Morse V Frederick Case Study

My perspective on this case is that the student was still a representative of his school at the football game and the principal had the right to take action against his acts. Taylor Murphy claimed that, while on school property, the event was outside of the school day and he was acting as a free and public individual. In the case Morse v. Frederick, he may have no been “in school” but he was on school grounds and Morse v. Frederick states “pupils who participate in approved social events and class trips are subject to the same student conduct rules that apply during the regular school program.” Even if Murphy didn’t realize it, he associated himself with the school by wearing his school varsity jacket, so it was clear to the public that

Their cheer for the homecoming game this year was R&P, which Murphy claimed to have meant “rout and pillage” despite Francini’s suspicions about what “R” actually stood for. Now this is similar to Morse v. Frederick, both Frederick and Murphy expressed what they consider harmless speech but as it explains in Morse v. Frederick,“The message on Frederick’s banner is cryptic.” the speech by both students, either promoting drug abuse like in Morse v. Frederick or violence in Murphy, is in violation of school policy. Since the meaning of R&P is cryptic, the dictionary definition of rout is a disorderly retreat of defeated troops, which is an aggressive statement but not threatening. The definition of the word pillage is to rob a place using violence, so Francini was right in stopping Murphy because their chant is violent and refers to killing and if the “R” meant what Francini thought it did, the cheer would cross the boundary of what Murphy would be able to say under his First Amendment rights. In the case Bethel v. Fraser, The Supreme Court rules that the school officials have to teach high school student how to conduct civil and effective public discourse. Meaning Francini had every right to punish Murphy off school