Search results
25 cze 2007 · In Morse v. Frederick, the majority acknowledged that the Constitution affords lesser protections to certain types of student speech at school or at school-supervised events. It found that Frederick message was, by his own admission, not political, as was the case in Tinker.
How does the concept of "qualified immunity" play into Justice Breyer's reasoning, and how does it affect the outcome for the principal, Morse? Justice Breyer agreed with the outcome that qualified immunity should protect Principal Morse from liability.
This moot court concerns the case of Morse v. Frederick in which the Supreme Court found that school officials are permitted to stop students from promoting illegal drug use, and it is no First Amendment violation.
Talking Points - Morse v. Frederick Question: Do school authorities violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by restricting student speech at a school-supervised event when the speech may be viewed as promoting illegal drug use?
Morse v. Frederick, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 25, 2007, ruled (5–4) that Alaskan school officials had not violated a student’s First Amendment freedom of speech rights after suspending him for displaying, at a school event, a banner that was seen as promoting illegal drug use.
Morse v. Frederick: The First Amendment permits schools to ban students from showing messages promoting the use of illegal drugs at school events.
How have the precedents of Bethel v. Fraser and Morse v. Frederick narrowed Tinker v. Des Moines? How do the facts of these cases differ? Was the Court’s reasoning in Frederick consistent with Tinker, or do you agree with Justice Thomas that Tinker should be overturned?
