My View: Warren Watson

FIGHTING TO PROTECT STUDENTS' FREE SPEECH

A divided U.S. Supreme Court, in Morse v. Frederick, a case involving
a cryptic student banner (and labeled as "oddball" by The New York
Times), last month whittled away at 38 years of legal precedent and
further restricted the First Amendment rights of our students.

The 5-4 decision, marked by angry rhetoric on both sides, represented
another aberration from 1969 when the high court boldly proclaimed in
Tinker v. Des Moines that there should be no age restrictions when it
comes to free speech and that student First Amendment rights don't
stop at the schoolhouse gate.

Over the last 19 years, the Republican-influenced court has told our
students their speech must be civil at all times (Bethel vs. Fraser,
1986). They have told students that their newspapers are subject to
arbitrary censorship by their principals (Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier,
1988). Now, in the latest case, dubbed "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," the
Supreme Court has told students they are prohibited from speech that
might -- just might -- be construed as advocating drug use.

Yes, sad times for those who believe that there should be no age
limits on free speech, the most important plank in the structure of
our Constitution.

And, if the court's whittlers have their way, free speech will be
taken away altogether.

Justice Clarence Thomas, ever the conservative jurist, said, "It
cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment freedom of
speech encompasses a student's right to speak in public schools." He
talked about the old days when "teachers commanded and students obeyed."

Such blunderbuss.

Thank goodness many of the nation's newspapers, bloggers and
commentators believe the court -- at least Thomas -- has overreached this time.

But real optimism that this court activity may be checked sooner
rather later comes from the West Coast. Hope radiated from the Oregon
statehouse on Friday, July 13, as Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed a
historic law guaranteeing free-expression rights to high school and
college journalists.

The law is a start, trumping most of the high court's abuses. In
fact, six other states already have such laws and others are being
considered in a wide variety of states, including Vermont, Michigan,
North Carolina and Indiana. If written broadly enough in the future,
these state laws will effectively negate the Supreme Court's efforts
to strip away free speech for our young citizens.

First Amendment and civics advocates see the law as significant and
one that might jump-start those similar efforts.

There is further optimism from academia. The president of a major
Midwest university has spoken out against the censorship of student
journalists at a high school near Fort Wayne. Jo Ann Gora, Ball
State's president, called the muzzling and discipline of a teacher --
Amy Sorrell -- a "dark cloud" over the school "Strangely," Gora said,
"her belief in the importance of promoting tolerance led to her punishment."

Bad news. Good news. Such is the tenuous world of the First Amendment
in a society bending to the right.

The young minds of today's students are shaped by dialogue and ideas
and viewpoints and facts and critical thinking. Kids learn by
studying and debating. Young minds must be exposed to an open forum
of ideas and issues.

This is how democracy works. This is why students must enjoy the same
First Amendment protection as their mothers and fathers. Yes, a young
mind is like a parachute. It functions fully and properly only when it's open.