The First Amendment Violation of Student’s Right to Free Speech

Morse’s suspension of Fredrick from school highly abuses the student’s right to free speech, the first amendment stipulates. In this manner, Morse is worth conviction of limiting such rights of a student. In Tinker v. Des Moines case for example, the district court affirms that students not necessarily shelter their right to speech within the periphery of the school compound. Nonetheless, such rights exist even outside the school, as students will remain so regardless of the places and events they make their speeches. Using this case, Fredrick had the absolute right to make his speech and express the meaning as is best interpreted by him. In addition, the intended meaning of his speech should not be left for the open interpretation of the receivers; however, the court should consider the context of his speech and interrogates the meaning, which he intended to relay the information.

On the other hand, the message Fredrick displayed on his banner does not hold adequate meaning to relate it to illegal drug use advocacy. While the meaning of his speech might be deemed so, it is more abstract and one should not make judgment of the speech as inherent to drug abuse and use. In regard, the constitutional interpretation of the speech should entirely depend on the understanding of the third parties; however, it should fall as per was meant by the direct speaker. Morse, a representative of the school, in this manner acted within her own jurisdiction and as defender of the school rules and regulations concerning drug abuse. Moreover, the principal did not just limit the student’s right to speech hence violating the first amendment; Morse harassed and humiliated the student publicly. Based on these, it is entirely assertive to remand Morse for the gross interference of Fredrick’s rights.