On June 25, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two 5-4 decisions on free speech with each contradicting the other. One expanded it while the other restricted it. And the same five justices were in the majority both times.
Tuesday the high court reversed a 2003 ruling and reduced some of the advertising restrictions of the McCain-Feingold campaign financing law.
Chief Justice John Roberts said that the restrictions on the TV advertisements that air weeks before an election amounts to censorship unless they urge a vote either for or against a particular candidate.
This was a good decision. After all, the primary purpose of the First Amendment is to protect political speech. It is the other ruling that troubles me.
The second ruling restricted the free speech rights of a high school student. The court said school principals could punish students who hold up signs that favor the use of illegal drugs.
It seems that the student, Joseph Frederick held up a banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. The principal, Deborah Morse suspended him even though he was not on school property. He then sued her for violating his First Amendment rights.
He won in a federal appeals court, but lost in the Supreme Court. Some of the justices said they would have voted differently had the banner carried a political or social message.
Well, isn’t that special. The high court is splitting hairs. With these rulings it has become more difficult to know where the line is drawn. Where free speech starts and where it ends.
Now we have to attack the rest of those damn amendments.
The California Curmudgeon
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment