Surely it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse. Indeed, the "fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system" disfavor the use of terms of debate highly offensive or highly threatening to others. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions. The inculcation of these values is truly the "work of the schools." [***]

The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order. Consciously or otherwise, teachers -- and indeed the older students -- demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class. Inescapably, like parents, they are role models. The schools, as instruments of the state, may determine that the essential lessons of civil, mature conduct cannot be conveyed in a school that tolerates lewd, indecent, or offensive speech and conduct such as that indulged in by this confused boy.

— Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 683 (1986), quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 508 (1969)

Anyone who has ever been 17 understands why we don’t let 17 year-olds vote. A good example of the wisdom of depriving children of the power to set public policy is the recent behavior of Noah Christensen, a McQueen High School student who called Congressman Mark Amodei’s office on the day of a tacitly school sanctioned event to (according only to Christiansen himself) demand Amodei and his colleagues “get off their f___g asses” and restrict Second Amendment rights for (ironically) 18-20 year-olds. Christensen’s comments were as ill-mannered as they were potentially counterproductive, and when the principal was informed that her student had spent school time being rude and obnoxious to an adult congressional staffer, he was rightly suspended and stripped from a student leadership position. (I suspect his actual conversation was more vulgar and abusive, or I doubt it even would have registered to a staffer dealing with impassioned constituents on a regular basis.)

Some people, either political tribalists or those who forget the important difference between children and adults, are outraged by the fact that Amodei’s staffer “tattled” on the kid, and argue that his First Amendment rights were violated by the suspension. But were they? (Spoiler alert: no.) Let’s review some of the Supreme Court’s school free speech cases to see what so many of this kid’s defenders are getting wrong.

***

The seminal case on school speech is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, a 1969 case involving students protesting American involvement in the Vietnam War. John Tinker, his sister Mary Beth and their friend Christopher Eckhardt, all teenagers with parents who were themselves political activists, decided to wear black armbands to school to advocate an armistice. Their school became aware of their plan, and warned the students that anyone with an armband would be suspended. When the kids wore them anyway, suspended they were.

The Tinker kids (and their parents) were smart, though. Their protest was passive, quiet and could not reasonably said to disrupt the classroom activities of the school. When their families sued the school and the case made it to the Supreme Court, the Court rightly affirmed that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Tinker court acknowledged, however, that the public school environment has “special characteristics” in a civil rights analysis, and that schools still retained “comprehensive authority” to “prescribe and control conduct in the schools.” (emphasis mine)

Sadly, most teenagers with litigious parents aren’t able to conduct themselves with the grace and discipline of Mary Beth Tinker. In 1983, Matthew Fraser gave a nominating speech for a buddy in a student government election, promising the student body that his man was “firm” and would “go to the very end – even the climax” for them. His dad sued over the inevitable suspension, and the Supreme Court upheld the punishment in Bethel School District v. Fraser (the case quoted at the beginning of this piece). The Fraser Court reminded young Mr. Fraser and his indulgent father that, “constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings,” and that schools didn’t need to tolerate students acting like twits – and indeed, have a duty to do otherwise.

First Amendment cases are fun, because the facts are almost always entertaining. Take the 2007 case probably most relevant to Mr. Christiansen, Morse v. Frederick. In 2002, the Olympic torch relay passed through Juneau, AK on its way to Salt Lake City. High school students were allowed to leave school to watch and cheer on the athletes. A small group of boys wanted some attention, so they made a 14-foot banner which read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” and unfurled it across the street from where most of the students were gathered with supervising teachers. The principal saw the banner, ordered the kids to roll it up and suspended Joseph Frederick when he refused to comply.

The Supreme Court affirmed that the school did not violate Mr. Frederick’s rights, even if – perhaps especially if – he was making a political statement about marijuana policy. The Morse Court again reminded American students that Constitutional rights, including First Amendment rights, “are different in public schools than elsewhere; [and] the 'reasonableness' inquiry cannot disregard the schools' custodial and tutelary responsibility for children.” 

***

The First Amendment protects our ability to share or refute ideas, however offensive or repugnant, and that protection is and ought to be absolute. But this principle doesn’t prevent reasonable regulations as to the time, place or manner of such speech. It’s not legal to scream about impeaching the President in the public hallway of your apartment complex at 2 a.m. As a Navy vet, I think cursing can be a beautiful art form, but any judge would be right to hold me in contempt and fine or jail me if I indulged my more colorful sailor rhetoric in open court.

The First Amendment does not permit students to skip school consequence free, nor does it allow children to be obscenely disrespectful to authority figures during school hours or at school sanctioned events. No teacher would tolerate a student directing such language at her, the principal or a superintendent, even if the context of the rudeness revolved around public education policy. Contrary to Mr. Christiansen’s assertions, there is no such thing as “political privacy” that is owed to you, and if you want to be treated with respect, you ought to try giving a little respect first. (This is one of the many reasons I’ve never been able to get aboard the Trump train – doubling down on the vulgarity of our political discourse will cause us all to lose in the end.) Moreover, the bump stock ban Christiansen proposed (which Amodei has already said he would likely support) will have no appreciable impact on school safety, but more consistent discipline of schoolchildren absolutely does.

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly said, children in a school setting are different. Children who are permitted to be openly rude and defiant to adults probably aren’t going to grow up to be our favorite people to have around. And it’s one thing to cuss at an elected official himself – berating a staffer is like treating waiters at restaurants poorly because you didn’t like the food. Whatever our differing politics, we should all be able to agree that the world has more than enough self-entitled jerks, and that it is the duty of adults to train kids not to join the ranks of said jerks. If I ever found out that my kids spoke to any adult that way – especially a working stiff managing the phones for any government official of any rank, position or party – they would wish that they only got suspended, and I would be grateful the adult let either me or the school know about it so such behavior could be corrected. The fact that Mark Amodei is unapologetic about holding a rude child to account for his behavior reaffirms why he’s one of my favorite guys in Nevada politics.

The Supreme Court has recognized these basic truths about children for decades. And ironically, Amodei and the McQueen principal are showing more kindness to Mr. Christiansen than any of the child’s apologists, by teaching him that the freedom to speak is not the same thing as never having to accept the consequences of what you say or how you say it, at a time when those lessons are still inexpensive. (Since this was originally written, the Washoe County School Board voted to “undo” the suspension, needlessly undermining their principal and their classroom teachers who may now be hard-pressed to keep order in their classrooms. May they enjoy the precedent they’ve set, and once again, I am thankful my children aren’t trapped in traditional public schools.)

Mr. Christiansen may be a great kid who had a lapse in judgment, as all 17 year-olds are wont to do, or maybe he’s just a punk. Personally, I assume it’s the former. Either way, if he accepts this lesson for what it is, he will ultimately be a far more effective advocate for his ideas when he grows up (literally and figuratively), and will grow as a human being besides.

Orrin Johnson has been writing and commenting on Nevada and national politics since 2007. He started with an independent blog, First Principles, and was a regular columnist for the Reno Gazette-Journal from 2015-2016. By day, he is a deputy district attorney for Carson City. His opinions here are his own. Follow him on Twitter @orrinjohnson, or contact him at [email protected].