|
No it essentially said that the school has a compelling interest in limiting speech when students are advocating illegal behavior.
This requires:
1. The interpretation that Bong Hits 4 Jesus is an exhortation to do drugs
2. That since the school gave permission for kids to leave the school to attend this event that the school somehow maintains that interest.
At least, that's my interpretation of it. Tinker (the 1969 case that allowed anti-war speech) isn't explicitly overruled. Not only was it 5-4 but the 5 had some splits.
Thomas felt that Tinker should have been overrruled. Alito and Kennedy limited their finding to the very narrow instance of advocating drug use but said that they still view political and social speech as protected.
Breyer, assented but disagreed with the grounds. He simply viewed the principal as having official immunity and therefore the other issues were moot.
So, nothing other than this specific case was really settled and a very similar case with slightly different wording could have a different result ("Bong Hits 4 Jesus if the Government Legalizes That")
|