GONE BONG-KERS

The Supreme Court On Drugs

Chief Justice John Roberts reasoned that if a high school principal
didn't act decisively against a student who unfurled a banner at a
school-sponsored event, the principal would be seen as lacking
sufficient concern for illegal drug use. What did the banner say?
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

The gist of the chief justice's thinking carried the day on the
Supreme Court, a 6-3 majority holding that the principal did not
violate the student's First Amendment rights. Even Roberts
acknowledged the sign amounted to "gibberish." Thus, one troubling
aspect of the ruling involves his leap from a goofy sign to the
contention that the student engaged in speech advocating drug use.

Listen to the student, and you get a clue about his thinking: He and
his friends wanted to do something silly enough to attract the
television cameras during the Olympic torch parade through Juneau,
Alaska. They succeeded in gaining attention, to say the least. The
principal and the high court overreacted.

As Justice John Paul Stevens noted in dissent, the majority invented
"out of whole cloth" a special exemption from the First Amendment for
student speech about drugs. Obviously, part of the school mission
involves sending the right message about drug use. The risk in the
court opinion is the invitation to excess, broadly censoring student
speech that principals deem at odds with the school's purpose.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito raised this worry. So
did Justice Stephen Breyer, arguing the harm of drugs alone does not
justify such a sweeping ban. If anything, the educational mission
includes encouraging robust debate, especially about matters close to
students. The debate, in this instance, might have better begun and
ended with the question: What does "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" mean?