document_title: The Theory of Everything (2014 film)

question_text: who played stephen hawking's in the theory of everything

question_tokens: who played stephen hawking 's in the theory of everything

root

text: The Theory of Everything (2014 film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: In 1963, Cambridge University astrophysics student Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) begins a romantic relationship with literature student Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones). Although Stephen excels at mathematics and physics, his friends and professors are concerned over his lack of a thesis topic. After Stephen and his professor Dennis Sciama (David Thewlis) attend a lecture on black holes, Stephen speculates that black holes may have been part of the creation of the universe, and decides to write his thesis on time.

tag: p

text: While pursuing his research, Stephen's muscles begin to fail, eventually causing him to fall and hit his head. He learns he has motor neurone disease; he will be unable to talk, swallow, breathe, or move most of his body; and has approximately two years to live. Stephen asks what will happen to his brain. The doctor tells Stephen that the disease won't affect it or his thoughts, but that eventually, no one will know what they are. As Stephen becomes reclusive, focusing on his work, Jane confesses she loves him. She tells Stephen's father she intends to stay with Stephen even as his condition worsens. They marry and have a son.

text: Stephen presents his thesis to the examination board, arguing that a black hole created the universe in a Big Bang, that it will emit heat, and that it will end in a Big Crunch. While celebrating with Jane and his friends, Stephen realises he cannot walk, and begins using a wheelchair.

text: After having a second child, a daughter, Stephen develops a theory about the visibility of black holes, and becomes a world-renowned physicist. Jane, focusing on the children and on Stephen's health and increasing fame, is unable to work on her own thesis and becomes frustrated. Stephen tells her he will understand if she needs help. She joins the church choir, where she meets widower Jonathan (Charlie Cox) and they become close friends. She employs him as a piano teacher for her son and Jonathan befriends the entire family, helping Stephen with his illness, supporting Jane, and playing with the children.

text: When Jane gives birth to another son, Stephen's mother asks Jane if the baby is Jonathan's, which she denies. Jane sees that Jonathan overheard the conversation, and is appalled, but when they are alone, they admit their feelings for one another. Jonathan stays away from the family, but Stephen visits him, saying that Jane needs him.

text: While Jane and Jonathan take the children camping, Stephen is invited to attend an opera performance in Bordeaux, and contracts pneumonia. While in the hospital, the doctors tell Jane that Stephen needs a tracheotomy, which will leave him unable to speak. She agrees to the surgery.

text: Stephen learns to use a spelling board, and uses it to communicate with Elaine (Maxine Peake), his new nurse. He receives a computer with a built-in voice synthesiser, and uses it to write a book, A Brief History of Time, which becomes an international best-seller.

text: Stephen tells Jane that he has been invited to America to accept an award, and will be taking Elaine with him. Jane faces the realisation that her and Stephen's marriage has not been working, telling him she "did her best". Jane and Stephen agree to divorce. Stephen goes to the lecture with Elaine, the two having fallen in love, and Jane and Jonathan reunite. At the lecture, Stephen sees a student drop a pen; he imagines getting up to return it, almost crying at the reminder of how his disease has affected him. He goes on to give an inspiring speech, saying, "There should be no boundaries to human endeavour. We are all different. However bad life may seem, there is always something you can do, and succeed at. While there's life, there is hope".

text: Stephen invites Jane to meet the Queen with him; they share a happy day together with their children, with Stephen saying "Look what we made".

text: An extended closing series comprises select moments from the film; shown in reverse, back to the moment Stephen first saw Jane. A final title sequence brings the lives of the lead characters up to date. Jane and Jonathan are happily married, and she has completed her PhD. She and Stephen remain close friends. Stephen declines a knighthood, and continues his research, with no plans to retire.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Eddie Redmayne[1] as Stephen Hawking[7]
Felicity Jones[1] as Jane Hawking[7]
Charlie Cox as Jonathan Jones, Jane's second husband[7]
David Thewlis as Dennis Sciama[7]
Simon McBurney as Frank Hawking, Stephen's father[7]
Emily Watson as Beryl Wilde, Jane's mother[7]
Maxine Peake as Elaine Mason, Stephen's second wife[7]
Harry Lloyd as Brian, Hawking’s room-mate[8]
Guy Oliver-Watts as George Wilde, Jane's father
Abigail Cruttenden as Isobel Hawking, Stephen's mother
Charlotte Hope as Phillipa Hawking, Stephen's sister[7]
Lucy Chappell as Mary Hawking, Stephen's sister
Christian McKay as Roger Penrose[7]
Enzo Cilenti as Kip Thorne[7]
Georg Nikoloff as Isaak Markovich Khalatnikov
Alice Orr-Ewing as Diana King, sister of Basil King, Stephen's friend
Stephen Hawking provides his own, Equaliser-computerised voice
Frank Leboeuf as Swiss doctor[7]
Michael Marcus as Ellis, Hawking's friend

tag: ul

text: Production[edit]

text: Development[edit]

text:
"That's really the essence of the story, it's a very unusual love story in a very strange environment, a very strange sort of landscape, and that is I think the abiding theme of the film. It is how these two characters, these two real people transcend all the complications and curveballs that life throws at them."

—James Marsh, speaking of the film's nature[9]

tag: div

text: Screenwriter Anthony McCarten had been interested in Hawking since reading his seminal book A Brief History of Time in 1988. In 2004, McCarten read Jane Hawking's memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen, and subsequently began writing a screenplay adaptation of the book, with no guarantees in place. He met numerous times with Jane at her home to discuss the project. After multiple drafts, he was introduced in 2009 to producer Lisa Bruce via their mutual ICM agent, Craig Bernstein.[10]

text: Bruce spent three years with McCarten, further convincing Jane Hawking to agree to a film adaptation of her book, with Bruce stating, "It was a lot of conversation, many glasses of sherry, and many pots of tea".[11] On 18 April 2013, James Marsh was confirmed to direct the film, with the shooting being based in Cambridge, and at other locations in the United Kingdom,[citation needed] with Eddie Redmayne courted to fill the male lead of the piece.[12] On 23 June 2013, it was revealed that Felicity Jones was confirmed to play the film's female lead role opposite Redmayne.[13][14] On 8 October 2013, it was confirmed that Emily Watson and David Thewlis had joined the cast, Christina Applegate, Kate del Castillo, Catherine Tate, and Amanda Peet were considered for the part,[15] and that Working Title's Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Lisa Bruce, and Anthony McCarten would be producing the piece.[16]

text: Filmmaker Marsh had studied archival images to give the film its authenticity, stating, "When we had photographs and documentary footage of Stephen that related to our story, we tried to reproduce them as best we could".[17] Redmayne met with Hawking himself, commenting, "Even now, when he's unable to move, you can still see such effervescence in his eyes". And described portraying Hawking on-screen as a "hefty" challenge, adding that, "The real problem with making a film is of course you don't shoot chronologically. So it was about having to really try and chart his physical deterioration [so] you can jump into it day-to-day, whilst at the same time keeping this spark and wit and humour that he has".[17]

text: Redmayne spent six months researching Hawking's life, watching every piece of interview footage he could find of him.[18] He studied Hawkings' accent and speech patterns under dialect coach Julia Wilson-Dickson to prepare for the role.[19] Marsh stated that what Redmayne had to do was not easy. "He had to take on enormous amounts of difficult preparation, as well as embracing the difficult physicality of the role. It's not just doing a disability. It's actually charting the course of an illness that erodes the body, and the mind has to project out from that erosion", he said. He added that Hawking gave him his blessing, and also revealed that, "[Hawking's] response was very positive, so much so that he offered to lend his voice, the real voice that he uses. The voice you hear in the latter part of the story is in fact Stephen's actual electronic voice as he uses it", he said.[9] It was revealed to the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) audience that as the lights came up at a recent screening, a nurse had wiped a tear from Hawking's cheek.[18]

text: Jane Hawking, speaking on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour, talked of meeting Jones several times while the latter prepared for the role.[20] When Hawking saw the finished film, she was amazed to see that Jones had incorporated her mannerisms and speech patterns into her performance.[20]

text: Filming[edit]

text: By 8 October 2013, principal photography had begun, with the shooting being based in Cambridge, and at other locations in the United Kingdom.[21] Prior to the start of principal photography, Working Title had begun shooting on the lawn in front of the New Court building from 23 September 2013 to 27 September 2013; they filmed the Cambridge May Ball scene, set in 1963.[22] On 24 September 2013, scenes were filmed at St John's College, The Backs in Queen's Road, and Queen's Green.[23] The New Court lawn and Kitchen Bridge were included features in the filming location of the piece. The May Ball scene was the last of the outside shoots, with filming in a lecture theatre the following day, and the remaining filming completed in the studio over the final five weeks of production.[24]

text: The pyrotechnic specialists Titanium Fireworks, who developed the displays for the London 2012 Olympic Games, provided three identical firework displays for the May Ball scene.[24][25]

text: Music[edit]

text: Composer Jóhann Jóhannsson scored The Theory of Everything. His score in the film has been described as including "[Jóhannsson's] signature blend of acoustic instruments and electronics". Jóhannsson commented that "it always involves the layers of live recordings, whether it's orchestra or a band or solo instrument, with electronics and more 'soundscapey' elements which can come from various sources".[26] The soundtrack was recorded at Abbey Road Studios.[27]

text: Post-production[edit]

text: During editing, filmmakers tried to remake Hawking's synthesised voice, but it did not turn out as they wanted. Hawking enjoyed the film enough that he granted them permission to use his own synthesised voice, which is heard in the final film.[28]

text: Historical accuracy[edit]

text: The film takes various dramatic liberties with the history it portrays. Writing for the film blog of UK daily newspaper The Guardian, Michelle Dean noted: "The Theory of Everything's marketing materials will tell you it is based on Jane Hawking's memoir of her marriage, a book published in the UK as Music to Move the Stars, and then re-issued as Travelling to Infinity. But the screenwriters rearranged the facts to suit certain dramatic conventions. And while that always happens in these based-on-a-true-story films, the scale of the departure in The Theory of Everything is unusually wide. The film becomes almost dishonest – in a way that feels unfair to both parties, and oddly, particularly Jane Hawking herself".[29] In Slate, L.V. Anderson wrote that "the Stephen played by Eddie Redmayne is far gentler and more sensitive" than suggested in Travelling to Infinity.[30] The Slate article further noted that the character Brian, Hawking's closest friend at Cambridge in the film, is not based on a real individual, but rather a composite of several of his real-life friends.[30]

text: The film alters some of the details surrounding the beginning of Stephen and Jane's relationship, including how they met, as well as the fact that Jane knew about Stephen's disease before they started dating.[29] Slate also comments that the film underplays Hawking's stubbornness and refusal to accept outside assistance for his disorder.[30]

text: For The Guardian, Dean concluded by saying:

text: "The movie presents the demise of their relationship as a beautiful, tear-soaked, mutually respectful conversation. Of course that didn't actually happen either. Jane's book describes a protracted breakup that comes to a head in a screaming fight on vacation. She also described devastation when Hawking announced by letter he was leaving her for his second wife, Elaine Mason. He ended up married to Mason for 10 years before that fell apart, and then he and Jane mended fences. Which, as it happens, the movie fudges too. It tries to present the rapprochement as coming when Hawking was made a Companion of Honour in 1989, but that actually happened before the couple separated".[29]

text: Physicist Adrian Melott, a former student of Dennis Sciama, Hawking's doctoral supervisor portrayed in the film, strongly criticised the portrayal of Sciama in the film.[31]

text: Release[edit]

text: On 8 October 2013, Universal Pictures International had acquired the rights to distribute the film internationally.[16]

text: On 10 April 2014, Focus Features acquired the distribution rights to The Theory of Everything in the United States, with the plan of a 2014 limited theatrical release.[32] publisher after, Entertainment One Films picked up the Canadian distribution rights.[33] The first trailer of the film was released on 7 August 2014.[34][35]

text: The Theory of Everything premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF)[1] on 7 September 2014,[36] where it opened in the official sidebar section, Special Presentations.[37][38]

text: The film had a limited release in the United States on 7 November 2014,[39] expanded in successive weeks to Taiwan, Austria, and Germany,[40] ahead of a United Kingdom release on 1 January 2015, before being released throughout Europe.[41]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Box office[edit]

text: The Theory of Everything earned $122,873,310 worldwide, with its biggest markets coming from North America ($35.9 million), and the United Kingdom ($31.9 million).[4] The film had a North American limited release on 7 November 2014; it was released in five theatres, and earned $207,000 on its opening weekend, for an average of $41,400 per theatre. The film was then widely released on 26 November across 802 theatres, earning $5 million, and debuting at No. 7 at the Box Office. During its five-day Thanksgiving week, the film earned $6.4 million.[42]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: Film review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 79% of critics gave the film a positive rating, based on 236 reviews, with an average score of 7.3/10. The site's consensus states: "Part biopic, part love story, The Theory of Everything rises on James Marsh's polished direction and the strength of its two leads".[43][44] Metacritic assigned the film a weighted average score of 72 (out of 100), based on 47 reviews from critics, considered to be "generally favorable".[45]

text: Catherine Shoard of The Guardian wrote, "Redmayne towers: this is an astonishing, genuinely visceral performance which bears comparison with Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot".[46] Lou Lumenick, in his review for The New York Post, called the film "tremendously moving and inspirational".[47] Justin Chang of Variety remarked, "A stirring and bittersweet love story, inflected with tasteful good humor...." He continued by praising the "superb performances" from Redmayne and Jones, as well commenting very positively about Jóhannsson's score, "whose arpeggio-like repetitions and progressions at times evoke the compositions of Philip Glass", whilst praising John Paul Kelly's production design, and Steven Noble's costumes.[48] Leslie Felperin of The Hollywood Reporter remarked, "A solid, duly moving account of their complicated relationship, spanning roughly 25 years, and made with impeccable professional polish", praising Delhomme's cinematography as having "lush, intricately lit compositions", and adding "a splendor that keeps the film consistently watchable", and Jóhannsson's score as "dainty precision with a ineffable scientific quality about it".[49] The Daily Telegraph's Tim Robey granted the film a positive review, stating that, "In its potted appraisal of Hawking's cosmology, The Theory of Everything bends over backwards to speak to the layman, and relies on plenty of second-hand inspiration. But it borrows from the right sources, this theory. And that's something", while praising Redmayne's performance, McCarten's script, and Delhomme's cinematography.[50] Deadline.com's Pete Hammond marked McCarten's script and Marsh's direction for praise, and of the film's Toronto reception, wrote: To say the response here was rapturous would not be understating the enthusiasm I heard — not just from pundits, but also Academy voters with whom I spoke. One told me he came in with high expectations for a quality movie, and this one exceeded them".[51]

text: The film was not without its detractors. Some criticised Marsh's focus on Hawking's romantic life. Alonso Duralde of The Wrap stated that "Hawking's innovations and refusal to subscribe to outdated modes of thinking merely underscore the utter conventionality of his film biography".[52] Eric Kohn of Indiewire added that "James Marsh's biopic salutes the famous physicist's commitment, but falls short of exploring his brilliant ideas".[53] Dennis Overbye of the New York Times noted that "the movie doesn't deserve any prizes for its drive-by muddling of Dr. Hawking's scientific work, leaving viewers in the dark about exactly why he is so famous. Instead of showing how he undermined traditional notions of space and time, it panders to religious sensibilities about what his work does or does not say about the existence of God, which in fact is very little".[54] Writing for The Guardian's film blog, Michelle Dean argues that the film does a disservice to Jane Wilde Hawking, by "rearrang[ing] the facts to suit certain dramatic conventions... The Theory of Everything is hell-bent on preserving the cliche".[55]

text: The film's producers, writer, director Marsh, and actors Redmayne and Jones were widely favoured for award season success.[37][51][56][57]

text: Accolades[edit]

text: The Theory of Everything received several awards and nominations following its release. At the 87th Academy Awards,[when?] it was nominated in the categories of Best Picture, Best Actor for Eddie Redmayne, Best Actress for Jones, Best Adapted Screenplay for McCarten, and Best Original Score for Jóhann Jóhannsson; with Eddie Redmayne winning the film's sole Academy Award for his performance.. The film was nominated for ten British Academy Film Awards,[58] (winning for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best British Film, and Best Actor), five Critics' Choice Movie Awards,[59] and three Screen Actors Guild Awards.[60] At the 72nd Golden Globe Awards, Redmayne won Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama, and Jóhannsson won Best Original Score. The film, and Jones were also nominated. Production designer John Paul Kelly earned a nomination for Excellence in Production Design for a Period Film from the Art Directors Guild,[61] while the producers were nominated for Best Theatrical Motion Picture by the Producers Guild of America.[62]


document_title: The Preacher's Wife

question_text: where did the preacher's wife take place

question_tokens: where did the preacher 's wife take place

text: The Preacher's Wife

text: Plot[edit]

text: A voiceover by the child Jeremiah (Justin Pierre Edmund) guides the viewer through the film.

text: Rev. Henry Biggs (Courtney B. Vance) is the pastor of a small struggling Baptist church in a poverty-stricken neighborhood of New York City. Membership is declining, Henry is pulled in a hundred directions by his parishioners' needs, and the church's finances are in trouble. Henry is under intense pressure from real estate developer Joe Hamilton (Gregory Hines) to sell the church's property so that Hamilton can build luxury condominiums on the site. Henry has also become neglectful of his wife, Julia (Whitney Houston), and his son, Jeremiah. Julia worries that her marriage is failing. Unsure that he can make a difference in his parishioners' lives and beginning to lose his faith, Henry prays to God for help, which comes in the form of Dudley (Denzel Washington), a witty and debonair angel. Dudley tells Henry that he is an angel sent by God to help him, but Henry is deeply suspicious of Dudley. Julia, however, is instantly charmed by the handsome and unflappable angel.

text: With Christmas approaching, Henry's schedule becomes increasingly burdensome, and Dudley begins to spend most of his time with Julia and Jeremiah. Rev. Biggs' secretary, Beverly (Loretta Devine), becomes comically defensive and aggressive, believing Dudley is there to take her job. Julia's wasp-tongued mother, Margueritte (Jenifer Lewis), is also suspicious of Dudley, because she believes the newcomer will break up her daughter's marriage. Dudley and Julia go ice skating, and then later spend an evening in the jazz club where Julia once performed. After Henry confronts Dudley, Dudley realizes that he is falling in love with Julia. So, Dudley turns his attention to Hamilton and manages to disrupt his schemes to get Henry to sell the church. Henry now realizes that his family is the most important thing in his life, and he resolves to be a better husband and father. At the church's Christmas pageant, Henry finds his faith in God renewed and ties to his family restored.

text: With his work done, Dudley gives the Biggs family a fully decorated Christmas tree as a gift. Dudley then erases all memories of himself from everyone he has met, and although he attends midnight service on Christmas Eve, no one recognizes him. However, Jeremiah, who has the faith of a child, still remembers Dudley, and wishes him a merry Christmas.

text: A subplot present throughout the film focuses on Julia's singing talents. Once a popular nightclub singer, she is now a star in the church choir. This subplot provides for several set pieces in which the choir performs, and Gospel music plays a significant role. It also provides comic relief in the form of a domineering choir director.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Name
Role

Denzel Washington
Dudley

Whitney Houston
Julia Biggs

Courtney B. Vance
Reverend Henry Biggs

Gregory Hines
Joe Hamilton

Jenifer Lewis
Margueritte Coleman

Loretta Devine
Beverly

Justin Pierre Edmund
Jeremiah Biggs

Lionel Richie
Britsloe

Paul Bates
Saul Jefferys

Lex Monson
Osbert

Darvel Davis, Jr.
Hakim

William James Stiggers, Jr.
Billy Eldridge

Marcella Lowery
Anna Eldridge

Cissy Houston
Mrs. Havergal

Aaron A. McConnaughey
Teen

tag: table

text: Production[edit]

text: The motion picture was developed by Denzel Washington's Mundy Lane Entertainment.[3] The screenplay was written by Nat Mauldin and Allan Scott. Credits are given to Robert E. Sherwood and Leonardo Bercovici for the 1947 film The Bishop's Wife, and to author Robert Nathan (for his novel The Bishop's Wife).

text: The role of Julia was written with Whitney Houston in mind, though she had not been approached to star in the film yet.[4] Denzel Washington says that he first considered Julia Roberts for the role, but quickly turned to Whitney Houston.[3] Houston admitted that she was reluctant to accept, feeling she could not do justice to a role that required her to play a dowdy housewife. Only after reading the script a second time and seeing parallels between her own life and the role of Julia did Houston accept.[5] Houston was paid $10 million to appear in the film.[3]

text: Filming began in early January 1996. Trinity United Methodist Church in Newark, New Jersey, served as the Biggs' New York City church.[3] The production leased the church, and began renovating it in February 1996. The interior was painted, new carpet laid, and the main doors repaired. The production team designed a pulpit and altar rails that more accurately reflected the design of Baptist churches. After filming, the church kept the pulpit, and the production crew worked with architects from the United Methodist Church to design and install rails more fitting of the Methodist style. Filming occurred there from March 11 to April 3, with about a quarter of the church's membership hired as extras. (The church used the rental fees paid by the production to replace its boiler and HVAC system.)[6]

text: Production was plagued by poor weather and accidents. Houston later admitted "in an interview with Oprah Winfrey in 2010, [that] by the time 'The Preacher's Wife' was released, '(doing drugs) was an everyday thing."[4] Interior sets were constructed at Chelsea Piers, a film and television production facility in Manhattan, New York.[7] Severe snowstorms in New Jersey (where scenes were shot in Paterson[7]) and New York (where scenes were shot throughout New York City) cost the production several shooting days. Later, the cast and crew moved to Portland, Maine, to scenes which occur at an ice skating rink, but unseasonably warm weather turned the ice to water and forced the production to rent snow-making machines. The production filmed in several crime-ridden areas of New York City to achieve authenticity. Robberies were common in the area, leaving the cast and crew nervous. While filming exteriors and interiors at a church and parsonage in Yonkers, New York, a building a block away caught fire and two children died.[8] One crew member rushed a ladder from the production to the burning building, and saved the life of a four-year-old child.[9] Accidents also affected the production. The weekend before filming began at the church, an elderly parishioner fell, broke her hip and died. In the middle of filming, a crew member was struck by a car and killed. The production schedule was also compromised after Houston refused to sing in the mornings.[8]

text: Filming was scheduled to wrap at the end of February, but the crew was still shooting at the beginning of May. Some final scenes shot were those at the Main Street cafe in Tarrytown, New York. The entire street had to be dressed for Christmas in fake snow laid down along the street.[7]

text: Lionel Richie made his acting debut in the film as the owner of the jazz club.[10]

text: Soundtrack[edit]

text: The Preacher's Wife: Original Soundtrack Album is the best-selling gospel album of all time. The soundtrack also remained at number one for a record twenty-six weeks on the Billboard Top Gospel Albums Chart.

text: The Georgia Mass Choir appears in the film. The soundtrack to the film (performed by Whitney Houston) consists of gospel numbers and includes performances by Monica, Faith Evans, the three members of New Edition who embarked on solo careers (Bobby Brown, who was Houston's real-life husband at the time, Ralph Tresvant and Johnny Gill), Cissy Houston and Shirley Caesar among others.[11]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Stephen Holden, writing for The New York Times, called the film "sweetly uplifting" and "a shrewdly conceived update", and had high praise for actress Jenifer Lewis and the funny scene where the children in the Christmas pageant cannot recall their lines.[12] Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times also found the film "warm, sentimental, amusing yet serious" and an "inspired reworking" of the 1947 original. He singled out Penny Marshall's directing for being "consistently wise and judicious", and praised Jenifer Lewis and Loretta Devine.[10] Critic Roger Ebert gave the film 3 out of 4 stars, but was a bit equivocal in his review, concluding: "The Preacher's Wife is a sweet and good-hearted comedy about the holiday season. ... This movie could have done more, but what it does, it makes you feel good about."[13]

text: Duane Byrge, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, also felt the film uneven. Although he found it heart-warming, he noted that it had a "patchy narrative" and felt the film made Washington and Houston such great characters that it was hard to see why the Biggs' marriage should survive. Too often, he concluded, the plot seemed nothing more than a means of stringing together terrific musical performances by Houston and the Georgia Mass Choir. Byrge found Penny Marshall's directing slow at times but felt that casting director Paula Herold had done wonders. He singled out Courtney B. Vance as an appealing if downbeat husband, Jenifer Lewis as the "sassy" mother-in-law, and Loretta Devine as Bigg's defensive, aggressive secretary who thinks Dudley is there to replace her. Marshall, Byrge said, was more effective directing these lively characters (and actors) than the film's stars.[14]

text: In contrast, Caren Weiner Campbell, writing for Entertainment Weekly, found Denzel Washington to be lackluster (though the gospel singing scenes were quite good). Her strongest criticism was directed at the screenplay. She felt the script had too many subplots, with the narrative by the character of Jeremiah was "sappy", and was lacking in the "fun miracles" of the original. She also criticized Marshall's directing for being slow and tedious.[15] Unlike other reviewers, Jackie Potts in The Miami Herald felt the characters were dated and not updated. She found Courtney B. Vance's acting humorless, and was highly critical of Whitney Houston's acting. "[Houston] sleepwalks through scenes as the dignified mother, doing little more than tucking her 6-year-old son (Justin Pierre Edmund) in. It's not a showy role, but Houston plays it as if the frost outdoors has settled on her shoulders." While she had high praise for Denzel Washington (he "plays Dudley with a 100-watt smile and childlike sense of wonder"), she had little for Penny Marshall's directing. It was, she concluded, slow and the overall tone of the film "strangely solemn"—with only minor relief given by Jenifer Lewis' biting, scathingly funny turn as a tart-tongued mother.[16]

text: The Preacher's Wife currently holds a 60% rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 43 reviews.

text: Box office[edit]

text: The film grossed $48,102,795 in the US.[1]


document_title: Embargo Act of 1807

question_text: which section of the united states ignored the embargo act and continued to trade with great britain

text: Embargo Act of 1807

text: Background[edit]

text: After the short truce in 1802–1803 the European wars resumed and continued until the defeat of Napoleon in 1814.[1] The war caused American relations with both Britain and France to deteriorate rapidly. There was grave risk of war with one or the other. With Britain supreme on the sea, and France on the land, the war developed into a struggle of blockade and counterblockade. This commercial war peaked in 1806 and 1807. Britain's Royal Navy shut down most European harbors to American ships unless they first traded through British ports. France declared a paper blockade of Britain (which it lacked a navy to enforce) and seized American ships that obeyed British regulations. The Royal Navy needed large numbers of sailors, and saw the U.S. merchant fleet as a haven for British sailors.[2]

text: The British system of impressment humiliated and dishonored the U.S. because it was unable to protect its ships and their sailors.[3] This British practice of taking British deserters, and often Americans, from American ships and forcing them into the Royal Navy increased greatly after 1803, and caused bitter anger in the United States.

text: On June 21, 1807 the American warship USS Chesapeake was attacked and boarded on the high seas off the coast of Norfolk, VA[4] by the British warship HMS Leopard. Three Americans were dead and 18 wounded; the British impressed four seamen with American papers as alleged deserters. The outraged nation demanded action; President Jefferson ordered all British ships out of American waters.[5]

text: Initial legislation[edit]

text: Passed on December 22, 1807, the Act:[6]

text:
laid an embargo on all ships and vessels under U.S. jurisdiction,
prevented all ships and vessels from obtaining clearance to undertake in voyages to foreign ports or places,
allowed the President of the United States to make exceptions for vessels under his immediate direction,
authorized the President to enforce via instructions to revenue officers and the Navy,
was not constructed to prevent the departure of any foreign ship or vessel, with or without cargo on board,
required a bond or surety from merchant ships on a voyage between U.S. ports, and
exempted warships from the embargo provisions.

text: This shipping embargo was a cumulative addition to the Non-importation Act of 1806 (2 Stat. 379), this earlier act being a "Prohibition of the Importation of certain Goods and Merchandise from the Kingdom of Great Britain"; the prohibited imported goods being defined where their chief value which consists of leather, silk, hemp or flax, tin or brass, wool, glass; in addition paper goods, nails, hats, clothing, and beer.[7]

text: The Embargo Act of 1807 is codified at 2 Stat. 451 and formally titled "An Embargo laid on Ships and Vessels in the Ports and Harbours of the United States". The bill was drafted at the request of President Thomas Jefferson and subsequently passed by the Tenth U.S. Congress, on December 22, 1807, during Session 1; Chapter 5. Congress initially acted to enforce a bill prohibiting imports, but supplements to the bill eventually banned exports as well.

text: Impact on U.S.[edit]

text: The embargo, which lasted from December 1807 to March 1809 effectively throttled American overseas trade. All areas of the United States suffered. In commercial New England and the Middle Atlantic states, ships rotted at the wharves, and in the agricultural areas, particularly in the South, farmers and planters could not sell their crops on the international market. For New England, and especially for the Middle Atlantic states, there was some consolation, for the scarcity of European goods meant that a definite stimulus was given to the development of American industry.

text: The embargo was a financial disaster for the Americans because the British were still able to export goods to America: initial loopholes overlooked smuggling by coastal vessels from Canada, whaling ships and privateers from overseas; and widespread disregard of the law meant enforcement was difficult.[8]

text: A 2005 study by economic historian Douglas Irwin estimates that the embargo cost about 5 percent of America's 1807 GNP.[9]

text: Case studies[edit]

text: A case study of Rhode Island shows the embargo devastated shipping-related industries, wrecked existing markets, and caused an increase in opposition to the Democratic-Republican Party. Smuggling was widely endorsed by the public, who viewed the embargo as a violation of their rights. Public outcry continued, helping the Federalists regain control of the state government in 1808–09. The case is a rare example of American national foreign policy altering local patterns of political allegiance. Despite its unpopular nature, the Embargo Act did have some limited, unintended benefits to the Northeastern region especially as it drove capital and labor into New England textile and other manufacturing industries, lessening America's reliance on the British.[10]

text: In Vermont, the embargo was doomed to failure on the Lake Champlain-Richelieu River water route because of Vermont's dependence on a Canadian outlet for produce. At St. John, Lower Canada, £140,000 worth of goods smuggled by water were recorded there in 1808 – a 31% increase over 1807. Shipments of ashes (used to make soap) nearly doubled to £54,000, but lumber dropped 23% to £11,200. Manufactured goods, which had expanded to £50,000 since Jay's Treaty of 1795, fell over 20%, especially articles made near Tidewater. Newspapers and manuscripts recorded more lake activity than usual, despite the theoretical reduction in shipping that should accompany an embargo. The smuggling was not restricted to water routes, as herds were readily driven across the uncontrollable land border. Southbound commerce gained two-thirds overall, but furs dropped a third. Customs officials maintained a stance of vigorous enforcement throughout and Gallatin's Enforcement Act (1809) was a party issue. Many Vermonters preferred the embargo's exciting game of revenuers versus smugglers, bringing high profits, versus mundane, low-profit normal trade.[11]

text: The New England merchants who evaded the embargo were imaginative, daring, and versatile in their violation of federal law. Gordinier (2001) examines how the merchants of New London, Connecticut, organized and managed the cargoes purchased and sold, and the vessels used during the years before, during, and after the embargo. Trade routes and cargoes, both foreign and domestic, along with the vessel types, and the ways their ownership and management were organized show the merchants of southeastern Connecticut evinced versatility in the face of crisis.[12]

text: Gordinier (2001) concludes the versatile merchants sought alternative strategies for their commerce, and to a lesser extent, for their navigation. They tried extra-legal activities, a reduction in the size of the foreign fleet, and the re-documentation of foreign trading vessels into domestic carriage. Most importantly, they sought new domestic trading partners, and took advantage of the political power of Jedidiah Huntington, the Customs Collector. Huntington was an influential member of the Connecticut leadership class (called "the Standing Order"); he allowed scores of embargoed vessels to depart for foreign ports under the guise of "special permission." Old modes of sharing vessel ownership in order to share the risk proved to be hard to modify. Instead established relationships continued through the embargo crisis, in spite of numerous bankruptcies.[13]

text: Enforcement efforts[edit]

text: Jefferson's Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin was against the entire embargo, foreseeing correctly the impossibility of enforcing the policy and the negative public reaction. "As to the hope that it may...induce England to treat us better," wrote Gallatin to Jefferson shortly after the bill had become law, "I think is entirely groundless...government prohibitions do always more mischief than had been calculated; and it is not without much hesitation that a statesman should hazard to regulate the concerns of individuals as if he could do it better than themselves."[14]:368

text: Since the bill hindered U.S. ships from leaving American ports bound for foreign trade; it had the side-effect of hindering American exploration.

text: First supplementary act[edit]

text: Just weeks later, on January 8, 1808, legislation again passed the Tenth U.S. Congress, Session 1; Chapter 8: "An Act supplementary..." to the Embargo Act (2 Stat. 453). As historian Forrest McDonald wrote, "A loophole had been discovered" in the initial enactment, "namely that coasting vessels, and fishing and whaling boats" had been exempt from the embargo, and they had been circumventing it, primarily via Canada. This supplementary act extended the bonding provision (i.e. Section 2 of the initial Embargo Act) to those of purely domestic trades:[15]

text:
Sections 1 and 2 of the supplementary act required bonding to coasting, fishing and whaling ships and vessels. Even river boats had to post bond.
Section 3 made violations of either the initial or supplementary act an offense; failure of the shipowner to comply would result in forfeiture of the ship and its cargo, or a fine of double that value, and denial of credit for use in custom duties; a captain failing to comply would be fined between one and twenty thousand dollars, and would forfeit the ability to swear an oath before any customs officer.
Section 4 removed the warship exemption from applying to privateers or vessels with a letter of marque.
Section 5 established a fine for foreign ships loading merchandise for export, and allowed for its seizure.

text: Meanwhile, Jefferson requested authorization from Congress to raise 30,000 troops from the current standing army of 2,800. Congress refused. With their harbors for the most part unusable in the winter anyway, New England and the north ports of the mid-Atlantic states had paid little notice to the previous embargo acts. That was to change with the spring thaw, and the passing of yet another embargo act.[14]:147

text: With the coming of the spring, the effect of the previous acts were immediately felt throughout the coastal states, especially in New England. An economic downturn turned into a depression and caused increasing unemployment. Protests occurred up and down the eastern coast. Most merchants and shippers simply ignored the laws. On the Canada–US border, especially in upstate New York and Vermont, the embargo laws were openly flouted. Federal officials believed parts of Maine, such as Passamaquoddy Bay on the border with British-held New Brunswick, were in open rebellion. By March, an increasingly frustrated Jefferson was resolved to enforce the embargo to the letter.[citation needed]

text: Other supplements to the Act[edit]

text: On March 12, 1808, Congress passed and Jefferson signed into law yet another supplement to the Embargo Act. This supplement[citation needed] prohibited, for the first time, all exports of any goods, whether by land or by sea. Violators were subject to a fine of US$10,000, plus forfeiture of goods, per offense. It granted the President broad discretionary authority to enforce, deny, or grant exceptions to the embargo.[14]:144 Port authorities were authorized to seize cargoes without a warrant and to try any shipper or merchant who was thought to have merely contemplated violating the embargo.

text: Despite the added penalties, citizens and shippers openly ignored the embargo. Protests continued to grow; and so it was that the Jefferson administration requested and Congress rendered yet another embargo act.

text: Consequences[edit]

text: The Embargo was hurting the United States as much as Britain or France. Britain, expecting to suffer most from the American regulations, built up a new South American market for its exports, and the British shipowners were pleased that American competition had been removed by the action of the U.S. government.

text: Jefferson placed himself in a strange position with his Embargo policy. Though he had so frequently and eloquently argued for as little government intervention as possible, he now found himself assuming extraordinary powers in an attempt to enforce his policy. The presidential election of 1808, in which James Madison defeated Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, showed that the Federalists were regaining strength, and helped to convince Jefferson and Madison that the Embargo would have to be removed.[16]

text: Shortly before leaving office, in March 1809, Jefferson signed the repeal of the failed Embargo. Despite its unpopular nature, the Embargo Act did have some limited, unintended benefits, especially as entrepreneurs and workers responded by bringing in fresh capital and labor into New England textile and other manufacturing industries, lessening America's reliance on the British merchants.[17][18]

text: Repealing the legislation[edit]

text: On March 1, 1809, Congress passed the Non-Intercourse Act, a law that enabled the President, once the wars of Europe ended, to declare the country sufficiently safe and to allow foreign trade with certain nations.[19]

text: In 1810 the government was ready to try yet another tactic of economic coercion, in the desperate measure known as Macon's Bill Number 2.[20] This bill became law on May 1, 1810, and replaced the Non-Intercourse Act. It was an acknowledgment of the failure of economic pressure to coerce the European powers. Trade with both Britain and France was now thrown open, and the United States attempted to bargain with the two belligerents. If either power would remove her restrictions on American commerce, the United States would reapply non-intercourse against the power that had not so acted. Napoleon quickly took advantage of this opportunity. He promised that his Berlin and Milan Decrees would be repealed, and Madison reinstated non-intercourse against Britain in the fall of 1810. Though Napoleon did not fulfill his promise, strained Anglo-American relations prevented his being brought to task for his duplicity.[21]

text: The attempt of Jefferson and Madison to resist aggression by peaceful means gained a belated success in June 1812 when Britain finally promised to repeal her Orders in Council. The British concession was too late, for by the time the news reached America the United States had already declared the War of 1812 against Britain.

text: The entire series of events was ridiculed in the press as Dambargo, Mob-Rage, Go-bar-'em or O-grab-me ("Embargo" spelled backward); there was a cartoon ridiculing the Act as a snapping turtle, named "O' grab me", grabbing at American shipping.

text: Wartime legislation[edit]

text: America's declaration of war, in mid-June 1812, was followed shortly by the Enemy Trade Act of 1812 on July 6, which employed similar restrictions as previous legislation; it was likewise ineffective and tightened in December 1813, and debated for further tightening in December 1814. After existing embargoes expired with the onset of war, the Embargo Act of 1813 was signed into law December 17, 1813. Four new restrictions were included: An embargo prohibiting all American ships and goods from leaving port; a complete ban on certain commodities customarily produced in the British Empire; a ban against foreign ships trading in American ports unless 75% of the crew were citizens of the ship's flag; and a ban on ransoming ships. The Embargo of 1813 was the nation's last great trade restriction. Never again would the US government cut off all its trade to achieve a foreign policy objective.[22] The act particularly hurt the northeastern states, since the British kept a tighter blockade on the south, and thus encouraged American opposition to the administration. To make his point, the act was not lifted by Madison until after the defeat of Napoleon, and the point was moot. On February 15, 1815, Madison signed the Enemy Trade Act of 1815; it was tighter than any previous trade restriction including the Enforcement Act of 1809 (January 9) and the Embargo of 1813, but it would expire two weeks later when official word of peace from Ghent was received.[23]


document_title: Morse v. Frederick

question_text: in morse v. frederick what was the question at stake

text: Morse v. Frederick

text: Background and procedural history[edit]

text: On January 23, 2002, students and staff at Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska were permitted to leave classes[5] to watch the Olympic Torch pass by. Joseph Frederick, who was late for school that day, joined some friends on the sidewalk across from the high school, off school grounds.[6] Frederick and his friends waited for the television cameras so they could unfurl a banner reading "BONG HITS 4 JESUS". Frederick was quoted as saying he'd first seen the phrase on a snowboard sticker.[7] When they displayed the banner, then-principal Deborah Morse ran across the street and seized it.[nb 1]

text: Morse initially suspended Frederick for five days for violating the school district's anti-drug policy, but increased the suspension to ten days after Frederick quoted Thomas Jefferson.[nb 2] Frederick administratively appealed his suspension to the superintendent, who denied his appeal but limited it to the time Frederick had already spent out of school prior to his appeal to the superintendent (eight days). Frederick then appealed to the Juneau School Board, which upheld the suspension on March 19, 2002.

text: District court[edit]

text:
Part of the Politics series on

Youth rights

Activities[hide]

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.
Child Labor Deterrence Act
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
Convention on the Rights of the Child
Fair Labor Standards Act
Hammer v. Dagenhart
History of youth rights in the United States
Morse v. Frederick
Newsboys' strike of 1899
Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
Wild in the Streets

Theory/Concepts[show]

Adultcentrism
Adultism
Ageism
Criminalization
Democracy
Ephebiphobia
Fear of children
Fear of youth
Intergenerational equity
Paternalism
Social class
Suffrage
Taking Children Seriously
Universal suffrage
Unschooling
Youth activism
Youth suffrage
Youth voice

Issues[show]

Age of candidacy
Age of consent
Age of majority
Behavior modification facility
Child labour
Compulsory education
Conscription
Corporal punishment
Curfew
Child abuse
Emancipation of minors
Gambling age
Homeschooling
Human rights and youth sport
In loco parentis
Juvenile delinquency
Juvenile court
Legal drinking age
Legal working age
Minimum driving age
Marriageable age
Minor (law)
Minors and abortion
School leaving age
Smoking age
Status offense
Underage drinking in America
Voting age
Youth-adult partnership
Youth participation
Youth politics
Youth voting

Organizations[show]

Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions
Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission
National Youth Rights Association
One World Youth Project
Queer Youth Network
Students for a Democratic Society
Freechild Project
Three O'Clock Lobby
Youth International Party
Youth Liberation of Ann Arbor
Young Communist League of Canada

Persons[show]

Adam Fletcher (activist)
David J. Hanson
David Joseph Henry
John Caldwell Holt
Alex Koroknay-Palicz
Lyn Duff
Mike A. Males
Neil Postman
Sonia Yaco

Related[show]

Animal rights
Anti-racism
Direct democracy
Egalitarianism
Feminism
Libertarianism
Socialism
Students rights

 Youth rights
Social movements portal

v
t
e

text: On April 25, 2002, Frederick filed a civil rights lawsuit (under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) against Morse and the school board, claiming they violated his federal and state constitutional rights to free speech.[2] He sought a declaratory relief (for a declaratory judgment that his First Amendment rights had been violated), injunctive relief (for an injunction to remove the reference to the ten-day suspension from his school records), and monetary awards (compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees).[9]

text: The United States District Court for the District of Alaska dismissed Frederick's case on summary judgment.[10] The district court reasoned that Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, as opposed to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, governed Frederick's school speech. Under this premise, the Court ruled that, given the stipulated facts, Morse and the school board had not infringed Frederick's First Amendment rights, because Morse had reasonably interpreted the banner as contravening the school's policies on drug abuse prevention.[9][nb 3]

text: Ninth Circuit[edit]

text: The Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court. The unanimous panel decision was written by Judge Andrew Kleinfeld.[11]

text: First, the Court decided that the incident should be interpreted under school-speech doctrines, even though Frederick was standing across the street, and not on school grounds.[nb 4]

text: Thus, for Judge Kleinfeld, "the question comes down to whether a school may, in the absence of concern about disruption of educational activities, punish and censor non-disruptive, off-campus speech by students during school-authorized activities because the speech promotes a social message contrary to the one favored by the school. The answer under controlling, long-existing precedent is plainly 'No.'"[12] To reach this determination, the Court inquired whether Frederick's constitutional rights were violated.[nb 5]. The Court, in holding (contra the District Court) that Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District provided the controlling analysis, distinguished Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. The Court explained:

text: Fraser holds that high school students' rights to free speech in school are not coextensive with adults's rights, and "pervasive sexual innuendo" that is "plainly offensive ... to any mature person" can be marked off as impermissible incivility within the school context. 12 Fraser focuses upon the sexual nature of the offensiveness in the in-school speech that can be punished, as contrasted with the "political viewpoint" of the speech protected in Tinker. 13 Our case differs from Fraser in that Frederick's speech was not sexual (sexual speech can be expected to stimulate disorder among those new to adult hormones), and did not disrupt a school assembly. Also, it is not so easy to distinguish speech about marijuana from political speech in the context of a state where referenda regarding marijuana legalization repeatedly occur and a controversial state court decision on the topic had recently issued. 14 The phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" may be funny, stupid, or insulting, depending on one's point of view, but it is not "plainly offensive" in the way sexual innuendo is.

text: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier is similarly distinguishable. In Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court held that high school students did not have a First Amendment right to publish articles on pregnancy and divorce in a school newspaper over the principal's objection, where the newspaper was produced in a class on journalism, edited by the journalism teacher as part of the teaching of the class, and paid for with school money. 16 The Court distinguished Tinker on the ground that "the question whether the First Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular student speech—the question that we addressed in Tinker—is different from the question whether the First Amendment requires a school affirmatively to promote particular student speech." 17 This student newspaper was "part of the school curriculum". 18 Exclusion of any First Amendment duty to "promote" a student viewpoint [**14] means that a school necessarily retains authority to refuse to "sponsor" speech such as Frederick's, which arguably promotes drug use. 19 Kuhlmeier does not control the case at bar, however, because Frederick's pro-drug banner was not sponsored or endorsed by the school, nor was it part of the curriculum, nor did it take place as part of an official school activity. Kuhlmeier might apply had Frederick insisted on making his "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner in art class, but that is not what the record shows. His display [*1120] took place out of school while students were released so that they could watch a Coca-Cola and Olympics activity.[13]

text: Public response[edit]

text: Juneau school district superintendent Peggy Cowan stated, "My concern is that [the court's ruling] could compromise our ability to send a consistent message against the use of illegal drugs."[14]

text: Certiorari and oral arguments[edit]

text: The school board petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's decision. On December 1, 2006, the Court accepted the case.[15]

text: Oral arguments were heard on the morning of March 19, 2007.[16] Kenneth Starr first spoke on behalf of the petitioning school principal. He described the rule in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) as "that there is a right to political speech subject to disruption—that the speech not be disruptive".[17] He defined the disruptiveness in general terms as behavior inimical to the educational mission of the school, and in specific terms as violation of the school's announced policy to enforce and support laws with respect to control of marijuana (and other laws in general). Starr also cited the cases of Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

text: Starr noted that in Tinker there was no written policy; it was an issue of "standardless discretion" being exercised.[18] That case was said to be concerned with school disciplinary actions "casting a pall of orthodoxy to prevent the discussion of ideas".[19] Justice Souter remarked that 'Bong Hits 4 JESUS' "sounds like just a kid's provocative statement to me".[20] Starr responded by saying "the key is to allow the school official to interpret the message as long as that interpretation is reasonable."[21]

text: Deputy Solicitor-General Edwin Kneedler spoke on behalf of the U.S. government in support of the petitioner. He said: "The First Amendment does not require public school officials to stand aside and permit students who are entrusted to their supervision and care to promote or encourage the illegal use of drugs."[22] He cited the cases of Board of Education v. Earls and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier in his favor.

text: Douglas K. Mertz, of Juneau, Alaska, for the respondent opened, "This is a case about free speech. It is not about drugs." Chief Justice John Roberts responded: "It's a case about money. Your client wants money from the principal personally for her actions in this case." Mertz emphasized that the torch relay was not school-sponsored; that he had not stepped on school property at all before unfurling the banner; that "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" was intended to be—and was regarded as—purely a humorous message; and that the unfurling of the banner did not cause any disruption. Based on these facts, he concludes, his case "does not present the issue of school authority over student expressions on campus or in a school-sponsored activity".

text: Starr rebutted. He cited Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton and Board of Education v. Earls as cases demonstrative of the Court's strong past stances on matter related to combating the "scourge of drugs". In closing and in summary, he said:

text: To promote drugs is utterly inconsistent with the educational mission of the school. The court has spoken more broadly with respect to the need to defer to school officials in identifying the educational mission. We know that there are constitutional limits (to lawful political expression). Those limits are captured in Tinker. A passive pure political speech that reflects on the part of the school board a standardless discretionary effort to squelch any kind of controversial discussion, that casts a pall of orthodoxy over the class room: we are light years away from that.[23]

text: Opinions[edit]

text: Opinion of the Court[edit]

text: Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a plurality of four justices, concluded that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it. After reciting the background in Part I of the opinion, in Part II he determined that "school speech" doctrine should apply because Frederick's speech occurred "at a school event"; Part III determined that the speech was "reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use"; and Part IV, inquired whether a principal may legally restrict that speech, concluding that she could—under the three existing First Amendment school speech precedents, other Constitutional jurisprudence relating to schools, and a school's "important—indeed, perhaps compelling interest" in deterring drug use by students.

text: Speech falls under school speech jurisprudence[edit]

text: First, Roberts determined that the Court should analyze Frederick's speech under the comparatively strict doctrine of "school speech"—rejecting "at the outset" Frederick's contention that the case should instead be considered under ordinary free-speech jurisprudence.[24] While conceding that past precedent reflects "some uncertainty at the outer boundaries as to when courts should apply school-speech precedents",[25] Roberts added: "but not on these facts".[24] Roberts reiterated the circumstances, then explained: "Under these circumstances, we agree with the superintendent that Frederick cannot 'stand in the midst of his fellow students, during school hours, at a school-sanctioned activity and claim he is not at school.'"[24]

text: Principal reasonably interpreted speech[edit]

text: Next, Roberts determined that the principal's conclusion that Frederick's banner "advocated the use of illegal drugs" was reasonable. Acknowledging that the banner's message was "cryptic", nevertheless it was undeniably a "reference to illegal drugs".[26] In reaching this conclusion, Roberts contrasted "the paucity of alternative meanings the banner might bear" against the fact that the two immediately available interpretations of the words support this conclusion:

text:
“
First, the phrase could be interpreted as an imperative: "[Take] bong hits ..."—a message equivalent, as Morse explained in her declaration, to "smoke marijuana" or "use an illegal drug". Alternatively, the phrase could be viewed as celebrating drug use—"bong hits [are a good thing]", or "[we take] bong hits".
”

text: And even if that second interpretation does not support the principal's conclusions that the banner advocated the use of illegal drugs,

text:
“
we discern no meaningful distinction between celebrating illegal drug use in the midst of fellow students and outright advocacy or promotion. See Guiles v. Marineau, 461 F. 3d 320, 328 (CA2 2006) (discussing the present case and describing the sign as "a clearly pro-drug banner")
”

text: Wrapping up this discussion, Roberts rejected the two alternative accounts for Frederick's speech provided in the dissent: first, the dissent noted that Frederick "just wanted to get on television", which it characterized as a "credible and uncontradicted explanation for the message". Roberts rejoined: "But that is a description of Frederick's motive for displaying the banner; it is not an interpretation of what the banner says." Second, the dissent emphasized the importance of political speech and the need to foster "national debate about a serious issue". Roberts rejoined that "not even Frederick argues that the banner conveys any sort of political or religious message"; "this is plainly not a case about political debate over the criminalization of drug use or possession."

text: First Amendment permits schools to restrict such speech[edit]

text: Finally, Roberts inquired whether a principal may restrict such speech. He concluded that she can.[27]

text: He began by reviewing the court’s school speech jurisprudence:

text:
First, Roberts recapitulated that student expression may be suppressed only if school officials reasonably conclude that it will "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school"—observing however that this doctrine came from a case (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.) in which the students were engaging in "political speech" in "a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance" (wearing armbands, to express "disapproval of the Vietnam hostilities and their advocacy of a truce, to make their views known, and, by their example, to influence others to adopt them". Id., at 514), and in which "[t]he only interest the Court discerned underlying the school's actions was the "mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint", or "an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression". Roberts commented on this opinion with a quote from Virginia v. Black—that political speech is "at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect". 538 U.S. 343, 365 (2003).
Second, Roberts cited Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser. The jurisprudence of Fraser is controversial, but Roberts declined to apply or resolve the disputed holding of that case ("We need not resolve this debate to decide this case"); instead, he explained that "[f]or present purposes, it is enough to distill from Fraser two basic principles":

text:
that "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings" ("in light of the special characteristics of the school environment").[28]
that the "substantial disruption" analysis prescribed by Tinker "is not absolute" (i.e., it is flexible/optional).[29]

tag: ol

text: Third, Roberts cited the most recent student speech case, Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier. In that case, the Court permitted a school to "exercise editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities" (declining to publish articles in the school paper that "the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school") "so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns". Robert found that this case, though factually distinct, was "nevertheless instructive because it confirms both principles cited above".

text: Roberts then cited cases that cited Tinker in the course of interpreting the qualified status that other Constitutional rights acquire in schools—Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, New Jersey v. T. L. O., Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cty. v. Earls. In light of these concerns, Roberts devoted his lengthiest analysis to the government's "important—indeed, perhaps compelling interest" in deterring drug use by students.[30] To this point, the opinion cited statistics illustrating the problems of youth drug abuse. It further noted that part of a school's educational mission is "to educate students about the dangers of illegal drugs and to discourage their use".[31] The District Court also noted "peer pressure is perhaps 'the single most important factor leading school children to take drugs.'"[32] The Court's interpretation of Frederick's banner deemed the banner as a type of peer pressure. Based on these concerns, the opinion concluded that the principal's actions were motivated by a "serious and palpable" danger of drug abuse quite different from the amorphous fears of anti-war sentiment at play in Tinker.[33]

text: In Tinker, the school principal had punished students for wearing black anti-war armbands based on his "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance" or "mere desire to avoid ... discomfort and unpleasantness".[33] Here, however, the concern about student drug abuse "extends well beyond an abstract desire to avoid controversy".[33] Principal Morse's failure to act against the banner "would send a powerful message to the students in her charge, including Frederick, about how serious the school was about the dangers of illegal drug use".[34] The First Amendment, concluded the opinion, "does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers".[34]

text: Concurrences[edit]

text: Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence that argued that students in public schools do not have a right to free speech and that Tinker should be overturned. Thomas wrote, "In my view, the history of public education suggests that the First Amendment, as originally understood, does not protect student speech in public schools."[35] He praised Hugo Black's dissenting opinion on Tinker and called it "prophetic". Thomas cited the doctrine of in loco parentis, meaning "in place of the parent", in his opinion. He traced the history of public education in America back to its colonial roots. According to Thomas, because originally public schools were intended to substitute for private tutors, public schools could discipline students as they liked and had a far stronger hand in what happened in the classroom. "In short", he continues, "in the earliest public schools, teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed."[36] He opined that because parents entrusted the care of their children to teachers, teachers have a right to act in the place of parents during school hours. Therefore, teachers should be able to discipline students if necessary. Thomas lambasted Tinker for "usurping [the local school district as a] traditional authority for the judiciary".[37] Thomas believed that Frederick was neither speaking gibberish nor openly advocating drug use, but granting such an impertinence constitutional protection "would...be to 'surrender control of the American public school system to public school students.'"[38]

text: Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote a concurrence indicating that he agreed with the majority opinion to the extent that:

text: (a) it goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use and (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as "the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use".[39]

text: Alito agreed that Morse did not violate Frederick's First Amendment rights and emphasized in his concurrence that the holding only applies to students who advocate illegal drug use. He opposed the "educational mission" and in loco parentis analysis in favor of a "special characteristic" of schools that he identifies to be ensuring the physical safety of the students. Alito concluded that an exception must be made to the First Amendment free speech guarantee to protect the students; since according to Alito, advocating illegal drugs possibly leads to violence. But Alito insisted that this small reduction of what is protected by the First Amendment is "at the far reaches of what the First Amendment permits".[40]

text: Concurrence in part and dissent in part[edit]

text: Justice Stephen Breyer concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part, arguing that the Court should not have directly answered the First Amendment question in the case, but rather decided it based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that requires courts to enter judgment in favor of a government employee accused of violating individual rights unless the employee's conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".[41] Because it was not clear whether the school principal's actions in taking down the banner violated the First Amendment, Breyer would have simply issued a narrow decision indicating that she was shielded by qualified immunity and gone no further.[42]

text: Dissent[edit]

text: Justice John Paul Stevens, in a dissent joined by Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg, argued that "the Court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding—indeed, lauding—a school's decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed."[43] Stevens wrote:

text: ... the school's interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech 'reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use' ... cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs. The First Amendment demands more, indeed, much more.[44]

text: Stevens criticized the majority decision as one that "trivializes the two cardinal principles upon which Tinker rests", because it "upholds a punishment meted out on the basis of a listener's disagreement with her understanding (or, more likely, misunderstanding) of the speaker's viewpoint".[45] Moreover, he noted, "Encouraging drug use might well increase the likelihood that a listener will try an illegal drug, but that hardly justifies censorship".[45] "[C]arving out pro-drug speech for uniquely harsh treatment finds no support in our case law and is inimical to the values protected by the First Amendment."[46]

text: Stevens also took issue with the majority's interpretation of the banner as being a serious incitement to drug use:

text: Admittedly, some high school students (including those who use drugs) are dumb. Most students, however, do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate, and most students know dumb advocacy when they see it. The notion that the message on this banner would actually persuade either the average student or even the dumbest one to change his or her behavior is most implausible.[47]

text: Stevens argued that it would be "profoundly unwise to create special rules for speech about drug and alcohol use", pointing to the historical examples of both opposition to the Vietnam War and resistance to Prohibition in the 1920s.[48] Pointing to the current debate over medical marijuana, Stevens concluded, "Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting—however inarticulately—that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely."[49]

text: Academic commentary[edit]

text: Melinda Cupps Dickler[edit]

text: Melinda Cupps Dickler, in her article "The Morse Quartet: Student Speech And The First Amendment" in the Loyola Law Review,[3] provided a survey of commentary that followed in the immediate aftermath of the case: Some commentators have suggested that Morse both demonstrated a division among the Justices on student speech rights[50] and continued Fraser's and Kuhlmeier's erosion of students' First Amendment rights.[51] She regards this suggestion as "not surprising" given the outcome of the decision, the plain language of the holding, and the dissenting Justices' charge that the opinion did "serious violence to the First Amendment".[52] She adds that other commentators have asserted that while Morse did not dramatically change the law regarding student speech, it failed to answer any of the questions left by the Tinker trilogy.[53] She notes that these questions—what First Amendment protection is owed to student speech, and how courts should analyze its censorship—are currently significant as schools struggle with the issues of discriminatory student speech or hate speech,[nb 6] and student speech threatening violence.[nb 7] Further, "such questions are always paramount because schools are the training grounds for our nation's citizens and future leaders."[3]

text: Kenneth Starr[edit]

text: Kenneth Starr, former Dean at Pepperdine University School of Law, and who argued for Morse before the Supreme Court, introduced a symposium about the case[54] noting that Chief Justice Roberts "sought to keep the decision quite narrow", limiting the case "to the issue of public school administrators' ability to keep the educational process free from messages about illegal drugs" and drawing from the Court's existing student speech jurisprudence that "permitted school administrators broad discretion to keep out of the educational environment antisocial messages celebrating drug use".[54]

text: Erwin Chemerinsky[edit]

text: Leading constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky participated in the same symposium, exploring how this decision would be understood and applied by school officials, school boards, and lower court judges. He suggested that the opinion was misguided and—from a First Amendment perspective—highly undesirable, arguing that the decision cannot be justified under existing First Amendment principles, that it could be seen as authorizing punishment of students for speech that is deemed distasteful or offensive, even just juvenile. However, he noted Justice Alito's concurring opinion, which suggests that the majority opinion might be exceedingly narrow and based on a very unusual factual context; Chemerinsky noted that if Justice Alito's opinion is seen as defining the scope of the holding, then the case establishes only the power of schools to punish speech encouraging illegal drug use rather than giving school officials great discretion to punish student speech. Thus, despite the fact that Morse v. Frederick is consistent with decisions from the Supreme Court and lower federal courts over the last two decades, his hope is that Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion will be read through the prism of Justice Alito's concurring opinion, thereby having little effect on the already very limited First Amendment rights of students.[54]

text: Subsequent judicial interpretation[edit]

text: Melinda Cupps Dickler noted that "The few courts that have discussed Morse have disagreed about the breadth of its holding,"[3] supporting this claim with the following citations:

text: Groups involved[edit]

text: The American Civil Liberties Union directly participated in this case on the side of Joseph Frederick. The Center for Individual Rights, National Coalition Against Censorship, and other groups that advocate First Amendment protection filed amici curiae in support of Frederick.[56] Students for Sensible Drug Policy also noted that banning drug-related speech would undermine their ability to have chapters in public schools. The American Center for Law and Justice, and Rutherford Institute, and several other Christian right groups also filed briefs on the side of Frederick, reasoning that if schools could ban "offensive" speech they would also be able to prohibit religious speech with which administrators disagree.[57][58] On this point, the Christian right groups prevailed, as the Supreme Court explicitly declined to hold that school boards could discipline "offensive" speech, noting that "much political and religious speech might be perceived as offensive to some" and the concern is "not that Frederick's speech was offensive, but that it was reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use".

text: The National School Boards Association supports Morse and the Juneau school district, arguing that schools should be able to regulate controversial speech.[59] U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement filed an amicus brief in support of the school district's decision to prohibit controversial speech.[60]

text: On March 19, 2007, Students for Sensible Drug Policy organized a free speech rally at the Supreme Court during oral arguments.[61] The Drug Policy Alliance and the National Youth Rights Association assisted with the rally, which brought dozens of students from across the country to the court steps.

text: Aftermath[edit]

text: The U.S. Supreme Court decision did not resolve all of the issues in the case. Frederick claimed his speech rights under the Constitution of Alaska were violated, and the issue was argued in front of the Alaska Court of Appeals in September 2008.[62] However, the school district agreed to settle out of court before the judges reached a decision. In November 2008, the district paid Frederick $45,000 to settle all remaining claims and agreed to hire a neutral constitutional law expert to lead a forum on student speech at Juneau-Douglas High School by the end of the school year.[62]

text: The original "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner now hangs in the First Amendment gallery of the Newseum in Washington, D.C.[63]