SPLC

Joseph Frederick filed a federal lawsuit against his school district in 2002, alleging the school violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The district court ruled his rights were not violated because the event, although across the street from the school, was school-sanctioned, and the school had the authority to punish him based on its anti-drug policy.

Frederick appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and won. But the Supreme Court in June ruled for the school district, saying schools may punish student speech that advocates the use of illegal drugs.

Frederick re-filed the case in state court, claiming the school violated his rights under Alaska law, but the state district court dismissed the case. Frederick's attorney, Doug Mertz of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union, now is appealing the dismissal.

In the meantime, Mertz is trying to defer a Feb. 1 deposition date to discuss Frederick's assets because Frederick is in China teaching English and cannot afford to come home. Mertz said he suspects the district has an ulterior motive in moving to collect court fees while the case is still in progress.

"Since they know that Joe is broke, they know they probably will never collect anything. So the motive is almost certainly something else, likely retaliation, harassment, or perhaps to let them get a hold of the contract Joe has with a Hollywood studio for an option on his story -- something that really galls them -- so they can try to stop the film," Mertz said. He added that Frederick would be forced to borrow money and quit his job to return home for the deposition.

The school district's attorney, David Crosby, said he sent Frederick a number of questions regarding his assets, which would help him determine if a deposition is even necessary.

"We will defer the decision to take a deposition and how that deposition is taken," he said, but he wants answers to the questions first. Frederick has had the questions for six weeks and has not responded, he said.

"If a deposition is necessary, I am willing to do it by telephone and video camera if the plaintiff bears the additional cost of doing that," Crosby said.

Once a court decision is made, the winning side has the right to collect court fees, he said.

"A judgment, when entered by a court, is final ... this applies to everyone. The plaintiff is not being treated any differently," Crosby said. "I can't see why the court would deny us this information."

Crosby said he hopes the long-running case will soon come to an end.

"When will [this case] go away? We're now at the stage where they've lost to the Supreme Court and the district court said the case is 'moot.' "