Here is where Forks, WA is
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=...code_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ8gEwAA Truly out in the middle of nowhere. It is an old logging town. The "free speech" analysis of this issue is not black and white. I support the kids for sure, and always would err on the side of free speech. But the issue is not easy, especially for a small town school administration. Where as R_of_G quotes correctly from an important case, the law keeps evolving, and the exceptions to that statement are not easy to apply. That language is addressed, and restricted in a more recent case.
In
Morse v. Frederick, a more recent case, the students lost when the reference was towards drugs. In that case, a kid had a banner while his class was allowed to watch the Olympic Torch relay. The banner said "Bong hits for Jesus".
The entire case can be read here:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10117776825257150184&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Some excerpts below.
Our cases make clear that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). At the same time, we have held that "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings," Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682, 106 S.Ct. 3159, 92 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986), and that the rights of students "must be `applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.'" Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266, 108 S.Ct. 562, 98 L.Ed.2d 592 (1988) (quoting Tinker, supra, at 506, 89 S.Ct. 733). Consistent with these principles, we hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use. We conclude that the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it.
Here, I suppose the question is whether the word "sex" is to be construed as solely a band name, or does it also a sexual reference. I am sure the band meant it as a reference when they adopted the name way back when. So does the band's intent control, or is it more an "eye of the beholder" type of standard? Is it a subjective (personal to the observer) or objective (according to a "reasonable person") standard? What does the term "Sex Pistol" mean in this context? What is the point of saying it here? Stuff like that is what Constitutional law is made of. As the Supreme Court said above, in school, the kids get less protection that an adult out in the world.
The Sups discuss some of this stuff here: (I added some comments in bold).
The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic. It is no doubt offensive to some, perhaps amusing to others. To still others, it probably means nothing at all. Frederick himself claimed "that the words were just nonsense meant to attract television cameras." 439 F.3d, at 1117-1118. But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one.
The dissent mentions Frederick's "credible and uncontradicted explanation for the message—he just wanted to get on television." Post, at 2649. subjective intent of speakerBut that is a description of Frederick's motive for displaying the banner; it is not an interpretation of what the banner says. how others view it. The way Frederick was going to fulfill his ambition of appearing on television was by unfurling a pro-drug banner at a school event, in the presence of teachers and fellow students.
Elsewhere in its opinion, the dissent emphasizes the importance of political speech and the need to foster "national debate about a serious issue," post, at 2651, as if to suggest that the banner is political speech. But not even Frederick argues that the banner conveys any sort of political or religious message. Contrary to the dissent's suggestion, see post, at 2650-2651, this is plainly not a case about political debate over the criminalization of drug use or possession. truly political speech is different than speech meant really to cause a scene.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619549,00.html
Good discussion! I love considering things like this. The lines are not clear, and it is a very human issue. I am the kind of guy that prefers nearly absolute free speech, but that comes with complications.
This could get, or maybe already is, political. Remember the guy who wanted to burn the Koran? That was speech that was arguably protected. Kinda like letting the Klan march down main street. So lets be careful folks. From the point of view of Constitutional law, it is complicated.
