Supreme Court Cases dealing with Freedom of Speech
J.S. v. Bethlehem School District (2000)
About 12 years after Fraser's loss, a middle school student in Pennsylvania shared with the world his hatred for an algebra teacher. Fourteen-year-old Justin Swidler made a website from his home computer that vilified his teacher. His comments even threatened the teacher. Justin listed reasons she should die and included a picture of her bloodied head. The teacher was so upset that she applied for medical leave. The school board decided to expel Justin. Their reasons included the distress he caused the teacher as well as the whole school community. Justin defended himself by saying the site was not a real threat, just an exaggeration of how he felt. Even though Justin did not make the website at school, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania supported the school board in its 2002 ruling. It said that expelling him did not violate his First Amendment rights. The court's main reason was that "the website created disorder and significantly adversely impacted the delivery of instruction." The lesson here is, students beware—you can be held accountable for what you say or write about people at your school no matter where you say it.
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Three students in Des Moines, Iowa, received school suspensions in 1965 for refusing to remove black armbands they were wearing. They wore the armbands to protest the war effort in Vietnam. John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, and Chris Eckhart, along with their parents, sued the school district. They claimed that the suspensions were unjustified, that mandating the removal of the armbands was a violation of their First Amendment rights. The school district argued that the students' actions were a disruption. The Supreme Court set a landmark precedent on student speech by ruling on this case. It said that students and teachers do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." In other words, it ruled that students do enjoy First Amendment rights while in school. Yet it did not say this right was without limits. Since a school must maintain order to ensure a proper learning environment, student speech must not disrupt learning activities, school events, or others' rights. Ruling for the Tinkers, the Supreme Court determined that the armbands had not caused a significant disruption to the schools. The armbands were a form of symbolic speech and the students did nothing other than wear them while attending school. Future disputes related to student speech would be judged using the "Tinker test," meaning that a court would have to determine whether the action or speech disrupted the learning environment of the school.
Morse v. Frederick (2006)
Four years after the Swidler case, the US Supreme Court considered another student speech case. In 2002, Joseph Frederick was an 18-year-old senior. He attended the Olympic torch relay with other students and staff from his high school in Alaska. He held a banner that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," which earned him a suspension from school. The Supreme Court ruled that schools could limit student speech that seems to support illegal drug use. The ruling also said that the Tinker test would not always be applied, as the rights of public school students are not as extensive as those of adults. Frederick's message could easily be interpreted as promoting illegal drug use. This directly contradicted the school's mission to discourage drug use.
Bethel v. Fraser (1986)
The Tinker test was applied to the case of Matthew Fraser nearly 20 years later. Fraser was a senior at Bethel High School in Tacoma, Washington. The 17-year-old student gave a speech at school that many found inappropriate and offensive. This time, the Supreme Court ruled against the student, supporting the school's choice to suspend Fraser. In its ruling, the Court said, "it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse." In other words, a school has a right to make and enforce rules about what language is acceptable by and for its students.
