While we wait for the slip opinion to be posted by the SCOTUS, I figure if we can keep discussion on point - the merits of the case and what we can tell of the findings from reports - instead of breaking down into "Scalia is a loser!" rants as if we are all pimple-faced 15 year olds who are more concerned with making cool blanket statements than with understanding the Court's reasoning, we'll be better off. Anyway, so it looks like the Court's ruling broadened the power of a school to prevent students from making statements that undermine, or appear to undermine, the school's efforts in promoting student welfare (here the school's drug free goals). I'm not surprised, and I am curious to see if the Court pushed the control to students in general or only at school-sponsored events. Also, how might this affect the those who attend school events, but aren't students - especially when the event is open to the public? Also, I'm curious to know where the dissent would have gone. Breyer didn't want to get into the Constitutionality, did the rest want to lessen school control or avoid the issue as well? Also, I'm curious to know how SB would have avoided it - apparently he wanted to rule that the kid couldn't sue. I'm curious to see how he cut the kid off. I'm not sure how I feel about this case - I got nailed with it while in HS, and I really didn't like those restrictions. But, at the same time, when there are statements that need to be controlled, it is often less controversial if the blanket is just a bit larger than what you need (as long as you aren't curtailling what should be protected speech).