Student in Supreme Court Free Speech Case Speaks About Suspension Over "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Banner
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
Conservative Religious Organizations Join Advocates on Drug Policy, Free Speech and Gay Rights in Support of Student
NEW YORK - In a teleconference with reporters today, 23-year-old Joseph Frederick spoke publicly for the first time in more than a year about his challenge to a 2002 high school suspension for displaying a sign saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at an off-campus event not sponsored by the school.
The issue before the United States Supreme Court in Morse v. Frederick (06-278) is whether a school can censor student speech because it disagrees with its message, and whether it can punish off-campus speech that does not disrupt the educational process.
“This is one of the most important student free speech cases to come before the Supreme Court in many years,” said Frederick’s attorney, Douglas K. Mertz, who will be arguing the case for the American Civil Liberties Union later this month. “For decades the law has been that students have the constitutional right to free speech even on school campuses. In this case the school district seeks to overrule decades of solid sensible law and to extend its reach to punish student speech that doesn’t even take place on the school campus.”
“This is not a case about drugs or drug policy,” he added. “This case is about freedom of speech and teaching our young people the importance of free speech.”
The Court will hear the case on Monday, March 19. Frederick, who is currently in China taking college courses and teaching English to high school students, spoke with reporters by telephone.
“I conducted my free speech experiment in order to assert my rights at a time when I felt that free speech was being eroded in America,” Frederick said. “The high school I attended advocated that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not apply to students. I was skeptical of my own free speech rights and I wanted to know more precisely the boundaries of my freedom. I guess we'll get to find that out soon.”
The case arose in 2002 when Frederick, a student at Juneau-Douglas High School in Juneau, Alaska, was suspended for 10 days for holding up a humorous sign that the principal interpreted as a pro-drug message. As the ACLU and Mertz noted in legal papers, the sign caused no disruption, was displayed at the Olympic Torch Relay - a public event on the public streets - and Frederick had not yet arrived at school for the day.
A lower court upheld the suspension but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned it in March 2006, saying 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 Frederick's constitutional rights.
Frederick said that the phrase Bong Hits 4 Jesus “was never meant to have any substantive meaning. It was certainly not intended as a drug or religious message. I conveyed this to the principal by explaining it was intended to be funny, subjectively interpreted by the reader and most importantly an exercise of my inalienable right to free speech.”
The case has attracted support from more than a dozen groups across the ideological spectrum, from the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, Christian Legal Society and Rutherford Institute to the Student Press Law Center, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Drug Policy Alliance and National Coalition Against Censorship. Their friend-of-the-court briefs, as well the ACLU's legal papers, a photograph of Joseph Frederick and an image of the rally, are available on the ACLU website, www.aclu.org/supremecourt
Frederick is represented by Mertz, Steven R. Shapiro, ACLU National Legal Director, Catherine Crump and Jonathan Miller, of the national ACLU and Jason Brandeis, Legal Director of the ACLU of Alaska.
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.