ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Alaska School District's Censorship of Student's Off-Campus Speech
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNEAU, AK--The Alaska Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit in federal district court against a high school principal and the Juneau School Board for violating the free speech rights of a student after he displayed a banner off school property saying, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The student was suspended for 10 days.
AkCLU cooperating attorney Doug Mertz represented Joseph Frederick, 18, in appealing his suspension, first to Superintendent Gary Bader and then to the Juneau School Board. When both appeals were unsuccessful, the AkCLU announced earlier this month that it would take this case to court to vindicate Frederick's constitutional rights to free speech.
""This case is important because we need to make clear to school officials that students have a right to peacefully protest against school policies or actions that they perceive as unfair or unreasonable,"" said Mertz. ""Joseph was not disrupting any educational activity, he was not violating anyone's rights, and he was not even on school property.""
The AkCLU complaint alleges that the actions taken by the school to suspend Frederick amounts to a violation of his rights to free speech, as guaranteed in the Alaska Constitution and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit further contends that because the school board denied Frederick's appeal, his right to receive an education had been violated, a right that is guaranteed in the Alaska Constitution.
The incident arose on January 24, 2002, when teachers at Juneau Douglas High School allowed students to leave the school during morning classes to watch the Olympic Torch Relay pass along a street that runs between the school and a residential neighborhood. Some students stayed on campus, some left campus to go to nearby eateries, some engaged in horseplay, and some wandered across the street to watch the torch go by from a different vantage point.
Frederick, a high school senior, arrived just prior to the relay and parked his car along a public street. He had not yet entered school property that day, nor was he among the students throwing things and engaging in horseplay. As the relay approached, Joseph and a number of other persons standing on the public sidewalk silently displayed a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."
Principal Deborah Morse saw the banner, crossed the street, and demanded that Frederick and the others relinquish the banner. When Frederick asserted his Constitutional right to free speech, Morse seized the banner from his hands, at which point the others dropped it and fled the scene. Morse told Joseph to come to her office, where she suspended him for five days. When Frederick quoted Thomas Jefferson in protest, again asserting his right to free speech, Morse suspended him for an additional five days.
Jennifer Rudinger, Executive Director of the AkCLU, said the school's assertion that Frederick's banner violated the school's anti-drug policy is absurd.
"Joseph was not suspended for using drugs or possessing drugs, but merely for talking about drugs --- and that is a clear violation of his free speech rights," she said. "Schools can promote an anti-drug policy and prevent students from using drugs, but students have a right to disagree with school policy and to express their contrary point of view in a peaceful manner."
The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Joseph's constitutional rights have been violated, an injunction against the school preventing them from violating the rights of students in similar situations in the future, removal of any record of this suspension from Joseph's permanent record, and any damages that the Court sees fit to award in this case.
The legal complaint is online at:
/Files/Files.cfm?ID=10393&c=184
Free Speech
Morse v. Frederick
Free Speech
Morse v. Frederick
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.