The free speech reference refers to the third decision they rendered, not the first. To quote from the editorial:
"Nor did the court’s concern for free speech extend to actually allowing free speech in the oddball case of an Alaska student who was suspended from high school in 2002 after he unfurled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” while the Olympic torch passed. The ruling by Chief Justice Roberts said public officials did not violate the student’s rights by punishing him for words that promote a drug message at an off-campus event. This oblique reference to drugs hardly justifies such mangling of sound precedent and the First Amendment."
I wouldn't have a problem with the ruling had the student been on-campus. But this was an off-campus event, where it seems strange (to me, anyway) that the student's admittedly stupid banner should get him into any kind of trouble at all with his school.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-06-27 05:31 pm (UTC)"Nor did the court’s concern for free speech extend to actually allowing free speech in the oddball case of an Alaska student who was suspended from high school in 2002 after he unfurled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” while the Olympic torch passed. The ruling by Chief Justice Roberts said public officials did not violate the student’s rights by punishing him for words that promote a drug message at an off-campus event. This oblique reference to drugs hardly justifies such mangling of sound precedent and the First Amendment."
I wouldn't have a problem with the ruling had the student been on-campus. But this was an off-campus event, where it seems strange (to me, anyway) that the student's admittedly stupid banner should get him into any kind of trouble at all with his school.