Student free speech rights and the Morse v. Frederick case

Students' Right to Free Speech

The right of student to free speech is a matter that has been debated over years. Where many people claim that students, just like any other group of people, have the right of free speech, others claim that students should know where their limits end. Therefore, at many schools, colleges and universities, the students are provided with a code of conduct that they have to follow. This code of conduct defines rules of speech for the students; to tell them where they have to start speaking and where they should end. These codes have also been controversial in some places.

The right of free speech can be highlighted from the fact that the distinguishing feature between human beings and other creatures is speech. By the freedom of speech, one does not only mean to speak what one feels like speaking, but it means to express one's knowledge and to show one's desire for knowledge and learning. This is the reason why the Supreme Court of the United States of America has formed a distinct body of case law that is related to the right of students to freedom of expression and speech. These rights for students were devised under the First Amendment.

Morse V. Frederick case is particularly significant when it comes to the rights of students. The background of this case is such that an 18-year-old boy named Joseph Frederick was suspended by his school principal called Deborah Morse in 2002. He was suspended after he was seen displaying a banner that read "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" at the time of the Olympic Torch Relay of 2002 (Mears, 2007). As a result of this, Morse was sued by Frederick because the former claimed that the principal violated his rights to free speech provided to him by the constitution. The case, after getting dismissed, was won by Fredrick.

Morse V. Fredrick

This case holds significance since it diverts one's attention towards the provision of right of freedom to the students. After Fredrick put up the banner across the street of his school, he was suspended by his principal. As a result, he sued his principal. However, Roberts (Chief Justice) who wrote for the majority stated that the First Amendment was not violated by the school administration.

Legal determinations were made by the Chief Justice to conclude that Fredrick's rights were not violated. The first one was that the doctrine of "school speech" was applicable in this case because the banner that was put up by Fredrick was done "at a school event." Secondly, what banner read "clearly promoted the illegal use of drugs" and thirdly the principal had the right to restrict the speech of the students legally.

Initially, the Chief Justice gave the ruling that the court should look into Fredrick's speech in the light of relatively staunch policy of "school speech," which was a rejection of Fredrick's demand to consider his case in the supervision of the ordinary free-speech jurisprudence. Later on, Roberts also claimed that even though there was doubt in ascertaining the boundaries of the school, the superintendent agreed with him that Fredrick cannot deny his presence at school when he carries out a certain activity during school timings with his school friends.

There were some groups that supported Fredrick in this case, whereas the others considered the principal right. The organizations that stood by Fredrick's side included some Christian right groups, Rutherford Institute and American Center for Law and Justice. The reason why the Christians groups supported Fredrick was that they had their reservations about the prohibition of religious speech with which the school administration might disagree and consider "offensive."

On the other hand, the groups that supported the principal Morse along with the Juneau school district include the National Schools Boards Association. They put forth the argument that it is the duty of the school administration to regulate any kind of controversial speech (Biskupic, 2007). Moreover the Solicitor General of U.S., Paul Clement also supported the decision of the school administration and demanded the prohibition of controversial speech at school.

Counter Argument

Most of us agree that students should be given the right to free speech, but some of us have our reservations. This is because of the negative consequences of freedom of speech. Therefore, it is very important for school administration as well as the parents of the students to regulate the speech of the students in a way that it benefits all. Sometimes, freedom of speech can lead to harassment. For example, if the students have no restriction as to whatever they want to say, they might end up hurting their colleagues. The minorities and the oppressed groups particularly become the target of this harassment in which case free speech only promotes social injustice.

High school students tend to misuse their right to freedom of speech to bully their fellows, which can lead to destructive behavior of the one who is being bullied. Also, in a classroom setting, when students get involved in extraneous conversations, they are to be stopped by the teacher and this act should not be considered a violation of their right to free speech.

Conclusion

Keeping in mind the aftermath of the Morse V. Fredrick case, the school administrations need to be very careful when dealing with the students pertaining to their speech and expression of feelings. In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court of America was not able to come up with a solution for all the problems. Fredrick had claimed that his right of speech was violated by the principal under the Constitution of Alaska. He also filed an appeal before the Alaska Court of Appeals in September 2008 (Morrison, 2008). Nonetheless, the administration of his school decided that they should settle this matter outside the court, which was done in November of the same year. The school district paid a compensation of $45,000 to Fredrick.

Therefore, the teachers and as well as the students should be given a document that should contain all the responsibilities of the students and teachers to avoid such a situation from taking place. Students should know where their limits start and where they end, particularly when they are in the school or with their school friends.

This is important because if the rules are not defined, then violation of the students' right to free speech can have social consequences, meanwhile the misuse of these rights can also do harm to the society and the upbringing of children. It should be considered a combined responsibility and the students and teachers need to work for it together so that the process of education is not hindered by such issues as the one discussed in this paper.