User:Hvstormpstcc/sandbox

Student Speech Morse v. Frederick (2007) supported the suspension of a student holding a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" at a school-supervised event which was not on school grounds.

Mla Citation: Joseph Blocher. “NONSENSE AND THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH: WHAT MEANING MEANS FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT.” Duke Law Journal, vol. 63, no. 7, 2014, pp. 1423–1481.

Pellissippi OneSearch identifiers for this source: ISSN: 0012-7086 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2209362 EISSN: 1939-9111 (these were the only identifiers)

Quote: "Consider Morse v. Frederick, (15) in which the Supreme Court upheld the suspension of a high school student who had unfurled a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" at an off-campus school function. (16) The Court conceded that the banner's purported message "is cryptic. It is no doubt offensive to some, perhaps amusing to others. To still others, it probably means nothing at all," (17) but concluded that the student's suspension was "consistent with the First Amendment" because the banner "was reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use."

Annotated Bibliography Blocher, Joseph. “Nonsense and the Freedom of Speech: What Meaning Means for the First Amendment.” SSRN Electronic Journal, Apr. 2014, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2209362. (wont let me use URL) This source is discussing in depth the concept of verbal nonsense. The author goes in depth on the definition and how to relates to us along with the first amendment. The article uses the court case Morse v. Frederick as an example because what the person wrote on the banner was complete nonsense, yet in a court of law was deemed not okay because of the setting he was in. I think it relates to diversity because freedom of speech should be allowed to everyone, even if its nonsense. Its different when its about terrorism or serious illegal activity, but this case and several other cases are denied there first amendment right because the courts didn’t like it. Yeomans, Georgina C. “WHEN COPS ARE ROBBERS: RECONCILING THE WHREN DOCTRINE AND 18 U.S.C. § 242.” Columbia Law Review, Columbia Law Review, 6 Apr. 2016 This article is very technical with a lot of jargin, but from my understanding its about how many law enforcement officers ignore or lie about their probable cause with people of color. This article in particular discusses that police officers may face criminal charges for these acts. The article shows there much debate on this topic because people of color are less cared for by society. I chose this for diversity because it goes in depth about how people of color aren’t treated correctly under the fourth amendment, which states that an officer must have probable cause to search unless they have a court order.