Student Free Speech Rights
Guiles v. Marineau
Conclusion Of The Case
In late 2006, the Williamstown School Distirct asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Second Circuit Court. The right to an appeal before the Supreme Court is not automatic. The Supreme Court must agree to hear your case (this is called “granting certiorari,” or “cert” for short). Very few such requests are granted. Appeals are usually reserved for cases raising issues that the Supreme Court thinks are important to resolve, and cases where the different circuit courts across the country may have issued conflicting rulings.
The Supreme Court considered taking up the Guiles case on appeal, but in the end, it didn't. Instead, it held on to the case for nearly six months until another student free speech case, Morse v. Frederick, was decided.
The Morse v. Frederick case came to be known informally as the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case. It involved a high school student in Alaska who held a banner with that slogan while he and schoolmates were watching the Olympic torch pass near their school. The school principal tore down the banner and suspended the student for, supposedly, advocating the use of illegal drugs.
In June 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Morse v. Frederick. The court said the school could censor the banner and suspend the student. However, the court said, this censorship authority is very narrow. It applies only to pro-drug messages students may make. It does not apply to so-called "political speech" -- messages about politics and public affairs.
With Morse v. Frederick decided on those narrow grounds, the court denied review of the Guiles v. Marineau case -- essentially saying the message (words and images) on Zach Guiles' T-shirt was political speech and therefore protected from school censorship.
By denying review of the case, the Supreme Court let the Second Circuit Court’s decision “stand.” This was an important action, for the Guiles case now becomes a guide for similar cases that may be brought in the future.
In news stories that appeared after the Second Circuit Court’s decision, some school administrators were disappointed with the ruling. They said it would make their jobs more complicated. One suggested the decision could limit the ability of schools to maintain a safe and nondisruptive environment (even though the Second Circuit judges took pains to say that under the Tinker ruling administrators can prohibit speech that disrupts the school environment or deprives other students of their right to learn).
If school administrators’ jobs are more difficult because of the judges’ decision, it is because the exercise of free speech rights is often not easy or comfortable. Speech that we don’t like or agree with can be inconvenient. These are not reasons, however, for a school to take away a student’s right to express his or her viewpoints.
We think that both administrators and students should be grateful to the Second Circuit Court judges for issuing an opinion that analyzes and states clearly the limits of student free speech rights, and the limits of schools to control student speech. If anything, the judges’ decision clears up areas that before had been murky.
School administrators who read the judges’ opinion should find their jobs less complicated. And students who read the judges’ opinion may realize the power – and responsibility – of speech rights, especially in everyday interactions with other students and with adults helping them learn and grow as informed citizens of our democracy.
(Read the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)
(Read the U.S. Supreme Court case, Morse v. Frederick)
Read more:
Back to Issues main page
|
