In 2007 the United States District Court of the District of Alaska took in favor of the Principle and the school board, saying that Frederick 's first amendment rights have not been infringed, and used the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District as example, to show that the school did not violate his rights. Chief Justice Roberts, who was writing for the majority, “concluded that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment.” (Wikipedia) The Chief Justice made three legal determinations to back up the conclusion. He stated “that school speech doctrine should apply because Frederick’s speech occurred at a school event. Second, that the speech was reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. Third, that a principal may legally restrict speech-based on the three existing First Amendment school speech precedents, other Constitutional jurisprudence relating to schools, and a school’s important-indeed, perhaps compelling interest in deterring drug use by students”. (Wikipedia) It was said that “the majority acknowledged that the constitution affords lesser protections to certain types of student speech at school or school-supervised events”. (US
In 2007 the United States District Court of the District of Alaska took in favor of the Principle and the school board, saying that Frederick 's first amendment rights have not been infringed, and used the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District as example, to show that the school did not violate his rights. Chief Justice Roberts, who was writing for the majority, “concluded that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment.” (Wikipedia) The Chief Justice made three legal determinations to back up the conclusion. He stated “that school speech doctrine should apply because Frederick’s speech occurred at a school event. Second, that the speech was reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. Third, that a principal may legally restrict speech-based on the three existing First Amendment school speech precedents, other Constitutional jurisprudence relating to schools, and a school’s important-indeed, perhaps compelling interest in deterring drug use by students”. (Wikipedia) It was said that “the majority acknowledged that the constitution affords lesser protections to certain types of student speech at school or school-supervised events”. (US