Bethel School District No. v. Fraser (403 )

Justice Brennan concurred with the majority's decision. However, he wrote a separate opinion that placed more limits on a school board's authority. Brennan stated that his colleagues grossly exaggerated in describing Fraser's remarks as "obscene," "vulgar," and "lewd." Having read the full text, Brennan found it "difficult to believe that it is the same speech the Court describes" The language Fraser used was very far indeed from the "very narrow class of `obscene' speech" that is not protected by the First Amendment.

School officials do not, Brennan argued, have a "limitless authority" to regulate student speeches, such as Fraser's. If they acted to ensure that the assembly proceeded in any orderly manner, then they had the authority to suspend Fraser. But his speech might well have been protected "had he given it in school but under different circumstances."

In Justice Marshall's dissenting opinion, he argued that school officials never presented evidence that Fraser's speech had, in fact, disrupted education at Bethel High.

Justice Stevens also dissented. Stevens argued that Fraser had no reason to think he would be suspended for the speech given. As the lower courts had correctly ruled, his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because he did not receive "fair notice" of how the authorities would react.

The school rules forbade "disruptive" conduct. But there was no evidence that his speech was disruptive. And his language--although it involved a sexual metaphor--was not obviously "obscene" or "lewd." Before giving the speech, Fraser had questioned three teachers regarding its propriety. None of them suggested that he might be suspended for giving the speech. Fraser thus had no reason, Stevens concluded, to anticipate that he would be punished.