News (Media Awareness Project) - US OH: Editorial: Bong Hits On First Amendment |
Title: | US OH: Editorial: Bong Hits On First Amendment |
Published On: | 2007-06-28 |
Source: | Plain Dealer, The (Cleveland, OH) |
Fetched On: | 2008-08-16 23:32:50 |
BONG HITS ON FIRST AMENDMENT
When the Olympic torch passed through Alaska in 2002, Juneau- Douglas
High School senior Joe Frederick and a group of his pals behaved like
teenagers in awe of their own cleverness. Standing across from the
school, amid a crowd of classmates and teachers, they unfurled a
14-foot banner that read "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" as the relay and a bevy
of camera crews passed by. Horrified, Principal Deborah Morse told
them to take down the banner; only Frederick gave her guff. She suspended him.
Thus began a case that should never have ended up in the Supreme
Court, and never provided a platform to discuss, much less truncate,
the First Amendment rights of students. But in this overly litigious
society, it did, in part because Morse and her superiors argued that
the banner violated a district policy against public expressions of
support for illegal drug use. Even so, Justice Stephen Breyer thought
the court could have treated the case as merely a matter of
discipline and simply immunized Morse for her split-second decision.
Instead, Breyer's colleagues sought to find higher meaning in a
phrase that even Frederick and his friends insist was designed simply
to get them on TV. Chief Justice John Roberts led a majority that
thought the banner encouraged marijuana use. They held that drug
abuse is such a serious problem that it justifies bending the court's
1969 holding that students do not "shed their constitutional rights
to freedom of expression at the schoolhouse gate." Even so, a couple
of Roberts' concurring colleagues added that if the banner had been
political, not hedonistic, it would have been protected speech.
The dissenters wondered what, if anything, the banner meant. It
certainly lies wide-open to interpretation. And absent some
definitive meaning, how can the court draw the bright lines that
constitutional matters demand? Must we really accept collateral
damage to the First Amendment in the war on drugs?
Joe Frederick and his posse wanted a glimmer of fame. Too bad the
court provided it.
When the Olympic torch passed through Alaska in 2002, Juneau- Douglas
High School senior Joe Frederick and a group of his pals behaved like
teenagers in awe of their own cleverness. Standing across from the
school, amid a crowd of classmates and teachers, they unfurled a
14-foot banner that read "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" as the relay and a bevy
of camera crews passed by. Horrified, Principal Deborah Morse told
them to take down the banner; only Frederick gave her guff. She suspended him.
Thus began a case that should never have ended up in the Supreme
Court, and never provided a platform to discuss, much less truncate,
the First Amendment rights of students. But in this overly litigious
society, it did, in part because Morse and her superiors argued that
the banner violated a district policy against public expressions of
support for illegal drug use. Even so, Justice Stephen Breyer thought
the court could have treated the case as merely a matter of
discipline and simply immunized Morse for her split-second decision.
Instead, Breyer's colleagues sought to find higher meaning in a
phrase that even Frederick and his friends insist was designed simply
to get them on TV. Chief Justice John Roberts led a majority that
thought the banner encouraged marijuana use. They held that drug
abuse is such a serious problem that it justifies bending the court's
1969 holding that students do not "shed their constitutional rights
to freedom of expression at the schoolhouse gate." Even so, a couple
of Roberts' concurring colleagues added that if the banner had been
political, not hedonistic, it would have been protected speech.
The dissenters wondered what, if anything, the banner meant. It
certainly lies wide-open to interpretation. And absent some
definitive meaning, how can the court draw the bright lines that
constitutional matters demand? Must we really accept collateral
damage to the First Amendment in the war on drugs?
Joe Frederick and his posse wanted a glimmer of fame. Too bad the
court provided it.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...