While working on my new Bong Hits 4 Jesus Supreme Court page I’ve found some interesting quotes in some of the briefs.
For example, check out these from Ken Starr’s brief representing Principal Morse:
… the court of appeals substituted its unforgiving libertarian worldview for the considered judgment of school officials (and school boards) in seeking, consistent with Congress’ statutory mandate, to foster and encourage a drug-free student lifestyle. […]
As to both the First Amendment and the law of qualified immunity, the court of appeals’ uncompromisingly libertarian vision is deeply unsettling to public school educators across the country. The decision below is doubly — and dangerously — wrong.
Interesting that Starr thinks…
- that libertarian principles are wrong and dangerous
- that the 9th Circuit is wildly libertarian, and
- that being opposed to libertarian principles will be attractive to the Supreme Court.
Additional note in the case. If you had any doubt about the government’s intentions in this case, it was cleared up in the government’s brief, which included:
… an effective anti-drug program must not only teach the dangers of drugs; it must also protect impressionable young people from the countervailing effects of peer pressure. At a minimum, such a program entails prohibiting student advocacy of illegal drug use in school or at school events, where students are entrusted to the schools’ care. […]
If schools permitted advocacy of illegal drugs, such speech could counteract, if not drown out, the schools’ anti-drug message, especially because of peer pressure. Permitting students to make light of the school’s anti-drug message or launch a pro-drug use campaign would undermine both that message and the school’s disciplinary authority generally. [emphasis added]
It’s not just speech advocating breaking the law that the government wants to ban, but any speech that interferes with or even makes light of their propaganda.