Youth Movements: Protest! Power! Progress? Supreme Court of the United States Morse v. Frederick (2007) Director: Eli Liebell-McLean Assistant Director: Lucas Sass
CJMUNC 2018 1 2018 Highland Park Model United Nations/Congress(HPMUNC). This document was created solely for the use of Central Jersey Model United Nations and Congress (CJMUNC) 2018. Other uses are not permitted without explicit permission from HPMUNC. Please contact us at hpmunc@gmail.com.
CJMUNC 2018 2 INDEX POLICY DILEMMA. 3 CHRONOLOGY. 3-5 ACTORS AND INTERESTS 5 PROJECTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 6 JUSTICE OPINIONS...6-7 GOALS OF COMMITTEE 7 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS.8 BIBLIOGRAPHY....9
CJMUNC 2018 3 Policy Dilemma Ever since the Bill of Rights was passed into law, freedom of speech has been an integral part of American political culture. However, there are situations where freedom of speech is limited. Such incidents include shouting fire in a crowded theatre or threatening to kill the president. Some of the most contentious restrictions on freedom of speech are found in our nation s public school system. As the Supreme Court of the United States, we will be discussing Morse v Frederick. Justices will determine whether or not Frederick s banner, stating bong hits 4 Jesus, is protected speech under the first amendment, or whether the school has the right to limit such speech because it encourages illicit behavior. The Court will also be assessing whether or not the school board s policy goes too far in general in terms of exercising control over student behavior. Chronology West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (West Virginia v. Barnette) West Virginia v. Barnette is a 1943 case that concerns the constitutionality of a daily mandatory salute to the U.S. Flag. Students Marie and Gathie Barnette were expelled for insubordination after refusing to salute the flag along with all the other students. In a 6-3 decision the Court ruled in favor of Barnette and held that such mandatory activities promoted the compulsory unification of opinion, and flew in the face of the spirit of the First Amendment. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (Tinker v. Des Moines) Tinker v. Des Moines is a landmark case in regards to free speech in public schools from 1968. Christopher Eckhardt, Mary Beth Tinker, and John Tinker planned a protest at their school against the Vietnam War. They planned to wear black armbands to school. The principal, after catching wind of the planned protest, issued an order that anyone found wearing an armband would be sent home. After being sent home because of their protest; the students sued the school through their parents on the grounds that their freedom of speech was being unconstitutionally restricted. The Court decided 7-2 in favor of Tinker; stating that students did not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. However, the Court did say that the school could suppress speech if and only if the activity in question would materially and substantially interfere with school operations. Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (Bethel v. Fraser) Bethel v. Fraser was a 1986 case where Bethel High School suspended Matthew Fraser for two days after he gave a speech that many observers believe was a graphic sexual metaphor. His suspension was given on the ground that his speech broke school policy which prohibited conduct that "substantially interferes with the educational process... including the use of
CJMUNC 2018 4 obscene, profane language or gestures." In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that it was appropriate for Bethel High School to censor vulgar and offensive speech. The court specified Tinker v. Des Moines did not protect Fraser s speech because Fraser s speech was not political speech. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier) Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier was a 1987 case in which The Spectrum--Hazelwood East High School's school newspaper--wished to publish two articles that the principal, Robert E. Reynold, deemed unfit for the paper. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other students sued the school on the grounds that refusing to publish those articles was a form of censorship that violated their constitutional rights to freedom of speech. The Court came to a 5-3 decision in favor of the school. They held that schools were allowed to refuse to sponsor speech that was inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order, and that there was no 1st amendment violation. Texas v. Johnson Texas v. Johnson is a 1989 case in which Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of the Dallas City Hall in order to protest Reagan administration policies. For his actions, he was arrested and sentenced to 1 year in jail and a $2,000 fine (about $4,900 adjusted for inflation). After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the flag-burning was protected under the 1st Amendment because it could be categorized as expressive conduct of a distinctively political nature. The Court held that if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Bong Hits 4 Jesus On January 24th, 2002, the Students of Juneau-Douglas High School, were let out of school to see the Olympic Torch Relay in Juneau, Alaska. At the event, Joseph Frederick--a senior at Juneau-Douglas High School--and some of his friends, unfurled a banner reading Bong Hits 4 Jesus. Soon after, Deborah Morse, the school principal told Frederick to put away the banner, her reasoning being that the contents of the banner could be interpreted to be advocating for the use of illicit drugs. After Frederick refused to comply with Morse s request, Morse grabbed the banner and crumpled it up. Following the incident, Frederick was given a 10-day suspension for displaying the sign and for acting rudely towards the principal and school staff after they confronted him. Procedure Frederick sued Juneau-Douglas High School on the grounds that the confiscation of his banner and his subsequent suspension were violations of his freedom of speech. The federal district court agreed with Morse, and said that Frederick s right to speech was not unfairly violated. Frederick appealed, and the 9th Circuit Court overturned the federal district court by
CJMUNC 2018 5 siding with Frederick. The 9th Circuit Court held that the school could not punish and censor non-disruptive, off-campus speech by students during school-authorized activities because the speech promotes a social message contrary to the one favored by the school. The Court maintained that this case was different from Bethel v. Fraser because the banner was not plainly offensive. The Court also maintained that this case was different from Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier because the school was not being compelled to endorse the message Bong Hits for Jesus. Morse appealed again and now it is the duty of the Supreme Court of the United States to determine the constitutionality of the matter. Actors and Interests Deborah Morse Morse s main argument is that this case is fundamentally about illegal drug use and discouraging the promotion of such illegal drug use. Morse posits that the banner went against school policy by promoting the use of illicit drugs. Since the banner was unfurled at a school-sponsored event, school speech doctrine still applied despite the banner not technically being on school grounds. Morse believes that the 9th Circuit Court s ruling might be problematic because it could compromise [the school district s] ability to send a consistent message against the use of illegal drugs. Morse Additionally, Morse holds that if the case is decided for Frederick, then teachers would lose significant power in schools since they wouldn t want to reprimand students for anything in fear of being sued for their actions. Morse also maintains that this case is different from Tinker v. Des Moines because Tinker v. Des Moines concerns standardless suppression of speech since there were no prior rules regarding black armbands. In this case, however, there was prior school policy against the advocacy of drug use. Therefore the suppression of the banner was not standardless. Joseph Frederick Frederick believes that this case is fundamentally about freedom of Speech. Frederick holds that the confiscation of his banner and his subsequent suspension are violations of his 1st Amendment rights. Frederick submits that school speech doctrine does not apply because he was not on school grounds when he unfurled the banner. Frederick also believes the classification of the event as school-sponsored is fallacious because the school did not require the students to be at the event. Additionally since Joseph did not attend school that morning, and did not intend on attending the rest of the day, he was there as a public citizen and not a student. Frederick also holds that he chose to go to the spot in front of the school not to see his friends, but because it was the only place where he knew the torch would be passing. According to Frederick, even if the speech did fall under school doctrine, it was protected under the precedent set by Tinker v Des Moines and falls under the exemptions set forth in Bethel v Fraser and H azelwood v Kuhlmeier because the speech was neither explicitly vulgar nor school-sponsored. Furthermore, Frederick holds that his prime motive in unfurling the banner
CJMUNC 2018 6 was to grab public attention by appearing on television. And that the message bong hits 4 Jesus was therefore not promoting the use of drugs but only used in order to seek attention. Projections and Implications The potential implications of this case are far reaching. If the Court decides that Morse was correct in her confiscation of the banner and subsequent suspension of Frederick, then this case will set a precedent for much more wide-reaching suppressions of freedom of speech in schools. If the Court rules in favor of Frederick, then schools might lose significant power when it comes to disciplining students. The importance of this case for the freedom of speech of students cannot be understated, and the outcome of this case decides how the future leaders of our country choose to express themselves and how they get things done. The Opinions of the Justices Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. Justice Roberts believes that it is important that schools be able to have some disciplinary power over their students, and that teachers are now afraid to reprimand students for fear of being sued. Justice John Paul Stevens Justice Stevens strongly believes that First Amendment rights need to be protected. Stevens presided over Bethel v. Fraser and was one of the two dissenting votes in favor of Fraser. He also presided over Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier and concurred in favor of Hazelwood. Justice Justice Antonin Scalia Justice Scalia is a constitutional purist, who believes in following the Constitution to the letter and is very anti-drug. Justice Scalia presided over Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier and concurred in favor of Hazelwood. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy Justice Kennedy has, for a long time, been the swing vote on the Supreme Court. In terms of this case, he could really go either way depending on how convinced he is by the lawyers and by his fellow justices. Justice David H. Souter Justice Souter strongly believes that political speech must be protected at all costs, and that students have as much of a right to freedom of speech as any adult. He also further agrees that freedom of speech is one of the most important American values. Justice Clarence Thomas
CJMUNC 2018 7 Justice Thomas is the most staunchly conservative justice on the Court. He makes his decisions based on old-fashioned values, based off of older historical precedents. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Ruth Bader Ginsburg has consistently voted liberally on the court since her confirmation. She believes strongly in protecting the First Amendment for all people. Justice Stephen G. Breyer Justice Breyer believes strongly in the importance of free speech and cares about whether or not the location of where the banner was unfurled counted as taking place on school grounds. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Justice Alito is in strong protector of political speech. He also strongly opposes the use of drugs and believes that school policy against drugs is completely reasonable. Goals for Committee During committee each justice should able to accurately portray their justices based on their passed rulings and political ideology. It is expected that each justice carefully examines the precedent outlined in this brief, and will be able to use that precedent to inform their decisions. Every justice should critically examine the case and come to a solution that takes into account both sides of the argument. More importantly than the outcome of the case, however, is that, in the process of deciding on a solution, there is cooperation between justices. Even if justices are of different points of view, it is of utmost importance that committee sessions stay civil and have intelligent discourse.
CJMUNC 2018 8 Discussion Questions: 1. How can the Court define political speech? Should the bong hits 4 jesus banner be protected as political speech? Why or why not? 2. If the banner is not considered political speech, what would it have to say in order for it to be political? 3. If the banner were political speech, what would have to be on it for it to no longer qualify? 4. Is the banner disruptive? If so, what would have to be different for it not to be disruptive? And if not, what changes would have to be made to the scenario for it to be disruptive? 5. Should the intent of the speaker matter when defining political speech? 6. Should the school be allowed to have policy that restricts the advocacy for illegal drugs?
CJMUNC 2018 9 Bibliography "Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser." Oyez, 26 Apr. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1667. "'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case limits student rights - CNN.com." 26 Jun. 2007, http://www.cnn.com/2007/law/06/25/free.speech/. Accessed 26 Apr. 2018. "Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier." Oyez, 26 Apr. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-836. "Texas v. Johnson." Oyez, 26 Apr. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/1988/88-155. "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District." Oyez, 26 Apr. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21. "Morse v. Frederick." Oyez, 26 Apr. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-278. "Morse v. Frederick, :: 551 U.S. 393 (2007) :: Justia US Supreme Court..." 25 Jun. 2007, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/551/393/. Accessed 5 May. 2018. "Morse v. Frederick - National Coalition Against Censorship." 26 Apr. 2007, http://ncac.org/censorship-news-articles/morse-v-frederick. Accessed 26 Apr. 2018. "West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette." Oyez, 26 Apr. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624. "Facts and Case Summary - Morse v. Frederick United States Courts." http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-sum mary-morse-v-frederick. Accessed 26 Apr. 2018.