Commentary: Morristown High officials need lesson in free speech

Morristown High School officials removed this artwork by junior Liam Shea from the school art show.
Morristown High School officials removed this artwork by junior Liam Shea from the school art show in 2017.


By Brian J. Connor

It’s not every day that constitutional debates hit the local news. It is stranger still to witness two of these controversies within a few days of one another.

Wall Township and Morristown have both played host to interesting scandals of this type over the past week.

On Saturday, June 10, 2017, ABC-7 reported three cases of censorship in Wall Township High School’s yearbook, with the removal of right-wing iconography from two students’ pictures, and the unexplained absence of another student’s senior quote, which happened to be attributed to Donald Trump.

Following this development, the Wall Township School Board promptly suspended the responsible teacher “pending additional disciplinary action.”

It is clear that the board took the legally correct action, as this censorship lies in direct conflict with several landmark Supreme Court decisions.

In 1969, the high Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines that students’ First Amendment rights “do not end at the schoolhouse gates” and that any suppression of expression or speech must be supported with proof of “material and substantial interference” with the operation of the school.

Ironically enough, this censorship of the yearbook likely did more to disrupt school operations than the censored content ever could.

This story garnered national attention, and the school board quickly and decisively took appropriate action.

In stark contrast, a similar situation unfolded at Morristown High School. As reported by, a high school junior was called into Principal Mark Manning’s office.

This meeting concerned the student’s recent submission to the school’s Art & Design Show: A five-foot tall graphic depiction of sitting president Donald Trump, stylized to resemble a pig.

While the school principal conceded that the work was “very well done,” he explained that the possible controversy surrounding the painting necessitated removal of the piece from the show.

The school has yet to take any corrective action in this case. Unfortunately for Morristown High, constitutional law appears to stand in opposition to the school’s ruling.

As a first step, we can look again at Tinker v. Des Moines, which established that students maintain their right to free speech even when they are at school. While Principal Manning may have alluded to the possibility of disruption of school operations, he censored the artwork before that potential disruption had the chance to be realized.

The argument that this artwork would have ignited some sort of civil unrest in the school is flimsy at best.

If we accept this reasoning, we have determined that the student in question had a constitutional right to free speech, and we can examine the main situation in which the government is permitted to restrict speech: Obscenity.

In 1973, the Court’s ruling in Miller v. California established that the government can restrict obscene, but not indecent, content.

To be determined obscene, the content in question must satisfy three conditions: 1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient (obscene) interest; 2) The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct, specifically defined by applicable state law; and 3) The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious artistic, political, or scientific value.

The first two conditions can be easily thrown out the window, as there is no sexual content in the piece. The third condition also can be fairly easily eliminated, as the piece was chosen for display at an art show, and clearly satirizes the actions of the president in an artistic manner.

It is reasonable that a high school administrator would seek to reduce controversy in order to stabilize the learning environment. It is unreasonable that an administrator would violate the First Amendment rights of one of his students in order to do so.

As Theodore Roosevelt once said, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Morristown High School should issue an apology to the student in question as well as the school community as a whole, and should display this piece in its rightful place at the school Art & Design Fair.

To do otherwise would demonstrate to students that their First Amendment rights are only upheld when it is in the convenient interest of school administrators to do so.

Brian J. Connor is a 2013 graduate of Morristown High School, a 2017 graduate of The College of New Jersey, and the 2017 recipient of the Dr. Daniel R. Hall Award for Excellence in Economics and Public Service. In his spare time, Brian enjoys rowing, running, and following politics, economics, and current events.



If you’ve read this far… you clearly value your local news. Now we need your help to keep producing the local coverage you depend on! More people are reading Morristown Green than ever. But costs keep rising. Reporting the news takes time, money and hard work. We do it because we, like you, believe an informed citizenry is vital to a healthy community.

So please, CONTRIBUTE to MG or become a monthly SUBSCRIBER. ADVERTISE on Morristown Green. LIKE us on Facebook, FOLLOW us on Twitter, and SIGN UP for our newsletter.

[interactive_copyright_notice float='left']
[icopyright_horizontal_toolbar float='right']


  1. Liam Shea is a disgrace and so are his parents. The world is full of disrespectful individuals these days, including the media, who have no problem showing complete disrespect for the office of the President and a civil means of expressing themselves. Kudos to the MHS principal for removing this so called artwork, but shame on the teacher for including this disgraceful self-promoting doodle in the first place. While the so called art depicting Trump was disrespectful and inappropriate, the burning of the American flag in the portrait was shameful and disgraceful. More recent posts and comments on news articles by Liam’s parents are quite telling regarding how this so called art was painted in the first place as well as the content of their character. Liam’s parents apparently raised a disrespectful kid who seems to have no concept of respectful, civil or decent behavior, but is that any surprise now that we see Liam’s mother is now openly seeking to profit financially out of this. Liam calls himself an artist. He seems more like an opportunist and it seems, in this case, that his mother is his pimp. Shame on them. It is time for everyone to return to a more appropriate and respectful level of discourse where we openly engage in discussion and debate in a respectful manner, rather than inflame tensions and result in situations like we saw last week with gunmen targeting lawmakers. Liam, since your parent apparently never taught you, let me tell you that it is never acceptable or appropriate to burn the American flag that so many Americans died for, regardless of your misguided attempts at art. Sadly, it seems the Sheas are going to chase the route of disrespect followed by pure greed. Ching ching Mrs. Shea, seems you have turned bad parenting into a cash business. Disgusting.

  2. Would Obama depicted as a monkey be considered for the show? Or be considered free speech and protected? Nope!


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.