Supreme courts whizzes on the first amendment

[santo=dorf]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_...wtzrc2t6lms0NUE

 

Frederick said his banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended it to proclaim his right to say anything at all.

 

Frederick displayed his handiwork on a winter morning as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

 

School principal Deborah Morse said the phrase was a pro-drug message. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use and brought a federal civil rights lawsuit.

 

Former independent counsel Ken Starr, whose law firm represented the school principal, called it a narrow ruling that "should not be read more broadly."

 

Taking issue with that, Steven R. Shapiro, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said, "It is difficult to know what its impact will be in other cases involving unpopular speech."

 

The Students for Sensible Drug Policy said it was sad that the court thought there should be a drug exception to the First Amendment.

[StrangeSox]

Can't say that I agree with the tag line of this thread. Here's a nice summary by a lawyer friend of mine:

 

"I like the Supreme Court's decision. I like the reasoning, and how it was explained, and it is entirely consistent with what I described. Here is my cliff's note summary.

 

1. The school had a rule that prohibited students from advocating illegal acts.

 

2. The rule was a permissible "content-neutral" restriction designed to promote order at schools, and the rules were adopted and in place long before the event occurred.

 

3. The rules were, by their own terms, applicable to the event, and again, this was adopted and in place long before the event occurred.

 

4. The conclusion that the student violated the permissible "content-neutral" restriction was reasonable.

 

5. Appeal denied.

 

My point is that it doesn't really matter what the kid was talking about, if the rule was permissible (and I think it was), and he violated the rule (I think he did), the school has not abridged his right of free speech by taking the sign and punishing him. This result is appropriate regardless of whether the kid was a punk or a star, and whether he was saying bong hits for jesus or let's all lie down in the road to protest Bush: the intent and content of his message are irrelevant. the only thing that matters is whether the rule was permissible, and whether he broke that rule."

 

 

In other words, he wasn't punished for his message, but because of the disruption. What he actually said had no bearing on the case, so it did not restric his freedom of speech.

[knightni]

What about if it was "Baby Rapers 4 Jesus"?

 

Would that change things at all?

[Gene Honda Civic]

What about if it was "Baby Rapers 4 Jesus"?

 

Would that change things at all?

That baby was asking for it. Did you see what she was wearing?

[whitesoxfan101]

That baby was asking for it. Did you see what she was wearing?

 

DAMNIT you beat me to the punch Cheat.

[Jenksismyhero]

Can't say that I agree with the tag line of this thread. Here's a nice summary by a lawyer friend of mine:

 

"I like the Supreme Court's decision. I like the reasoning, and how it was explained, and it is entirely consistent with what I described. Here is my cliff's note summary.

 

1. The school had a rule that prohibited students from advocating illegal acts.

 

2. The rule was a permissible "content-neutral" restriction designed to promote order at schools, and the rules were adopted and in place long before the event occurred.

 

3. The rules were, by their own terms, applicable to the event, and again, this was adopted and in place long before the event occurred.

 

4. The conclusion that the student violated the permissible "content-neutral" restriction was reasonable.

 

5. Appeal denied.

 

My point is that it doesn't really matter what the kid was talking about, if the rule was permissible (and I think it was), and he violated the rule (I think he did), the school has not abridged his right of free speech by taking the sign and punishing him. This result is appropriate regardless of whether the kid was a punk or a star, and whether he was saying bong hits for jesus or let's all lie down in the road to protest Bush: the intent and content of his message are irrelevant. the only thing that matters is whether the rule was permissible, and whether he broke that rule."

In other words, he wasn't punished for his message, but because of the disruption. What he actually said had no bearing on the case, so it did not restric his freedom of speech.

 

 

I disagree completely. (a) it doesn't matter that the rule existed prior to this event. If it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. (B) I agree it was a content-neutral restriction, but the applicability to his sign is simply wrong IMO. The court said:

 

"The Court agrees with Morse that those who viewed the banner would interpret it as advocating or promoting illegal drug use, in violation of school policy. At least two interpretations of the banner’s words—that they constitute an imperative encouraging viewers tosmoke marijuana or, alternatively, that they celebrate drug use—demonstrate that the sign promoted such use. This pro-drug interpretation gains further plausibility from the paucity of of alternative meanings the banner might bear."

 

This is one of those situations I've seen time and time again in studying constitutional law: the Court is old and not with the current times. If you polled the school this kid was at, I'm willing to bet 80% of them (at least) would have read the sign and saw it as a joke. It was to get a rise out of people and make them laugh. It was to get attention in front of an otherwise ignored crowd. The words themselves don't even express opinion. Nor do they advocate action.

 

I couldn't agree more with Justice Stevens on this point:

 

"the school’s interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech “reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use,” cannot justifymdisciplining 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."

 

The fact that it's even arguable if the speech advocated drug use is strong evidence that it should be protected speech. Free Speech rights, following judicial precedent, have always been against restricting speech at all costs. Here it's clear the Court simply said "what? it mentions a bong, ok well, that can't be tolerated."

 

 

Edit: Forgot to add the link to the decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf

Edited June 26, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[GoSox05]

Gotta love Kenneth Star, always getting in the middle, trying to further his career.

 

f*** school, f*** school, f*** my high school - The Replacements

[Soxbadger]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...placemanner.htm

 

Well hell this is the 3rd time ive treid to type this message but my browser keeps failing and losing the message.

 

Basically, I disagree in principal, but I agree with the ruling based on the previous law. The Court has consistently held that the First Amendment does not allow any speech, all speech, or to do whatever you want. As long as the restriction is neutral and is applied across the board, a school, govt facility, etc can regulate the time, place, and manner of the speech. In this case it was a school sponsored event, during school hours, which basically means that is the equivalent of being at school.

 

In HS I could not even wear a shirt with paraphenilia or alcohol on it, so this is basically the same thing. Im not sure how he “legally” thought he could get away with it, because even if he painted a flag with a huge marijuana leaf, the school still could restrict it for a variety of reasons.

 

And I don’t think that it will change as the Judges are replaced by newer ones, because even the most liberal attorneys, like myself, understand that the First Amendment was not originally intended to allow anyone to say anything at any time. And while it would be nice to allow that in society, the costs are outweighed by the practicality of allowing everyone to say or do what they want.

 

Hence, Im not even really sure how it wasn’t even more lopsided.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

I dont think the argument (for me) is that the rule is unconstitutional, it's that it doesn't apply in this situation. To equate 'bong hits 4 jesus' as an advocation for drug use is ridiculous. I might as well come to school with a red shirt on that says 'say yes' and be suspended for advocating murder.

 

Obviously there's a connection between a bong and pot. But its funny that they make this connection, with no reference whatsoever to drugs on the sign, even though bongs are legally bought and sold for tobacco purposes...an issue that has been litigated in just about every state I would imagine and which the court system has upheld as an acceptable use. So if there is no clear reference to drug use and if the courts have already stated there is a non-drug use for a bong, then how is the meaning of the phrase 'bong hits 4 jesus' so crystal clear?

 

As I said before, the mere fact that there's even an argument whether this advocates drug use is exactly why this should not be restricted.

[santo=dorf]

Could've been a beer bong!

[Chet Lemon]

Anyone read Clarence Thomas's Concurrence? Not even Scalia would sign on to it. I used to think Thomas was unfairly critcized by scholars when they would rip him for not asking questions during oral arguments, etc. I think based on his opinions, he is arguably the worst justice in recent history.

[EvilMonkey]

Anyone read Clarence Thomas's Concurrence? Not even Scalia would sign on to it. I used to think Thomas was unfairly critcized by scholars when they would rip him for not asking questions during oral arguments, etc. I think based on his opinions, he is arguably the worst justice in recent history.

And what did you find so objectionable about his opinion?

 

In my skimming his concurrence, he is just saying that he thnks Tinker was an invented right, and should not even have been relevent in the decision. He joins the decision but has reservations because it merely adds to the group of 'exceptions' to Tinker, instead of just getting rid of Tinker altogether.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Alpha Dog

[Chet Lemon]

So Clarence Thomas just wants to overrule Tinker? No big deal, haha.

 

"The better approach is to dispense with Tinker altogether, and given the opportunity, I would."

 

He wants a time when "Teachers commanded, and students obeyed. Teachers did not rely solely on the power of ideas to persuade; they relied on discipline to maintain order. Schools punished students for behavior the school considered disrespectful or wrong."

 

Under those circumstances, students would become subserviant to virtually anyone employed by the schools. Imagine if students were suspended for challenging a teacher who believed that President Bush is a war criminal because their in-class challenges endangered "order" and were viewed as "disrespectful." It is not one-sided.

 

I don't agree and thankfully neither did a single other justice.

[EvilMonkey]

So Clarence Thomas just wants to overrule Tinker? No big deal, haha.

 

"The better approach is to dispense with Tinker altogether, and given the opportunity, I would."

 

He wants a time when "Teachers commanded, and students obeyed. Teachers did not rely solely on the power of ideas to persuade; they relied on discipline to maintain order. Schools punished students for behavior the school considered disrespectful or wrong."

 

Under those circumstances, students would become subserviant to virtually anyone employed by the schools. Imagine if students were suspended for challenging a teacher who believed that President Bush is a war criminal because their in-class challenges endangered "order" and were viewed as "disrespectful." It is not one-sided.

 

I don't agree and thankfully neither did a single other justice.

Depending on how the whiny little brat did it, it would be disrespectful. Why do you think many inner city schools are such s***holes? There is no respect for the teachers and the kids know that teachers are powerless. Thomas also noted that in parentus locus, or however you spell that, still applied which limited the scope of teachers powers, but not to the degree that Tinker did. So, based on your love of Tinker, you think Thomas is the worst justice in recent history? How about those that decided it was ok for the government to take private property from cictizens and turn it over to developers, just because it could generate a larger tax base? Wouldn't that be a worse decision? Are there any other Thomas 'missteps' that are stuck in your craw? Or are you just a flaming liberal on a conservative witch hunt? Do you equate Bush with Hitler?

 

As for no other justice agreeing with him, by issuing the verdict they did, in a way they agree with him. They simply created another 'exception' to Tinker, of which there are many. If the exceptions continue, it will be moot because the decision would have been rendered useless by all the exceptions.

Edited June 27, 2007 by Alpha Dog

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

Go to any store on Belmont, etc and ask for a "bong". They will politely tell you that they are "water pipes" and not to call them bongs.

 

Why?

 

Because you cant call them bongs. It is illegal to sell drug paraphenilia, bongs are that.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bong

 

Notice how there is not one mention of tobacco.

 

A "bong hit" is a very specific term, it means packing up a fat bowl and getting blazed. It does not mean smoking tobacco.

 

Im sorry, but I do not think I have ever seen some one use a bong for tobacco, it makes me laugh just to think of how terrible that would be.

 

Anyway, I would argue in the alternative, that even if he was advocating hitting bongs of tobacco, (i hope atleast vanilla flavored or something exotic not just drum), it still should not be protected because I dont think students should be advocating tobacco use either.

 

My stance is more along the lines that cigs are worse than marijuana, so Id be more inclined to rule against if that truly was his argument. Atleast if he argued that he was making a political stance about the legalization of marijuana and how the US govt has gained the right over time to restrict what a person can consume. Or maybe even that marijuana should be reevaluated compared to alcohol and tobacco, the 2 legal drugs, and why the US govt has treated one so differently than the other.

 

But he wasnt doing that. He wasnt making a political statement, something that should be protected. He was trying to get attention and be a jackass.

 

I guess I dont think that jackassery is a constitutionally protected speech.

 

I love being a dissident just as much as the next, but when you do the crime, just pay the time. Can anyone honestly say that they would go to school unviel a similar sign and not think their would be some consequences if they were caught?

 

At some point the law cant just be theoretical ideas, it has to be practical.

[GoSox05]

Jenks,

 

Go to any store on Belmont, etc and ask for a "bong". They will politely tell you that they are "water pipes" and not to call them bongs.

 

Why?

 

Because you cant call them bongs. It is illegal to sell drug paraphenilia, bongs are that.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bong

 

Notice how there is not one mention of tobacco.

 

A "bong hit" is a very specific term, it means packing up a fat bowl and getting blazed. It does not mean smoking tobacco.

 

Im sorry, but I do not think I have ever seen some one use a bong for tobacco, it makes me laugh just to think of how terrible that would be.

 

Anyway, I would argue in the alternative, that even if he was advocating hitting bongs of tobacco, (i hope atleast vanilla flavored or something exotic not just drum), it still should not be protected because I dont think students should be advocating tobacco use either.

 

My stance is more along the lines that cigs are worse than marijuana, so Id be more inclined to rule against if that truly was his argument. Atleast if he argued that he was making a political stance about the legalization of marijuana and how the US govt has gained the right over time to restrict what a person can consume. Or maybe even that marijuana should be reevaluated compared to alcohol and tobacco, the 2 legal drugs, and why the US govt has treated one so differently than the other.

 

But he wasnt doing that. He wasnt making a political statement, something that should be protected. He was trying to get attention and be a jackass.

 

I guess I dont think that jackassery is a constitutionally protected speech.

 

I love being a dissident just as much as the next, but when you do the crime, just pay the time. Can anyone honestly say that they would go to school unviel a similar sign and not think their would be some consequences if they were caught?

 

At some point the law cant just be theoretical ideas, it has to be practical.

 

 

The word "bong" is an adaptation of Thai baung. Which is the Thai name for waterpipe.

 

When you use the word bong hit. Its the process of smoking out of a bong. More people in this world use bongs for tobacco than they do marijuana.

 

So these people are assuming he is talking about drugs. They brought the whole issue of drugs up, the kid didnt.

[NorthSideSox72]

The word "bong" is an adaptation of Thai baung. Which is the Thai name for waterpipe.

 

When you use the word bong hit. Its the process of smoking out of a bong. More people in this world use bongs for tobacco than they do marijuana.

 

So these people are assuming he is talking about drugs. They brought the whole issue of drugs up, the kid didnt.

A bit literalist, no?

[Mplssoxfan]

I guess I dont think that jackassery is a constitutionally protected speech.

 

While I agree that the kid was just trying to draw attention to himself and wasn't being overtly political, I have problems with this line of reasoning.

 

My sister was a nanny for a couple of families in DC in the late 70's-early 80's. One of the kids she nannied got a job as a bike messenger. One day (mid 80's) he was wearing a t-shirt that read, "Experts agree: Meese is a pig!" Sure enough, he had to bring a packet of documents to the Department of Justice, a delivery that he needed a signature for. The guards at the door wouldn't let him in.

 

Is the statement on the t-shirt jackassery or political? If the kid in Alaska had held up a banner that said, "Bong hits for Ted Stevens!", would that be jackassery or political?

 

The more exceptions we carve out of the Bill of Rights, the leerier I get of Government.

[Soxbadger]

We dont live in "the world", we live in "the United States".

 

You can ask 100 people on the street what they think the term "Bong hit" means, and I would be shocked if less than 75% did not associate it with marijuana.

 

It really doesnt matter if the word comes from latin, thai, or anything else the fact of the matter is, in the United States, BONGS are illegal.

 

If you haven't ever purchased a bong, (Figure 3.1) listen carefully 3 - Bong Etiquette: bongs are illegal! What head shops carry are called "water pipes," or sometimes, "incense burners." Use the appropriate terminology or you may get the boot. (And don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.)

 

http://www.smokingwithstyle.com/bongetiquette.htm

 

I honestly dont know how some one could argue otherwise, like I said, go to any head shop in Illinois and ask for a Bong as compared to a water pipe.

 

Innocence may be bliss, but ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

Chapter 720. Criminal Offenses

Offenses Against The Public

Act 600. Drug Paraphernalia Control Act (Refs & Annos)

 

(d) "Drug paraphernalia" means all equipment, products and materials of any kind, other than methamphetamine manufacturing materials as defined in Section 10 of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act, which are intended to be used unlawfully in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body cannabis or a controlled substance in violation of the Cannabis Control Act, [FN3] the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, [FN4] or the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act. It includes, but is not limited to:

 

(5) objects intended to be used unlawfully in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis, cocaine, hashish, or hashish oil into the human body including, where applicable, the following items:

(A) water pipes;

(B) carburetion tubes and devices;

© smoking and carburetion masks;

(D) miniature cocaine spoons and cocaine vials;

(E) carburetor pipes;

(F) electric pipes;

(G) air-driven pipes;

(H) chillums;

(I) bongs;

(J) ice pipes or chillers;

 

 

As you can see bong and water pipe are explicitly listed as drug related. Now there are exemptions in 720 ilcs 600/4 but they are limited to tobacco pipes and other items related to the use of tobacco.

 

Now this just brings back the argument that a “bong” can be used for tobacco. And while that is true, I just cant but that argument. I have seen bongs used thousands of times, and I can count less than a handful where it was used for tobacco alone. Just based on my one life, and what I know to be true, I cant buy such a fake argument.

 

And I doubt anyone will come in here and tell of their story how they have a nice bong at home and only use it for tobacco. Because isn’t that the only argument that would pass muster, that these bongs are sold for tobacco use only, not that tobacco use may be incidental to the fact it is primarily used for marijuana?

 

So once again, you can argue irrelevant facts about where the word came from, or what it literally means, but the reality is that bongs are used for a single purpose, and that is getting blazed.

[Soxbadger]

Mplss,

 

It is two completely different cases. One is about a student during school activities, another is about the govt regulating speech completely. I would think the court would have come to a different conclusion.

 

The case at hand was specifically about a student who was doing an activity during a school sponsored function. I would expect that I could wear my “don’t worry get stoned” shirt at the Daley Center, or any other govt building and there really is nothing they could do. On the other hand if I was 17 and in HS, I would expect to get atleast a detention if not more, for wearing the exact same article of clothing.

 

Students just do not have the same rights to say whatever they want during school hours and school functions, as they do outside of school.

 

For example, if this was on a Saturday, and was in no way shape or form connected to the school, I would be absolutely outraged by the decision.

[Jenksismyhero]

Now this just brings back the argument that a “bong” can be used for tobacco. And while that is true, I just cant but that argument. I have seen bongs used thousands of times, and I can count less than a handful where it was used for tobacco alone. Just based on my one life, and what I know to be true, I cant buy such a fake argument.

 

So once again, you can argue irrelevant facts about where the word came from, or what it literally means, but the reality is that bongs are used for a single purpose, and that is getting blazed.

 

So would the single purpose be tobacco use which you've admitted to have seen 'less than a handful' of times or for pot, which you've seen 'thousands of times?' I fail to see how bongs are used for a 'single' purpose when you yourself have witnessed them being used in two different ways.

 

Let's put aside the argument that it refers to pot. The crux of the analysis should have been whether the sign, with the assumption 'bong hit' referred to pot, was advocated drug use. Just like we all know that 'bong' 99.9% of the time is referring to pot, we all know the answer to that is no, it didn't, and it never would. This was a horrible opinion by the Court as the most important issue (the interpretation of whether his actions violated the rule) was the shortest section. They essentially said 'uh, yeah if you can show us that whatever the banner said referred in any way possible to drugs, we'll say that it's advocating drug use."

[Mplssoxfan]

SoxBadger and Jenksismyb****,

 

You two obviously have better knowledge of Con Law than I do, since you've been to Law School and the only Bar exam I've ever passed involved booze.

 

I guess I still don't know (and no one does, really) what would have happened if the sign had said "Bong Hits for Ted Stevens!". Maybe some accomplished student should try something along those lines, just to humor me.

[GoSox05]

We dont live in "the world", we live in "the United States".

 

You can ask 100 people on the street what they think the term "Bong hit" means, and I would be shocked if less than 75% did not associate it with marijuana.

 

It really doesnt matter if the word comes from latin, thai, or anything else the fact of the matter is, in the United States, BONGS are illegal.

http://www.smokingwithstyle.com/bongetiquette.htm

 

I honestly dont know how some one could argue otherwise, like I said, go to any head shop in Illinois and ask for a Bong as compared to a water pipe.

 

Innocence may be bliss, but ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

Chapter 720. Criminal Offenses

Offenses Against The Public

Act 600. Drug Paraphernalia Control Act (Refs & Annos)

 

(d) "Drug paraphernalia" means all equipment, products and materials of any kind, other than methamphetamine manufacturing materials as defined in Section 10 of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act, which are intended to be used unlawfully in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body cannabis or a controlled substance in violation of the Cannabis Control Act, [FN3] the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, [FN4] or the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act. It includes, but is not limited to:

 

(5) objects intended to be used unlawfully in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis, cocaine, hashish, or hashish oil into the human body including, where applicable, the following items:

(A) water pipes;

(B) carburetion tubes and devices;

© smoking and carburetion masks;

(D) miniature cocaine spoons and cocaine vials;

(E) carburetor pipes;

(F) electric pipes;

(G) air-driven pipes;

(H) chillums;

(I) bongs;

(J) ice pipes or chillers;

As you can see bong and water pipe are explicitly listed as drug related. Now there are exemptions in 720 ilcs 600/4 but they are limited to tobacco pipes and other items related to the use of tobacco.

 

Now this just brings back the argument that a “bong” can be used for tobacco. And while that is true, I just cant but that argument. I have seen bongs used thousands of times, and I can count less than a handful where it was used for tobacco alone. Just based on my one life, and what I know to be true, I cant buy such a fake argument.

 

And I doubt anyone will come in here and tell of their story how they have a nice bong at home and only use it for tobacco. Because isn’t that the only argument that would pass muster, that these bongs are sold for tobacco use only, not that tobacco use may be incidental to the fact it is primarily used for marijuana?

 

So once again, you can argue irrelevant facts about where the word came from, or what it literally means, but the reality is that bongs are used for a single purpose, and that is getting blazed.

 

 

you are right about "bongs" being ilegal. Which brings another question up. Has America decided that the word "bong" is ilegal.

 

How is that free speech.

[Jenksismyhero]

SoxBadger and Jenksismyb****,

 

You two obviously have better knowledge of Con Law than I do, since you've been to Law School and the only Bar exam I've ever passed involved booze.

 

I guess I still don't know (and no one does, really) what would have happened if the sign had said "Bong Hits for Ted Stevens!". Maybe some accomplished student should try something along those lines, just to humor me.

 

 

By the Courts ruling it doesn't matter. The speech involved a reference (however vague) to drugs, and the advocation of drugs is in direct violation of a content-neutral rule that the Court had no problem with.

 

They leave a small window open by saying this was in no way political speech. So, perhaps, if he had held up a sign that sad "Bong hits 4 Bush," then maybe it would have been protected.

[Soxbadger]

The question thus becomes whether a principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. We hold that she may

 

This is a very narrow ruling and I think it is entirely consistent with previous law. This wasn’t a kid on the street holding a sign, it was a kid at a school sponsored event. So I do not see anyone arguing that a student should be allowed to wear whatever they want to school, and I think that is actually not a bad thing.

 

IE:

 

I can wear nazi regalia in public, but I could probably not wear a nazi uniform to school.

 

I can wear a shirt that said “F N***ers” on the street, but I would undoubtedly not be allowed to wear it in school.

 

These are the same type of freedom of expression restrictions as the case at hand, and while some may be pro-legalization of marijuana (I am) it does not change the fact that at this time it is illegal. In fact I do not think that even if it was for tobacco smoking that the court would have reached a very different opinion, tobacco is illegal for children under 18, they cant buy bongs, water pipes, or even cigs, so why should they be allowed to come into school and promote its use?

 

I do not think any variation of the sign would change things, as I said my HS had a 0 tolerance policy in terms of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. Any sign, reference, to such would be met with severe and harsh repercussions. Im not exactly sure why a student would not expect such a policy, although if this kid was seriously involved in some sort of debate about the merits of marijuana legalization, then Im sure this case would have turned out completely different.

 

But saying something just to say it, is not protected speech, and never will be. There has to be a point to what you are saying, and it has to be at an appropriate time and place.