Here's a further distinction for Bryer's dissent:
What if a group of students, in protest against the attack on freedom of speech by the Sup. Ct. or in support of an expelled student, hold up a sign saying "'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' is freedom of speech".....
"One concern is that, while the holding is theoretically limited to
> speech promoting the use of illegal drugs, it could in fact authorize
> further viewpoint-based restrictions. Illegal drugs, after all, are
> not the only illegal substances. What about encouraging the underage
> consumption of alcohol? Moreover, it is unclear how far the Court's
> rule regarding drug advocacy extends. What about a conversation during
> the lunch period where one student suggests that glaucoma sufferers
> should smoke marijuana to relieve the pain? What about deprecating
> commentary about an antidrug film shown in school? And what about drug
> messages mixed with other, more expressly political, content? If, for
> example, Frederick's banner had read "LEGALIZE BONG HiTS," he might be
> thought to receive protection from the majority's rule, which goes to
> speech "encouraging illegal drug use." Ante, at 2 (emphasis added).
> But speech advocating change in drug laws might also be perceived of
> as promoting the disregard of existing drug laws."
>
> That said, things could have been much much worse. Look what Thomas
> wrote in his concurrence, which basically says that since SCOTUS's
> rulings on the role of the First Amendment in public schools are
> incoherent, fuck it -- let's dump free speech rights in public schools
> altogether:
>
> "Today, the Court creates another exception. In doing so, we continue
> to distance ourselves from Tinker, but we neither overrule it nor
> offer an explanation of when it operates and when it does not. Ante,
> at 10–14. I am afraid that our jurisprudence now says that students
> have a right to speak in schools except when they don't—a standard
> continuously developed through litigation against local schools and
> their administrators. In my view, petitioners could prevail for a much
> simpler reason: As originally understood, the Constitution does not
> afford students a right to free speech in public schools."
>
> ...I mean, that'll really send a chill up your spine,
> -WD
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/