Personally as a Supreme Court judge and after taking a fairly through look at the cases, I’d have to rule in favor of Frederick. While the banner that Mr. Frederick had up during the school event does make a reference to drugs, the message is pretty vague as even I can’t really interpret the true absolute definition of the banner. Judge Steven even states “Justice John Paul Stevens took the position that the school's interest in protecting students from speech that can be reasonably regarded as promoting drug use does not justify Frederick's punishment for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement simply because it refers to drugs.” ( n/a, 2012). Another important reason why I am following this ruling is because while yes Mr. Frederick had a 14 foot banner held high it didn’t exactly disrupt the school event itself and it was the principals own interpretation of the message that caused a disruption that escalated into Frederick’s unjustified punishment. This statement from the ACLU even states that Fredericks actions were done off school campus, “As the ACLU and Mertz noted, the sign caused no disruption, was displayed at the Olympic Torch Relay - a public event on public streets - and Frederick had not yet arrived at school for the day.” (N/a, 2007 ). Just by this alone I believe that the principal had no justification in asking to take the banner down because of the cryptic message let alone punish Mr. Frederick just because of her own intrepertation.
n/a. (2012, March 26). Facts and case summary. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/morse-v-frederick n/a. (2007, June 25). Aclu slams supreme court decision in student free speech case . Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-slams-supreme-court-decision-student-free-speech-case