Using the case of Frederick v. Morse as one example to illustrate your points, discuss how the U.S. Supreme Court views the power of government to regulate off-campus or online speech by public school students.

What will be an ideal response?

This is the “bong hits for Jesus” case involving a sign humorously advocating smoking marijuana. The Court rejected the argument that this speech was “political speech.” The previous standard for sanctioning student speech was set by Tinker v. Des Moines and involved the symbolic speech of black armbands worn to protest the Vietnam War. (1) The previous standard was that only when student speech or protest caused a “substantial disruption” to the educational mission of the school could it be punished (Tinker v. Des Moines). (2) Here the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a high school could not constitutionally “punish and censor [a student’s] non-disruptive” speech (via a large banner) during a school field trip. (3) The Court said school officials could prohibit advocacy of illegal drug use that challenges important school anti-drug policies without violating the First Amendment. The court went on to reason that the “special environment” of the school’s educational mission allowed school officials to prohibit student speech that raises a “palpable” threat to school policy or “contributes to [the] dangers” school policy seeks to curtail even when such speech does not disrupt school activities.