WEBVTT
00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:00.880
Morse vs.
00:00:01.040 --> 00:00:01.760
Frederick.
00:00:01.919 --> 00:00:11.439
A banner, 14 feet long, held up on a public sidewalk in Juneau, Alaska, and the words on it change student speech law forever.
00:00:11.679 --> 00:00:15.759
The case is Morse versus Frederick, decided in 2007.
00:00:16.160 --> 00:00:19.519
You may know it as the Bong Hits for Jesus case.
00:00:19.679 --> 00:00:22.320
It is a landmark First Amendment decision.
00:00:22.480 --> 00:00:23.039
The U.S.
00:00:23.199 --> 00:00:30.160
Supreme Court ruled that public school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use.
00:00:30.480 --> 00:00:36.079
In doing so, the court refined the boundaries of student free speech first drawn in Tinker v.
00:00:36.320 --> 00:00:36.880
Des Moines.
00:00:37.280 --> 00:00:41.119
So how did a homemade banner reach the highest court in the land?
00:00:41.359 --> 00:00:42.479
Key points.
00:00:42.719 --> 00:00:44.719
The year is 2002.
00:00:44.880 --> 00:00:48.159
The Olympic torch relay passes through Juneau, Alaska.
00:00:48.399 --> 00:00:52.320
The school releases students to watch on a school-sanctioned trip.
00:00:52.560 --> 00:00:56.000
A senior named Joseph Frederick stands across the street.
00:00:56.159 --> 00:00:59.759
As the cameras roll, he unfurls a 14-foot banner.
00:00:59.840 --> 00:01:02.560
It reads, Bong hits for Jesus.
00:01:02.799 --> 00:01:05.519
Principal Deborah Morris confiscates the banner.
00:01:05.680 --> 00:01:07.920
She suspends Frederick for 10 days.
00:01:08.159 --> 00:01:08.879
Her reason?
00:01:09.120 --> 00:01:12.560
A school policy against the advocacy of illegal drugs.
00:01:12.799 --> 00:01:16.640
Frederick sues, claiming his free speech rights were violated.
00:01:16.799 --> 00:01:21.040
The district court rules for the school, but the Ninth Circuit reverses.
00:01:21.200 --> 00:01:26.239
Its reasoning the banner caused no substantial disruption to school activities.
00:01:26.400 --> 00:01:29.920
Then the Supreme Court reverses, five to four.
00:01:30.159 --> 00:01:33.359
Chief Justice John Roberts writes the majority opinion.
00:01:33.599 --> 00:01:40.000
Students do have some free speech rights, he says, but those rights are not as extensive as those of adults.
00:01:40.159 --> 00:01:49.120
Schools, he concludes, have a compelling interest in deterring drug use, so they may restrict speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging it.
00:01:49.359 --> 00:01:51.760
Justice Alito emphasized the limit.
00:01:51.920 --> 00:01:59.120
The ruling applies only to pro-drug messages and should not be used to suppress broader political or religious speech.
00:01:59.359 --> 00:02:01.680
Justice Thomas went the other direction.
00:02:01.840 --> 00:02:06.319
He argued that students in public schools should have no First Amendment rights at all.
00:02:06.560 --> 00:02:09.199
He wanted Tinker overturned completely.
00:02:09.520 --> 00:02:10.800
Then the dissent.
00:02:11.039 --> 00:02:16.159
Justice Stevens called the banner nonsense, not a serious incitement to drug use.
00:02:16.319 --> 00:02:19.439
He warned the ruling allowed viewpoint discrimination.
00:02:19.599 --> 00:02:22.159
The bottom line, a new exception.
00:02:22.400 --> 00:02:29.280
Schools no longer need to prove a substantial disruption, the tinker standard, if the speech promotes illegal drug use.
00:02:29.759 --> 00:02:32.080
Effects on administration of justice.
00:02:32.400 --> 00:02:34.400
So what did this do to school law?
00:02:34.639 --> 00:02:45.439
Morse expanded the authority of school administrators to restrict student speech, and it limited First Amendment protections for students, particularly concerning illegal drug advocacy.
00:02:45.680 --> 00:02:57.199
In essence, it let schools move beyond substantial disruption, tackle speech promoting dangerous behavior, and enforce zero-tolerance drug policies without violating the Constitution.
00:02:57.520 --> 00:03:00.319
First, the pro-drug speech exception.
00:03:00.560 --> 00:03:09.520
Schools may prohibit and punish student speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, a specific carve-out from tinker.
00:03:09.759 --> 00:03:12.560
Second, broader administrative discretion.
00:03:12.800 --> 00:03:19.360
Officials may regulate speech during school-sponsored events, even off campus, even on a public street.
00:03:19.599 --> 00:03:26.560
The focus shifted from whether speech causes disorder to whether it contradicts the school's educational mission.
00:03:26.800 --> 00:03:32.080
Third, limits on lawsuits under 42 USC Section 1983.
00:03:32.400 --> 00:03:36.800
By ruling for Principal Morse, the court supported qualified immunity.
00:03:37.039 --> 00:03:43.120
It became harder for students to sue administrators for damages when those administrators act in good faith.
00:03:43.360 --> 00:03:45.520
Fourth, judicial deference.
00:03:45.759 --> 00:03:54.400
The court reaffirmed that student rights are not automatically coextensive with adult rights, especially in a tutelary or custodial setting.
00:03:54.560 --> 00:04:00.719
That signals a move away from intense scrutiny of school discipline, favoring deference to school boards.
00:04:00.960 --> 00:04:04.159
Fifth, redefining school-sanctioned events.
00:04:04.400 --> 00:04:07.280
A school event is not limited by property lines.
00:04:07.520 --> 00:04:15.599
If the school sponsors or supervises it, administrators can regulate student behavior, even at a televised event down the block.
00:04:15.919 --> 00:04:17.600
Benefits to children.
00:04:17.920 --> 00:04:19.600
How does this help students?
00:04:19.839 --> 00:04:21.680
Remember what the ruling did.
00:04:21.920 --> 00:04:29.439
Schools may restrict student speech reasonably interpreted as promoting illegal drug use even without a substantial disruption.
00:04:29.600 --> 00:04:31.439
But notice what it did not do.
00:04:31.680 --> 00:04:33.759
It did not overturn tinker.
00:04:34.079 --> 00:04:36.959
Non-disruptive student speech is still protected.
00:04:37.279 --> 00:04:40.399
Morse created an exception, not a replacement.
00:04:40.639 --> 00:04:48.639
The court's focus was the school's mission: educating students about the dangers of drugs, maintaining a safe, drug-free environment.
00:04:48.879 --> 00:04:53.120
So the benefits, protection from peer pressure and drug advocacy.
00:04:53.360 --> 00:04:59.759
Schools are empowered to safeguard those entrusted to their care from messages encouraging illegal drug use.
00:05:00.079 --> 00:05:08.399
A clear, consistent anti-drug message, the court called discouraging student drug abuse an important, perhaps compelling interest.
00:05:08.639 --> 00:05:12.079
School-sponsored events should not contradict that mission.
00:05:12.319 --> 00:05:27.920
An enhanced safety and learning atmosphere, free from messages that can endanger students, and maintained authority, officials can act in real time to stop the promotion of harmful substances without fearing a lawsuit over every disciplinary action.
00:05:28.240 --> 00:05:30.480
Effects on school administration.
00:05:30.720 --> 00:05:32.800
Zoom in on the principal's office.
00:05:33.040 --> 00:05:40.720
Administrators now have clear authority to censor or punish speech they reasonably believe encourages illegal drug use.
00:05:41.040 --> 00:05:43.279
No substantial disruption required.
00:05:43.600 --> 00:05:45.519
Jurisdiction expanded too.
00:05:45.759 --> 00:05:50.480
Administrators can discipline off-campus behavior during a school supervised event.
00:05:50.720 --> 00:06:02.879
Think about Frederick, across the street on a public sidewalk at a televised torch relay, but the school had released students to watch under faculty supervision, so it counted as a school event.
00:06:03.120 --> 00:06:05.279
Discretionary power broadened.
00:06:05.519 --> 00:06:15.120
Local school boards can restrict speech inconsistent with the school's basic educational mission, especially regarding healthy drug-free lifestyles.
00:06:15.360 --> 00:06:18.000
Liability protections were reinforced.
00:06:18.240 --> 00:06:31.279
Administrators are generally entitled to qualified immunity, shielding them from personal liability for official actions taken in good faith, particularly quick on-the-spot decisions, but the limits are narrow.
00:06:31.519 --> 00:06:35.839
Administrators cannot use Morse to censor all offensive speech.
00:06:36.079 --> 00:06:42.079
The court declined to allow suppression of speech simply because it is unpopular or controversial.
00:06:42.240 --> 00:06:47.040
The exception is narrowly tailored to speech promoting illegal drug use.
00:06:47.519 --> 00:06:50.240
Effects on advocacy groups focus.
00:06:50.480 --> 00:07:00.800
Outside groups focused on one balance, student-free speech against a school's authority to restrict messages deemed harmful to its educational mission.
00:07:01.040 --> 00:07:11.839
Civil liberties, religious, and drug policy groups argued that suspending a student for a non-disruptive, off-campus message was unconstitutional censorship.
00:07:12.079 --> 00:07:20.480
Groups supporting the principle focused instead on the legal responsibility of schools to maintain a safe, drug-free environment.
00:07:20.800 --> 00:07:22.720
Four themes emerged.
00:07:22.959 --> 00:07:25.040
Expansion of school authority.
00:07:25.279 --> 00:07:34.000
Groups feared a broad ruling would let schools muzzle any speech, political or religious, deemed contrary to the educational mission.
00:07:34.319 --> 00:07:36.639
Protection of diverse viewpoints.
00:07:36.879 --> 00:07:39.600
Some backed Frederick because of the next step.
00:07:39.759 --> 00:07:47.040
If schools could ban offensive pro-drug speech, could they also ban religious or controversial political speech?
00:07:47.360 --> 00:08:01.439
Student self-expression, Lambda Legal filed a brief protecting the rights of students, including LGBTQ students, to express their identities at school without discipline based on the content of their speech.
00:08:01.680 --> 00:08:16.240
And drug policy dialogue, an advocacy alliance, argued that punishing drug-related speech stifles open dialogue on issues like marijuana legalization and fails to advance the goal of drug-free schools.
00:08:16.560 --> 00:08:17.920
Evolving Law.
00:08:18.240 --> 00:08:20.399
So where does the law stand today?
00:08:20.720 --> 00:08:32.559
Morse evolved student-free speech law by ruling that schools may restrict speech reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use, even off-campus at a school-sanctioned event.
00:08:32.720 --> 00:08:44.399
The 5-4 decision affirmed that students have lesser First Amendment protections and distinguished itself from Tinker by focusing on the content of the message, not just disruption.
00:08:44.720 --> 00:08:57.360
Moore solidified a trend, broader school authority to maintain a positive educational environment, a more restricted landscape for student speech than the one Tinker built in 1969.
00:08:57.600 --> 00:09:03.200
In a school-sponsored setting, officials can prohibit speech promoting illegal drug use.
00:09:03.440 --> 00:09:08.559
The court found this was not political speech and called the school's interest important.
00:09:08.879 --> 00:09:11.679
It limited Tinker without erasing it.
00:09:11.840 --> 00:09:15.919
The substantial disruption test is no longer the sole standard.
00:09:16.159 --> 00:09:24.480
Morse added a drug promotion exception and extended school authority to events off school grounds but under school supervision.
00:09:24.720 --> 00:09:26.960
The concurring opinions hinted at more.
00:09:27.279 --> 00:09:37.919
While Roberts wrote a narrow majority, some justices signaled a desire to limit Tinker further or to confine student speech to traditional educational contexts.
00:09:38.159 --> 00:09:40.000
Then the digital question.
00:09:40.159 --> 00:09:50.799
Lower courts have interpreted the rationale in Morse to extend school authority over online off-campus speech, particularly where bullying or safety is involved.
00:09:50.960 --> 00:09:54.639
That area remains highly contested and still evolving.
00:09:54.879 --> 00:09:56.720
Finally, marijuana.
00:09:56.879 --> 00:10:02.480
Many states have legalized it since 2007, but Morse remains standing precedent.
00:10:02.639 --> 00:10:12.159
Its focus is the school's authority to prohibit messages advocating illegal drug use among minors, regardless of the drug's legality for adults.
00:10:12.399 --> 00:10:19.039
One banner, four words, and a lasting line drawn through the free speech rights of American students.
00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:00.880
Morse vs.
00:00:01.040 --> 00:00:01.760
Frederick.
00:00:01.919 --> 00:00:11.439
A banner, 14 feet long, held up on a public sidewalk in Juneau, Alaska, and the words on it change student speech law forever.
00:00:11.679 --> 00:00:15.759
The case is Morse versus Frederick, decided in 2007.
00:00:16.160 --> 00:00:19.519
You may know it as the Bong Hits for Jesus case.
00:00:19.679 --> 00:00:22.320
It is a landmark First Amendment decision.
00:00:22.480 --> 00:00:23.039
The U.S.
00:00:23.199 --> 00:00:30.160
Supreme Court ruled that public school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use.
00:00:30.480 --> 00:00:36.079
In doing so, the court refined the boundaries of student free speech first drawn in Tinker v.
00:00:36.320 --> 00:00:36.880
Des Moines.
00:00:37.280 --> 00:00:41.119
So how did a homemade banner reach the highest court in the land?
00:00:41.359 --> 00:00:42.479
Key points.
00:00:42.719 --> 00:00:44.719
The year is 2002.
00:00:44.880 --> 00:00:48.159
The Olympic torch relay passes through Juneau, Alaska.
00:00:48.399 --> 00:00:52.320
The school releases students to watch on a school-sanctioned trip.
00:00:52.560 --> 00:00:56.000
A senior named Joseph Frederick stands across the street.
00:00:56.159 --> 00:00:59.759
As the cameras roll, he unfurls a 14-foot banner.
00:00:59.840 --> 00:01:02.560
It reads, Bong hits for Jesus.
00:01:02.799 --> 00:01:05.519
Principal Deborah Morris confiscates the banner.
00:01:05.680 --> 00:01:07.920
She suspends Frederick for 10 days.
00:01:08.159 --> 00:01:08.879
Her reason?
00:01:09.120 --> 00:01:12.560
A school policy against the advocacy of illegal drugs.
00:01:12.799 --> 00:01:16.640
Frederick sues, claiming his free speech rights were violated.
00:01:16.799 --> 00:01:21.040
The district court rules for the school, but the Ninth Circuit reverses.
00:01:21.200 --> 00:01:26.239
Its reasoning the banner caused no substantial disruption to school activities.
00:01:26.400 --> 00:01:29.920
Then the Supreme Court reverses, five to four.
00:01:30.159 --> 00:01:33.359
Chief Justice John Roberts writes the majority opinion.
00:01:33.599 --> 00:01:40.000
Students do have some free speech rights, he says, but those rights are not as extensive as those of adults.
00:01:40.159 --> 00:01:49.120
Schools, he concludes, have a compelling interest in deterring drug use, so they may restrict speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging it.
00:01:49.359 --> 00:01:51.760
Justice Alito emphasized the limit.
00:01:51.920 --> 00:01:59.120
The ruling applies only to pro-drug messages and should not be used to suppress broader political or religious speech.
00:01:59.359 --> 00:02:01.680
Justice Thomas went the other direction.
00:02:01.840 --> 00:02:06.319
He argued that students in public schools should have no First Amendment rights at all.
00:02:06.560 --> 00:02:09.199
He wanted Tinker overturned completely.
00:02:09.520 --> 00:02:10.800
Then the dissent.
00:02:11.039 --> 00:02:16.159
Justice Stevens called the banner nonsense, not a serious incitement to drug use.
00:02:16.319 --> 00:02:19.439
He warned the ruling allowed viewpoint discrimination.
00:02:19.599 --> 00:02:22.159
The bottom line, a new exception.
00:02:22.400 --> 00:02:29.280
Schools no longer need to prove a substantial disruption, the tinker standard, if the speech promotes illegal drug use.
00:02:29.759 --> 00:02:32.080
Effects on administration of justice.
00:02:32.400 --> 00:02:34.400
So what did this do to school law?
00:02:34.639 --> 00:02:45.439
Morse expanded the authority of school administrators to restrict student speech, and it limited First Amendment protections for students, particularly concerning illegal drug advocacy.
00:02:45.680 --> 00:02:57.199
In essence, it let schools move beyond substantial disruption, tackle speech promoting dangerous behavior, and enforce zero-tolerance drug policies without violating the Constitution.
00:02:57.520 --> 00:03:00.319
First, the pro-drug speech exception.
00:03:00.560 --> 00:03:09.520
Schools may prohibit and punish student speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, a specific carve-out from tinker.
00:03:09.759 --> 00:03:12.560
Second, broader administrative discretion.
00:03:12.800 --> 00:03:19.360
Officials may regulate speech during school-sponsored events, even off campus, even on a public street.
00:03:19.599 --> 00:03:26.560
The focus shifted from whether speech causes disorder to whether it contradicts the school's educational mission.
00:03:26.800 --> 00:03:32.080
Third, limits on lawsuits under 42 USC Section 1983.
00:03:32.400 --> 00:03:36.800
By ruling for Principal Morse, the court supported qualified immunity.
00:03:37.039 --> 00:03:43.120
It became harder for students to sue administrators for damages when those administrators act in good faith.
00:03:43.360 --> 00:03:45.520
Fourth, judicial deference.
00:03:45.759 --> 00:03:54.400
The court reaffirmed that student rights are not automatically coextensive with adult rights, especially in a tutelary or custodial setting.
00:03:54.560 --> 00:04:00.719
That signals a move away from intense scrutiny of school discipline, favoring deference to school boards.
00:04:00.960 --> 00:04:04.159
Fifth, redefining school-sanctioned events.
00:04:04.400 --> 00:04:07.280
A school event is not limited by property lines.
00:04:07.520 --> 00:04:15.599
If the school sponsors or supervises it, administrators can regulate student behavior, even at a televised event down the block.
00:04:15.919 --> 00:04:17.600
Benefits to children.
00:04:17.920 --> 00:04:19.600
How does this help students?
00:04:19.839 --> 00:04:21.680
Remember what the ruling did.
00:04:21.920 --> 00:04:29.439
Schools may restrict student speech reasonably interpreted as promoting illegal drug use even without a substantial disruption.
00:04:29.600 --> 00:04:31.439
But notice what it did not do.
00:04:31.680 --> 00:04:33.759
It did not overturn tinker.
00:04:34.079 --> 00:04:36.959
Non-disruptive student speech is still protected.
00:04:37.279 --> 00:04:40.399
Morse created an exception, not a replacement.
00:04:40.639 --> 00:04:48.639
The court's focus was the school's mission: educating students about the dangers of drugs, maintaining a safe, drug-free environment.
00:04:48.879 --> 00:04:53.120
So the benefits, protection from peer pressure and drug advocacy.
00:04:53.360 --> 00:04:59.759
Schools are empowered to safeguard those entrusted to their care from messages encouraging illegal drug use.
00:05:00.079 --> 00:05:08.399
A clear, consistent anti-drug message, the court called discouraging student drug abuse an important, perhaps compelling interest.
00:05:08.639 --> 00:05:12.079
School-sponsored events should not contradict that mission.
00:05:12.319 --> 00:05:27.920
An enhanced safety and learning atmosphere, free from messages that can endanger students, and maintained authority, officials can act in real time to stop the promotion of harmful substances without fearing a lawsuit over every disciplinary action.
00:05:28.240 --> 00:05:30.480
Effects on school administration.
00:05:30.720 --> 00:05:32.800
Zoom in on the principal's office.
00:05:33.040 --> 00:05:40.720
Administrators now have clear authority to censor or punish speech they reasonably believe encourages illegal drug use.
00:05:41.040 --> 00:05:43.279
No substantial disruption required.
00:05:43.600 --> 00:05:45.519
Jurisdiction expanded too.
00:05:45.759 --> 00:05:50.480
Administrators can discipline off-campus behavior during a school supervised event.
00:05:50.720 --> 00:06:02.879
Think about Frederick, across the street on a public sidewalk at a televised torch relay, but the school had released students to watch under faculty supervision, so it counted as a school event.
00:06:03.120 --> 00:06:05.279
Discretionary power broadened.
00:06:05.519 --> 00:06:15.120
Local school boards can restrict speech inconsistent with the school's basic educational mission, especially regarding healthy drug-free lifestyles.
00:06:15.360 --> 00:06:18.000
Liability protections were reinforced.
00:06:18.240 --> 00:06:31.279
Administrators are generally entitled to qualified immunity, shielding them from personal liability for official actions taken in good faith, particularly quick on-the-spot decisions, but the limits are narrow.
00:06:31.519 --> 00:06:35.839
Administrators cannot use Morse to censor all offensive speech.
00:06:36.079 --> 00:06:42.079
The court declined to allow suppression of speech simply because it is unpopular or controversial.
00:06:42.240 --> 00:06:47.040
The exception is narrowly tailored to speech promoting illegal drug use.
00:06:47.519 --> 00:06:50.240
Effects on advocacy groups focus.
00:06:50.480 --> 00:07:00.800
Outside groups focused on one balance, student-free speech against a school's authority to restrict messages deemed harmful to its educational mission.
00:07:01.040 --> 00:07:11.839
Civil liberties, religious, and drug policy groups argued that suspending a student for a non-disruptive, off-campus message was unconstitutional censorship.
00:07:12.079 --> 00:07:20.480
Groups supporting the principle focused instead on the legal responsibility of schools to maintain a safe, drug-free environment.
00:07:20.800 --> 00:07:22.720
Four themes emerged.
00:07:22.959 --> 00:07:25.040
Expansion of school authority.
00:07:25.279 --> 00:07:34.000
Groups feared a broad ruling would let schools muzzle any speech, political or religious, deemed contrary to the educational mission.
00:07:34.319 --> 00:07:36.639
Protection of diverse viewpoints.
00:07:36.879 --> 00:07:39.600
Some backed Frederick because of the next step.
00:07:39.759 --> 00:07:47.040
If schools could ban offensive pro-drug speech, could they also ban religious or controversial political speech?
00:07:47.360 --> 00:08:01.439
Student self-expression, Lambda Legal filed a brief protecting the rights of students, including LGBTQ students, to express their identities at school without discipline based on the content of their speech.
00:08:01.680 --> 00:08:16.240
And drug policy dialogue, an advocacy alliance, argued that punishing drug-related speech stifles open dialogue on issues like marijuana legalization and fails to advance the goal of drug-free schools.
00:08:16.560 --> 00:08:17.920
Evolving Law.
00:08:18.240 --> 00:08:20.399
So where does the law stand today?
00:08:20.720 --> 00:08:32.559
Morse evolved student-free speech law by ruling that schools may restrict speech reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use, even off-campus at a school-sanctioned event.
00:08:32.720 --> 00:08:44.399
The 5-4 decision affirmed that students have lesser First Amendment protections and distinguished itself from Tinker by focusing on the content of the message, not just disruption.
00:08:44.720 --> 00:08:57.360
Moore solidified a trend, broader school authority to maintain a positive educational environment, a more restricted landscape for student speech than the one Tinker built in 1969.
00:08:57.600 --> 00:09:03.200
In a school-sponsored setting, officials can prohibit speech promoting illegal drug use.
00:09:03.440 --> 00:09:08.559
The court found this was not political speech and called the school's interest important.
00:09:08.879 --> 00:09:11.679
It limited Tinker without erasing it.
00:09:11.840 --> 00:09:15.919
The substantial disruption test is no longer the sole standard.
00:09:16.159 --> 00:09:24.480
Morse added a drug promotion exception and extended school authority to events off school grounds but under school supervision.
00:09:24.720 --> 00:09:26.960
The concurring opinions hinted at more.
00:09:27.279 --> 00:09:37.919
While Roberts wrote a narrow majority, some justices signaled a desire to limit Tinker further or to confine student speech to traditional educational contexts.
00:09:38.159 --> 00:09:40.000
Then the digital question.
00:09:40.159 --> 00:09:50.799
Lower courts have interpreted the rationale in Morse to extend school authority over online off-campus speech, particularly where bullying or safety is involved.
00:09:50.960 --> 00:09:54.639
That area remains highly contested and still evolving.
00:09:54.879 --> 00:09:56.720
Finally, marijuana.
00:09:56.879 --> 00:10:02.480
Many states have legalized it since 2007, but Morse remains standing precedent.
00:10:02.639 --> 00:10:12.159
Its focus is the school's authority to prohibit messages advocating illegal drug use among minors, regardless of the drug's legality for adults.
00:10:12.399 --> 00:10:19.039
One banner, four words, and a lasting line drawn through the free speech rights of American students.
