furthermore, even if he had been in school, the "regulation" of free speech is profoundly and chillingly un-American.

And of course Kenneth Starr and the Bush Administration would line up right behind those seeking to quash this student's ability to voice his opinion. What is wrong with them? For what reason do they seek to stifle the youth, to limit as much as they possibly can what has always been our most sacred of liberties? Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, all of these men would be turning in their graves to see an Administration so hellbent on silencing opposition.

The fact that they're aiding in this attack on a teenager (or someone who was a teenager at the time that the issue was first brought up) particularly infuriates me. As is always the case, the aged and the bitter, the caustic and the diseased and the spent, seek to institute their own rules on the youth, whose vitality and optimism, whose intolerance for oppression and discrimination and corruption they hate.

What is the old saying?

"The old always start the wars, and the young always die"?

I wish that I could have lived back in the 1960's. At that time, people who were our age (I'm nineteen, recently so) rose up against this sort of nonsense and changed everything. Though they faced incredible odds, odds far greater than we could imagine today, they persevered and were able to permanently upend all that preceded them. There are few generations that can say that, but our grandparents (my grandmother was nineteen in 1961) did it.

What it must have been like to be young back then!

My own generation (Generation Y), I'm afraid, are a bunch of dullards. Half of them are too stupid to see what President Bush has done to this country, and the half who can are so busy on their Play Stations that they don't bother looking up and attempting to stop any of it. Maybe when there's another draft, and they're pulled from their couches and into a combat zone, maybe then they'll see.

I just hope that the Supreme Court takes the side of liberty in this case. But with John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the bench, I wouldn't count on it; these are men who share President Bush's vision of an America robbed of everything that once made her truly great.

SwedishConqueror 23:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror
 * Well, SwedishConqueror, according to the transcript of the oral argument, Samuel Alito seemed to be sympathetic to the student, but John Roberts and Antonin Scalia clearly favored the principal. Now all depend on how Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote between liberals and conservatives, votes on it. WooyiTalk, Editor review 23:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what you think, there is more than one side to this case. Otherwise it wouldn't have gotten to the nation's highest court if the issue had been something as simple as an unwarranted assault on free speech.  The fact is, free speech is not an absolute and my ability to voice my opinion always has limits depending on a number of factors.  For example, convincing a group of white supremacists to commit hate crimes is clearly something that any decent government should proscribe.  No founding father believed that the freedom to speech included slander, libel, incitation to crime, coercion, or fraud.


 * In this case, the principal acted in a way that she believed was consistent with her role as a principal. Such a role involves educational as well as moral guidance, and maintaining an educational environment is critical to these goals.  Managing the lives of her students is her job.


 * So imagine you're in her shoes. You have an explicit anti-drug policy which is the law in the state of alaska.  You also have news cameras filming a known student with a banner that clashes with that policy (albiet in an offhanded way).  As a principal, you know that a message of this sort being broadcast nationwide (potentially) does not reflect well on your job performance and you also know that other students will come to lose respect for your authority.  Does "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" convey the idea that the drug laws are stupid or do they further incite students to actually take bong hits?  Will this cause more students to smoke pot at school?  So what do you do?  Is it not even conceivable that the principal had a legitimate motive for doing what she did?  --MasonicLamb 03:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. According to page 2 in the SCOTUS decision, he was late to school that day. He did not skip school. 75.48.24.237 22:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Students don't have rights. That all there is to know. Students should have rights, of course, but they don't.

Interesting left/right convergence against Bush Administration
This case is very notable, not just because it involves free speech, but also for the convergence of American Civil Liberties Union and American Center for Law and Justice, and the Christian Right and left civil libertarians join together like strange bedfellows to defend Frederick against the principal, who has support from George W. Bush's henchman Paul Clement. WooyiTalk, Editor review 23:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange bedfellows indeed, but their respective motives are clear. ~ Rollo44 04:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

'Oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court'
It doesn't appear that the section, "Oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court," adds anything of value to understanding the case. Possibly it needs to be rewritten, but I don't know how to do so and keep it Wiki-worthy. Otherwise I would suggest it gets deleted as nothing notable happened during oral arguments and the opinion of the case is what is truly important. --Assawyer 19:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

banner text
A number of news articles have photographs of Frederick and others holding the banner that sparked the case. These show the exact text was "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" in mostly upper case block letters. I don't know why someone seems to have an issue with this and other improvements I made to this article. Perhaps it's a bot of some kind that spammed me.

Where is the opinion by Breyer?
The entry (tries to) describe the opinions of all Justices, but somehow Justice Breyer's opinion seems to have fallen between the cracks. Secondly, Alito and Kennedy's concurrence is narrower than described (not only noting that the opinion does not provide support for restricting political speech, but also noting that the opinion does not go any further than letting a public school restrict speech that "a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use"). Would a message not advocating an illegal action, but one that is not political in itself, get First Amendment protection? It does seem quite possible. 88.154.6.122 08:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What could be such a non-illegal, non-political action deserving of FA protection? ~ Rollo44 04:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Knee-jerk
WP needs an article on the concept "knee-jerk" viz abrupt decisions that'll seem intolerably lame down the road.

Quick question.
Does anyone know exactly how far off the school campus the school has jurisdiction over? I know that school grounds are located in the direct vicinity of the campus buildings, but the school zone also extends around the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.245.110 (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Bong Hits 4 Jesus Song?!?
I'm wondering if the last external link is necessary. It barely has anything to do about the actual case aside from the fact that the title is the same quote. Maybe it should be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokekid456789 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

confusion on legality
If the supreme court ruled that the school district did not violate the student freedom of speech (which I disagree with). I don't understand how the student could of went to his states supreme court when precedent was set (also Alaska is a very conservative state that would vote against him {meaning dismis his claim]). I don't understand because the supremacy clause does not permit same cases on a state jurisdiction (hence the supreme court invalidates state laws in numerous cases) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Alaska state constitution also guarantees the right to freedom of speech, and the state's interpretation of that right may differ from how the federal government interprets it even if the "right" is the same. Generally speaking, the federal constitution sets a minimum standard for the rights that states must guarantee, but a state's constitution can go beyond that guarantee to further protect those rights or protect additional ones.  Hope this helps.  lordsutch (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible error in Article name
I may have made a mistake in moving the article name from Morse v. Frederick to Frederick v. Morse. Although the case started out as Frederick v. Morse, when it reached the Supreme Court, it was Morse who appealed, so the order may have changed. If the consensus is to revert back to the original name, I would not object. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted. All the U.S. Supreme Court documents I've seen say "Morse v. Frederick." This article is about the U.S. Supreme Court case, so that's the title that should be used. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Screwup
The initial paragraph in the section "Background and procedural history" has been screwed up compared to earlier versions. Also note a reference warning. --96.233.83.30 (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Morse v. Frederick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070311044607/http://www.law.com:80/jsp/article.jsp?id=1142338282994 to http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1142338282994

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Morse v. Frederick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDUxMjJkZWVmZTBhMjFkYjIwZWU2ZGZiZGRiMjdlM2Q
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903004139/http://opiniojuris.powerblogs.com/posts/1184714364.shtml to http://opiniojuris.powerblogs.com/posts/1184714364.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928055956/http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1213&year=2006 to http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1213&year=2006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Plurality?
In the first sentence that talks about the opinion itself, Chief Justice Roberts is described as "writing for a plurality of four justices." Huh? I had to count like six times, but there's no way that's not a majority opinion. Four other justices signed onto it. Justice Alito had a separate concurrence that, arguably, tried to restrict the scope of the majority opinion, but (as he joined the main opinion) I don't think that can convert it into a mere plurality. Thoughts? Pipingbengoshi (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on the Dickler ref
There are currently seven uses of: including identifying her by name to attribute various analyses. Is she well-known in this field, in order to support the heavy reliance? In, there are three individual commentators highlighted with equal weight: Melinda Cupps Dickler, Kenneth Starr and Erwin Chemerinsky. Those latter two are clearly notable and especially in this topic-area. How about that first one, who is only identifed as a visiting assistant professor and is a redlink? DMacks (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Melinda Cupps Dickler (Visiting Assistant Professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology), "The Morse Quartet: Student Speech And The First Amendment", 53 Loyola Law Review, 355.

Public response and Groups involved sections might be improved by merging them.
Right now Public response only contains one person's views and most public opinions are expanded on in Groups involved. I took a stab at editing it but didn't publish as my first attempt made the article less clearly laid out. That said I still don't think having a whole section for only one opinion makes sense, though I do think Juneau school district superintendent Peggy Cowan's opinion is relevant. Anyone have any ideas on how to clean that up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.156.82.190 (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)