“ The remaining three justices, represented by Justice Stevens, dissented against the ruling: [T]he school’s interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech, reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use… cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs. The First Amendment demands more, indeed, much more…. …In my judgment, the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students. This nonsense banner does neither, and the Court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding-indeed, lauding-a school’s decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed.
Comments (View)
Vergil's Coffee Tumblr
A scrapbooking of stuff
June 25, 2007
