NOT AMUSED

Bong Hits For Jesus Aren't Anti-War Armbands.

It's as plain as that -- at least to the humorless disciplinarians on
the U.S. Supreme Court.

Joseph Frederick said the "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" banner he unfurled
across the street from his high school in Juneau, Alaska, during the
2002 Olympic Torch Relay was a nonsensical stunt to get on TV. His
principal, Deborah Morse, wasn't amused. She confiscated the sign and
suspended him.

The justices decided that she could.

Although students "do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom
of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," Chief Justice John
Roberts wrote, those rights "must be applied in light of the special
characteristics of the school environment."

That means that schools can "safeguard those entrusted to their care
from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use."

Never mind that Frederick hadn't even entered the schoolhouse gate
that day and wasn't on school property. Because students had been
dismissed temporarily to watch the relay, it was a school event, and
officials could punish dangerous advocacy, the court reasoned.

Justice John Paul Stevens (along with Justices David Souter and Ruth
Bader Ginsburg) booed: "It takes real imagination to read a 'cryptic'
message (the Court's characterization, not mine) with a slanting drug
reference as an incitement to drug use. Admittedly, some high school
students (including those who use drugs) are dumb. Most students,
however, do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate, and most
students know dumb advocacy when they see it."

School officials certainly should continue to hit kids over the head
with the message that illegal drugs are bad news and won't be
tolerated on campus. It's one of the many auxiliary jobs that society
has heaped on schools.

But this ruling won't really make that task easier.

It's narrow enough to continue allowing students to voice even
unpopular political opinions -- as long as they aren't disruptive, of
course. That's because a 1969 decision, Tinker v. Des Moines, upheld
students' right to quietly wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.

Mostly, though, it seems that Morse v. Frederick makes a First
Amendment footnote of a wise guy who provoked school officials into
overreacting to his attention-seeking.

From the opinions

There's conservative ...

Chief Justice John Roberts: "Student speech celebrating illegal drug
use at a school event, in the presence of school administrators and
teachers, thus poses a particular challenge for school officials
working to protect those entrusted to their care from the dangers of
drug abuse. ...

"When Frederick suddenly and unexpectedly unfurled his banner, Morse
had to decide to act -- or not act -- on the spot. It was reasonable
for her to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use -- in
violation of established school policy -- and that failing to act
would send a powerful message to the students in her charge,
including Frederick, about how serious the school was about the
dangers of illegal drug use."

Then there's conservative ...

Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring: "In light of the history of
American public education, it cannot seriously be suggested that the
First Amendment 'freedom of speech' encompasses a student's right to
speak in public schools. Early public schools gave total control to
teachers, who expected obedience and respect from students. And
courts routinely deferred to schools' authority to make rules and to
discipline students for violating those rules. ...

"Parents decide whether to send their children to public schools. ...
If parents do not like the rules imposed by those schools, they can
seek redress in school boards or legislatures; they can send their
children to private schools or home school them; or they can simply move. ...

"In the name of the First Amendment, Tinker has undermined the
traditional authority of teachers to maintain order in public
schools. . We need look no further than this case for an example:
Frederick asserts a constitutional right to utter at a school event
what is either 'gibberish' or an open call to use illegal drugs. To
elevate such impertinence to the status of constitutional protection
would be farcical and would indeed be to surrender control of the
American public school system to public school students."

And then there's conservative ...

Justice Samuel Alito, concurring, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy:
"The opinion of the Court does not endorse the broad argument
advanced by petitioners and the United States that the First
Amendment permits public school officials to censor any student
speech that interferes with a school's 'educational mission.' This
argument can easily be manipulated in dangerous ways, and I would
reject it before such abuse occurs. ...

"It is a dangerous fiction to pretend that parents simply delegate
their authority -- including their authority to determine what their
children may say and hear -- to public school authorities. ... Most
parents, realistically, have no choice but to send their children to
a public school and little ability to influence what occurs in the school. ...

"Illegal drug use presents a grave and in many ways unique threat to
the physical safety of students. I therefore conclude that the public
schools may ban speech advocating illegal drug use. But I regard such
regulation as standing at the far reaches of what the First Amendment permits."