Morse v. Frederick

 

Morse v. Frederick

This case was presented on December 1, 2006. This concerned a school and a banner that was placed up by a student. It was argued on March 19, 2007, and finally decided on June 25th, 2007.

    The court case came about when Frederick held up a sign at a school-hosted event that said, 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus'. Bong refers to a marijuana smoking device. Morse, who was the principle at the time, took away the sign and confiscated it. She proceeded to suspend Frederick for ten days from school.

    Morse justified this by the 'illegal drug use promotion' rule at their school. A student cannot promote using substances that are illegal by law. 

    Frederick proceeded to sue this act using the 42 U.S.C. 1983, which states this violates his First Amendment right to free speech. 

    Frederick challenged this, due to the fact he felt that he was being suppressed by the school he was attending. Their main argument was the 

   

    Our First Amendment right states that no one can take away our ability to express our opinions. If this be religion, speech, rallies. Frederick used this to his advantage in the case, as he was expressing his opinion while promoting his religion. 

    

    The case was a very quickly decided case, being one of the quicker ones as it only took 3 months. This didn't mean that it was any easier.

    The case ended in Morse's favor, as the court decided the school had a right to take away the sign and punish Frederick. Although he had a right to free speech, their opinion was that he was promoting that bong hits were a good thing. This was against school policy; therefore, the principle had a right to suspend him.

    The committee stressed that this only applies to pro-drug speech. This did not apply to any other form of free speech in the school environment. Frederick felt like he was being forced not to talk about his religion which was protected by his amendment. 

    In my opinion, the case was fair. I think Frederick was in the wrong, even if his intentions were somehow good. He was a bit older meaning he was making an impression on younger students. Since he was promoting the use of illegal substances which can seem "cool" to the younger students that were at the event.

    I do not think Fredrick had the sign for the right reasons. I do not think he was promoting good Christian Faith or trying to discourage illegal substance use with the message on this sign. In this case, I think looking at his original intention is a very smart way to go about understanding how to proceed with the ruling of the case.