Controversial Case Makes Strange Bedfellows at Supreme Court

"School districts must not be entrusted with the authority to arbitrarily determine what student speech is offensive and off limits." - Jay Sekulow, ACLJ chief counsel

WASHINGTON, March 19, 2007—The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in a case that could have serious implications for the free speech rights of students. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which filed an amicus brief in support of student speech, said Morse vs. Frederick gives justices an important opportunity to protect the free speech rights of students to express their views on controversial topics that may be deemed unacceptable to a school district.

"The high court should uphold the long tradition of protecting the free speech rights of students -even when it's a message most would disagree with," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.  "While we strongly disagree with the student's message in this case, the fact is that, unless student speech is protected, a message considered appropriate today could be deemed offensive tomorrow."

The case out of Alaska centers around a student poster that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The case has united liberals and conservatives alike in support of student free speech.

"We want to ensure that students who hold pro-life and pro-family positions will continue to be able to present those messages without censorship. That is why the Supreme Court must reject the school board's argument in this case," said Sekulow.

In December, the Supreme Court decided to take the case in which a school district suspended a student for displaying a banner which the school contends advocates marijuana use. The student said he displayed the banner for one reason-to attract media attention during a parade when the Olympic torch passed through Juneau in 2002 on its way to Salt Lake City. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the student and the school district asked the Supreme Court to take the appeal.

The amicus brief filed by the ACLJ asserts: "The school district has engaged in blatant viewpoint-based censorship of student speech . . . A school's basic educational mission does not confer blanket authorization for viewpoint suppression of student speech." In addition, the brief argues: "It would be regrettable if the Court were to resolve the important questions of constitutional law at issue here in the context of a jokester's prank, rather than a student's bearing of a serious message."

"School districts must not be entrusted with the authority to arbitrarily determine what student speech is offensive and off limits," said Sekulow. "That could put all student speech at risk, including speech that advocates Christian beliefs on issues like abortion or marriage."

A decision is expected by the end of the term this summer.

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice specializes in constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C. The ACLJ is online at www.aclj.org.

-30-