BONG HITS 4 THE SUPREME COURT

Happy Independence Day, your independence is dead.

The Supreme Court killed it this week with a decision that proves
beyond a shadow of a doubt that dressing in dark robes brings about
empty thoughts and silly decisions.

In the winter of 2002 Joseph Frederick, a high school student with a
quick wit and sense of humor unfurled a homemade sign as the Olympic
torch made its way through Juneau Alaska en route to the Winter
Olympics in Salt Lake City.

The sign said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" a message Frederick said he first
saw on a snowboard and which to him was a way to proclaim his right to
spout nothing but nonsense or gibberish if he so desired.

But the principal of his school, Deborah Morse said the phrase was a
pro-drug message that had no place at a school sanctioned event - even
if the banner was flown off of school property.

Morse suspended the student and this week the Supreme Court backed the
principal saying while Frederick's banner was "cryptic" (The words of
Chief Justice John Roberts), his principal's interpretation was
plainly "a reasonable one."

Mr. Roberts, I have but one question: In what Universe is it plainly
reasonable?

In another sign of the coming apocalypse, both the ACLU and Christian
groups find themselves in agreement about this. The ACLU defended the
right to free speech, and the Christian groups supported Frederick's
right to freely express the name of Jesus.

Jesus and bongs, what a wonderful pair, at least when making a joke --
which the principal and the Supreme Court (well at least the five
justices in the majority) just don't get.

Where is it reasonable to assume that Frederick's banner was a
promotion of drugs and since when is it okay for school principals to
exhibit as much authority as Hitler in Nazi Germany?

I think I'm going to make a bunch of "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" t-shirts and
distribute them to every child I know, complete with the disclaimer:
"This is only a joke that makes no sense, so don't go trying to read
anything into it you bunch of authoritarian ninnies."

I wonder how that will fly?

Let's picture how it could be taken as a promotion of drug use. One
would have to believe that the person who made the sign believes that
we should all sit around and inhale burning illegal drugs through a
glass or ceramic tube in order to promote Jesus.

First we're assuming that the bong hit is an illegal drug and secondly
we're doing it for "Jesus?" Using the "empty set" I learned in school
I can count how many legitimate Christian organizations promote drug
usage in order to "See God Now in living color on NBC."

Isn't it far more reasonable, as every school child and young adult
knows, to assume that Frederick was just making a joke? Of course it
is.

The more important issue is so what if Frederick was endorsing drug
usage? Illicit drugs and their use are serious issues that require not
only serious thought, but freedom of speech in order to facilitate any
discussion of them.

High school students shouldn't be stifled by mentioning drugs in a way
that a school administrator finds offensive. That's too much power in
the hands of one person that can be used far too arbitrarily. How
would you debate the issue in class if you can't mention it?

Refusing to acknowledge the problem won't make it go
away.

There is an equally disturbing possible interpretation of events
concerning this decision with far darker overtones.

Maybe the majority of the court did get the joke as did the principal,
but all of those in authority have no regard for free speech, don't
care what anyone else thinks, has disdain for humor and humanity at
all costs and simply wants to blindly enforce their will because power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely -- to quote someone
far more intelligent than myself.

Either way, the decision cripples Free Speech

I think The Supreme Court should perhaps engage in a few Bong Hits 4
Jesus, or Bong Hits 4 Buddha, or Bong Hits 4 Rational Thought.

P.S., there's no promotion of drug usage intended here either.