FREE SPEECH

For Rich, Not Students

AMERICA'S precious freedom of speech -- a cornerstone of democracy,
guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights -- took a hit
from the U.S. Supreme Court last week.

Conservative justices ruled 5-4 that free speech gives big-money
interest groups a right to buy last-minute smear ads before an
election -- but also ruled 5-4 that free speech doesn't let a high
school student hold up a sign with the nonsense message, "Bong Hits 4
Jesus."

On a sidewalk across from his Alaska school, the student unfurled a
banner when the Olympic Torch Relay ran by in 2002. He said his joke
message was designed to get him on national television. But school
authorities suspended him. Now, America's highest court has upheld his
suspension.

Dissenting from the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote: "The
court's ham-handed, categorical approach is deaf to the constitutional
imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high school students."

Concurring with the majority, Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony
Kennedy stated the opinion "goes no further" than prohibiting speech
that could be interpreted as advocating illegal drug use and does not
restrict speech on political or social issues.

Did Frederick's oblique reference to smoking marijuana really justify
a ruling that undercuts free speech?

Ironically, on the same day, the Supreme Court overturned its own 2003
ruling barring corporations and labor unions from buying "issue" ads
late in political campaigns -- ads designed to circumvent federal laws
prohibiting them from giving money directly to candidates.

Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court voted to let "issue" ads
run, contrary to the McCain Feingold Act. The impact of this ruling
should become clear during the 2008 presidential and congressional
elections.

The four justices who dissented warned that an explosion of late
spending for nasty ads may further the public's cynicism about
elections and politics.

Free speech lies at the very heart of personal liberties guaranteed to
Americans. But the Supreme Court's 5-4 majority intruded on this human
right by clamping down on silly adolescents while, at the same time,
granting a freer hand to moneyed groups buying smear ads just before
elections.