First, read the Morse v$.$ Frederick Free Speech case, then post to the discussion board $($in writing$)$ according to the prompts below.

Initial Post $($due Thursday$)$:

After reviewing the case, please respond to the following questions:

Do you agree with the Court's holding? Why or why not? Support your answer accordingly.

Briefly summarize an additional example of a school speech restriction$/$violation $($either your own, a relative$$s experience or a recent publicized scenario$).$

CASE SYLLABUS: MORSE V$.$ FREDERICK

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus $($headnote$)$ will be released, as is being done in connection

with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of

the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See

United States v$.$ Detroit Timber & Lumber Co$.,200$ U$.$ S$.321.$

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

MORSE et al$.$ v$.$ FREDERICK

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No$.06278.$ Argued March $19,2007$Decided June $25,2007$

At a school$-$sanctioned and school$-$supervised event, petitioner Morse, the

high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating $$BONG HiTS $4$

JESUS,$$ which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with

established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, Morse

directed the students to take down the banner. When one of the students who

had brought the banner to the event$$respondent Frederick$$refused$,$ Morse

confiscated the banner and later suspended him. The school superintendent

upheld the suspension, explaining, inter alia, that Frederick was disciplined

because his banner appeared to advocate illegal drug use in violation of school

policy. Petitioner school board also upheld the suspension. Frederick filed suit

under $42$ U$.$ S$.$ C$.1983,$ alleging that the school board and Morse had violated

his First Amendment rights. The District Court granted petitioners summary

judgment, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that they had

not infringed Frederick$$s speech rights. The Ninth Circuit reversed. Accepting

that Frederick acted during a school$-$authorized activity and that the banner

expressed a positive sentiment about marijuana use, the court nonetheless

found a First Amendment violation because the school punished Frederick

without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption. It also

concluded that Morse was not entitled to qualified immunity because Frederick$$s

right to display the banner was so clearly established that a reasonable

principal in Morse$$s position would have understood that her actions were

unconstitutional.

FIRST AMENDMENT

MUSEUMPRIMARY SOURCESHeld: Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to

their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal

drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by

confiscating the pro$-$drug banner and suspending Frederick. Pp$.5-15.$

$($a$)$ Frederick$$s argument that this is not a school speech case is rejected. The

event in question occurred during normal school hours and was sanctioned by

Morse as an approved social event at which the district$$s student$-$conduct rules

expressly applied. Teachers and administrators were among the students and

were charged with supervising them. Frederick stood among other students

across the street from the school and directed his banner toward the school,

making it plainly visible to most students. Under these circumstances, Frederick

cannot claim he was not at school. Pp$.56.$

$($b$)$ The Court agrees with Morse that those who viewed the banner would

interpret it as advocating or promoting illegal drug use, in violation of school

policy. At least two interpretations of the banner$$s words$$that they constitute an

imperative encouraging viewers to smoke marijuana or$,$ alternatively, that they

celebrate drug use$$demonstrate that the sign promoted such use. This pro$-$drug

interpretation gains further plausibility from the paucity of alternative meanings

the banner might bear. Pp$.68.$

$($c$)$ A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment $,$ restrict student

speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting

illegal drug use. In Tinker v$.$ Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.,

$393$ U$.$ S$.503,$ the Court declared, in holding that a policy prohibiting high

school students from wearing antiwar armbands violated the First Amendment $,$

id$.,$ at $504,$ that student expression may not be suppressed unless school officials

reasonably conclude that it will $$materially and substantially disrupt the work

and discipline of the school,$$ id$.,$ at $513.$ The Court in Bethel School Dist. No$.$

$403$ v$.$ Fraser, $478$ U$.$ S$.675,$ however, upheld the suspension of a student who

delivered a high school assembly speech employing $$an elaborate, graphic, and

explicit sexual metaphor,$$ id$.,$ at $6$