THE SUPREME COURT PUTS DRUG EXCEPTION ON FREE SPEECH

All speech is free...except when a school principal says it's not.
That was part of what some free speech advocates took away from a
U.S. Supreme Court ruling upon this week.

Briefly, a high school student, Joseph Frederick, put up a banner one
winter morning as the Olympic torch made its way through his home of
Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
The banner's message: Bong Hits 4 Jesus. Frederick said his banner
was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He
intended it to proclaim his right to say anything at all.

But the school principal, Deborah Morse, said to her mind the phrase
promoted use of illegal drugs. Bad message. Frederick was suspended.
Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use and brought a
federal civil rights lawsuit.

The court agreed the young man's message was "cryptic" and split 5-4
in upholding the principal's actions. So now we have, in student
settings at least, an exception to the First Amendment. A drug
exception. Students, you can't talk about drugs. Think about them,
but don't talk about them.

Free speech is tricky. If you have it, it's great. If you don't it's
totalitarianism. Free people can say wise things out loud. They can
say dumb things out loud. A man can open his mouth and remove all
doubt as to his sanity or reason. Or, he can open it and thrill the
world with a speech about his dreams.

That the court would rule on such a cryptic message, only to explain
it as pro-drug, strikes fear in those of us who have seen slippery
slopes in action. That the message also used the word "Jesus" is also
a little unsettling. Did the use of Jesus make the message any
different? Is the word Jesus litigious now?

No, the drug words, of course, were bong hit, slang for smoking
drugs. So, the delivery system is the issue, no? If the sign was
Tequila Shooters 4 Strippers, would the message (if there is a
message at all) be more palatable? Can we shield our kids from drugs
by removing words or thoughts from the language? Do we think that if
we make them sit down and shut up now, we won't have to worry about
them when they get older?

Words are certainly interpretive. We understand them as we understand them.

At least one justice, John Paul Stevens, understands the ruling "does
serious violence to the First Amendment." The judge said the First
Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither
violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is
illegal and harmful to students.

"This nonsense banner does neither," Stevens said.

We agree.

That's the way it is with freedom. It's not lost all at once, a chip
at a time, a slow erosion, a 5-4 split vote.

We should protect our children, we should instruct them on the right
ways to live and treat their neighbors. We should also teach them
they have minds of their own and should query the universe, question
the actions of government, learn as much as they can about the world.

That the case sprang from a government school is all the more
disturbing. We, parents and mentors, have to guide them in this
journey, teaching them right from wrong - not just telling them
something is bad and not to talk or think about it.