Talk:Morse v. Frederick

message: What is 
Principal Morse's failure to act against the banner "would send a powerful message to the students in her charge, including Frederick, about how serious the school was about the dangers of illegal drug use."
 supposed to mean? Principal Morse did act on it, and wouldn't not acting not send that message?
70.131.103.14 (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a poorly-written sentence, no doubt.  That's all too common in appeals court opinions, unfortunately, and the "supreme" court is no exception.  What the court was saying, rightly or wrongly (more likely the latter), was that if the principal hadn't taken down the sign, that would effectively send a "powerful" message about how serious the school was (i.e., not very ) about the dangers of illegal drug use.  Mr. Roberts would have done a much better job of getting his point across if he had simply said, "Principal Morse's failure to act against the banner would send a message to the students in her charge that the school was not very serious was about the dangers of illegal drug use."  Not that that's true, of course, but at least the sentence would have been clearer and easier to understand.  Captain Quirk (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect sentence? 

message: I see someone put a [sic] after the words from the banner.  I don't think a [sic] is called for when the alternative spelling is clearly intentional (or we'd have to [sic] every prince song, and 50% of advertising slogans.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.76.170.187 (talk) 18:14, June 27, 2007
:It's not just the "4", though; it's also the weirdly capitalized "HiTS". --zenohockey 03:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sic? 

message: What is the official case name? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Morse and the Juneau School Board et al. v. Frederick 71.228.27.6 15:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm confused; I thought cases were always of the format "Plaintiff v. Defendant". Why isn't it Frederick v. Morse? —Angr 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's been changed back. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/JuneauSchoolBoardCertPetitionFINAL20060828.pdf gives it as "JUNEAU SCHOOL BOARD; DEBORAH MORSE, Petitioners, v. JOSEPH FREDERICK, Respondent." —Angr 21:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: When a case comes before the Supreme Court, the first party in the case name is always the party that lost in the lower court (state supreme court or federal court of appeals, usually), and the second party is the party that won in the lower court.  Many American courts have abandoned this format to avoid precisely the confusion that's going on here.  ---Axios023 05:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  case name? 

message: I don't think that the bonghits4jesus.com link should be in the references section; all it does is link to a cafepress page with 'Bong hits 4 Jesus' T-shirts on. The link is not informative in any way. I'm going to remove it. 82.35.16.220 09:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: What does 'Bong hits 4 Jesus' mean? Presumably humorous, but anyone able to explain it? Ben Finn 23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which just makes the court's decision that much sillier. Captain Quirk (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What does it mean?

message: Should the article bring up that Kenneth Starr is arguing for Morse (and thus tighter controls on free speech)? Gary Seven 06:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguing for Morse?

message: This case is very notable, not just because it involves free speech, but also for the convergence of American Civil Liberties Union and American Center for Law and Justice, and the Christian Right and left civil libertarians join together like strange bedfellows to defend Frederick against the principal, who has support from George W. Bush's henchman Paul Clement. WooyiTalk, Editor review 23:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange bedfellows indeed, but their respective motives are clear. ~ Rollo44 04:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting left/right convergence against Bush Administration 

message: It doesn't appear that the section, "Oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court," adds anything of value to understanding the case.  Possibly it needs to be rewritten, but I don't know how to do so and keep it Wiki-worthy. Otherwise I would suggest it gets deleted as nothing notable happened during oral arguments and the opinion of the case is what is truly important.  --Assawyer 19:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court' 

message: The entry (tries to) describe the opinions of all Justices, but somehow Justice Breyer's opinion seems to have fallen between the cracks. Secondly, Alito and Kennedy's concurrence is narrower than described (not only noting that the opinion does not provide support for restricting political speech, but also noting that the opinion does not go any further than letting a public school restrict speech that "a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use"). Would a message not advocating an illegal action, but one that is not political in itself, get First Amendment protection? It does seem quite possible. 88.154.6.122 08:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What could be such a non-illegal, non-political action deserving of FA protection? ~ Rollo44 04:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the opinion by Breyer? 

message: Does anyone know exactly how far off the school campus the school has jurisdiction over? I know that school grounds are located in the direct vicinity of the campus buildings, but the school zone also extends around the school.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.245.110 (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question. 

message: I'm wondering if the last external link is necessary. It barely has anything to do about the actual case aside from the fact that the title is the same quote. Maybe it should be removed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokekid456789 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bong Hits 4 Jesus Song?!? 

message: If the supreme court ruled that the school district did not violate the student freedom of speech (which I disagree with). I don't understand how the student could of went to his states supreme court when precedent was set (also Alaska is a very conservative state that would vote against him {meaning dismis his claim]).
I don't understand because the supremacy clause does not permit same cases on a state jurisdiction (hence the supreme court invalidates state laws in numerous cases)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion on legality 

message: I may have made a mistake in moving the article name from Morse v. Frederick to Frederick v. Morse. Although the case started out as Frederick v. Morse, when it reached the Supreme Court, it was Morse who appealed, so the order may have changed. If the consensus is to revert back to the original name, I would not object. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted. All the U.S. Supreme Court documents I've seen say "Morse v. Frederick."  This article is about the U.S. Supreme Court case, so that's the title that should be used. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error in Article name 

message: The initial paragraph in the section "Background and procedural history" has been screwed up compared to earlier versions.  Also note a reference warning.  --96.233.83.30 (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screwup 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Morse v. Frederick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070311044607/http://www.law.com:80/jsp/article.jsp?id=1142338282994 to http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1142338282994
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Morse v. Frederick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDUxMjJkZWVmZTBhMjFkYjIwZWU2ZGZiZGRiMjdlM2Q
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903004139/http://opiniojuris.powerblogs.com/posts/1184714364.shtml to http://opiniojuris.powerblogs.com/posts/1184714364.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928055956/http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1213&year=2006 to http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1213&year=2006
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: In the first sentence that talks about the opinion itself, Chief Justice Roberts is described as "writing for a plurality of four justices." Huh? I had to count like six times, but there's no way that's not a majority opinion. Four other justices signed onto it. Justice Alito had a separate concurrence that, arguably, tried to restrict the scope of the majority opinion, but (as he joined the main opinion) I don't think that can convert it into a mere plurality. Thoughts? Pipingbengoshi (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plurality? 

message: There are currently seven uses of:
*Melinda Cupps Dickler (Visiting Assistant Professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology), "The Morse Quartet: Student Speech And The First Amendment", 53 Loyola Law Review, 355. 
including identifying her by name to attribute various analyses. Is she well-known in this field, in order to support the heavy reliance? In , there are three individual commentators highlighted with equal weight: Melinda Cupps Dickler, Kenneth Starr and Erwin Chemerinsky. Those latter two are clearly notable and especially in this topic-area. How about that first one, who is only identifed as a visiting assistant professor and is a redlink? DMacks (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy reliance on the Dickler ref 

message: Right now Public response only contains one person's views and most public opinions are expanded on in Groups involved.  I took a stab at editing it but didn't publish as my first attempt made the article less clearly laid out.  That said I still don't think having a whole section for only one opinion makes sense, though I do think Juneau school district superintendent Peggy Cowan's opinion is relevant.  Anyone have any ideas on how to clean that up?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.156.82.190 (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public response and Groups involved sections might be improved by merging them.