March 10, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
media@aclu.org ANCHORAGE – In a
case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, a federal appeals
court today strongly affirmed the free speech rights of a Juneau high school
student who was suspended in 2002 for displaying a sign saying “Bong Hits 4
Jesus” at an off-campus event not sponsored by the school.
“This
decision is a strong restatement of well-established free speech law,” said
Michael Macleod-Ball, Executive Director of the ACLU of Alaska. “Students do not
give up their free speech rights while in school as long as that speech does not
disrupt school activities.”
In its ruling in favor of the
student, Joseph Frederick, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said
that speech, even if contrary to school policy, cannot be restricted
unless the speech disrupts school activities. The court also ruled that to limit
such speech was a violation of the student’s constitutional rights. Alaska has
long supported an expansive view of individual rights under its state
constitution, although this decision interpreted federal, rather than Alaskan,
law.
The case arose in 2002 when an Olympic Torch Relay passed by
Juneau-Douglas High School. The school permitted students to leave the
building to watch the relay which was sponsored by Coca-Cola. Frederick said he
held up the sign because he thought it would be humorous and might get some
publicity. Although Frederick was not on school property at the time, the
school principal crossed the street to demand he lower the sign. When
Frederick refused, citing his right to free speech, the principal grabbed the
sign from him and suspended him for five days. At a later discussion when
Frederick cited Thomas Jefferson, the principal doubled the suspension to 10
days.
The court based its decision on the concept that students
retain free speech rights at school events as long as that speech does not
substantially disrupt school activities. The ruling relied most heavily on
a landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision, Tinker v. Des Moines, in which students
were punished for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The
ACLU of Iowa represented the students in that case.
In the current
case, school officials argued that speech opposed to the school’s anti-drug
policy could be restricted. Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, writing for the court,
rejected that argument, saying that only disruptive speech could be restricted,
with certain limited exceptions. The court assumed for purposes of the argument
that the sign contained a pro-drug message, even though that was not Frederick’s
intent. The court gave two exceptions to the student free speech rule –
for plainly offensive speech and for speech contained within a school-sponsored
venue, such as a school newspaper.
“This decision, while
welcome, does not make new law,” Macleod-Ballsaid. “Iit simply applies
firmly established precedent to the facts of this case.”
Frederick
is now a student at the University of Idaho. The Ninth Circuit remanded
the case to the Federal District Court in Alaska for further proceedings
involving a determination of damages. Frederick is represented by Attorney
Douglas Mertz of Juneau, who serves as cooperating attorney for the ACLU of
Alaska
