New York Immigration Lawyers

Home Court Opinions Topics & Themes   Asset Forfeitures   Conspiracy   Drug Policy Opinion   Drugs: Types, Dosages, Effects   ›› First Amendment   Justiciability   Medicinal Marijuana   Policy Considerations   Proportionality   Reasonable Expectation of Privacy   Searches and Seizures      Airports      Borders      Consent      Drug Testing      Dwellings      Exclusionary Rule      Grounds for a Search      Informants      Mail      Nuances of Detention      Personal Items      Private Action      Roads and Vehicles      Tools and Augmentation      Warrants   Sentencing and Penalties Authors Trivia

First Amendment Can one publicly proclaim: "Lets shoot up some smack!" The First Amendment seems to allow it. But how about saying it in school or on the pages of a kids magazine? This category analyzes First Amendment issues as they pertain to the drug policy. Pages: ‹1› ‹2› ‹3› ‹4› Morse v. Frederick (2007) JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting: I am willing to assume that the Court is correct that the pressing need to deter drug use supports JDHS's rule prohibiting willful conduct that expressly "advocates the use of substances that are illegal to minors." [...] Morse v. Frederick (2007) JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting: Encouraging drug use might well increase the likelihood that a listener will try an illegal drug, but that hardly justifies censorship. [...] Morse v. Frederick (2007) JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting: No one seriously maintains that drug advocacy (much less Frederick's ridiculous sign) comes within the vanishingly small category of speech that can be prohibited because of its feared consequences. Such advocacy, to borrow from Justice Holmes, "has no chance of starting a present conflagration." [...] Morse v. Frederick (2007) JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting: ...[I]n [the Court's] view, the unusual importance of protecting children from the scourge of drugs supports a ban on all speech in the school environment that promotes drug use. Whether or not such a rule is sensible as a matter of policy, carving out pro-drug speech for uniquely harsh treatment finds no support in our case law and is inimical to the values protected by the First Amendment. [...] Morse v. Frederick (2007) JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting: To the extent the Court independently finds that "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" objectively amounts to the advocacy of illegal drug use -- in other words, that it can most reasonably be interpreted as such -- that conclusion practically refutes itself. This is a nonsense message, not advocacy. The Court's feeble effort to divine its hidden meaning is strong evidence of that. [...] [I]t takes real imagination to read a "cryptic" message (the Court's characterization, not mine, [...]) with a slanting drug reference as an incitement to drug use. Admittedly, some high school students (including those who use drugs) are dumb. Most students, however, do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate, and most students know dumb advocacy when they see it. The notion that the message on this banner would actually persuade either the average student or even the dumbest one to change his or her behavior is most implausible. That the Court believes such a silly message can be proscribed as advocacy underscores the novelty of its position, and suggests that the principle it articulates has no stopping point. [...] Pages: ‹1› ‹2› ‹3› ‹4›

Drug Info - list of authority sites on various drugs. StopTheDrugWar.org Media Awareness Project Drug War Facts - just what the website name says. Very informative. Cigarettes © 2007 Yakov Spektor Privacy Policy