The opinion is built largely upon the argument that Drugs Are Bad and therefore anything that "advocates" drug use is So Bad it trumps free speech rights, because schools must keep kids away from Evil Drugs.
But it's even better if you read Thomas's concurrence. He says, in so many words, that he thinks Tinker is "without basis in the Constitution" ("As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools.") and that he "join[s] the Court's opinion because it erodes Tinker's hold in the realm of student speech, even though it does so by adding to the patchwork of exceptions to the Tinker standard. I think the better approach is to dispense with Tinker altogether, and given the opportunity, I would do so."
Seriously. He's arguing that since schools are in loco parentis, and because historically they could tell kids to shut up, that therefore students have no free speech rights whatsoever.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-06-25 05:27 pm (UTC)But it's even better if you read Thomas's concurrence. He says, in so many words, that he thinks Tinker is "without basis in the Constitution" ("As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools.") and that he "join[s] the Court's opinion because it erodes Tinker's hold in the realm of student speech, even though it does so by adding to the patchwork of exceptions to the Tinker standard. I think the better approach is to dispense with Tinker altogether, and given the opportunity, I would do so."
Seriously. He's arguing that since schools are in loco parentis, and because historically they could tell kids to shut up, that therefore students have no free speech rights whatsoever.