I’ll be interested in this one. The 2 examples they used were on opposite ends of the free speech spectrum. The black armbands, while done on school grounds and not a voiced opinion was contested as “disruptive” to learning. Bong hits 4 Jesus on the other hand was considered disruptive but the student contested that he was not involved in school activity (he skipped classes) to display the message while the Olympic torch ran by. It was contested that it was promoting illegal activity, smoking weed, it ended up being sided with not being able to do that. This kid made no promotion of illegal activity, they had no call to action, like yelling fire in a crowded theater, or disrupted learning since it was done outside of the school grounds. It should end up being in favor of the student and agreeing with the 3rd circuit decision but we’ll see how they argue this one.