FREE SPEECH 4 JESUS

While the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" may not be inspired, meaningful
or relevant to anyone in particular, it serves as a reminder that the
Supreme Court decides what we can and cannot say.

In 2002, onlookers gathered in Juneau, Ala. to see the Olympic torch
on its way to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. That same
morning Joseph Frederick, a high school student at the time, held up
a 14-foot-long banner with what he considered a nonsensical message
written on it. Frederick's principal suspended him from school after
the incident, and Frederick filed a civil lawsuit, claiming Deborah
Morse violated his right to free speech.

More than five years later, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote
Tuesday that public schools can restrict any speech one could
interpret as "advocating illegal drug use." Depending upon how
narrowly courts and public schools interpret this statement,
"advocating illegal drug use" could mean a variety of things. Above
all, any limit on free speech is just that - a limit on free speech.

The ruling itself is not surprising, however, considering the Court
has already made several 5-4 decisions this year on its cases with
the five conservatives voting in opposition to the four liberals.
What is surprising, however, is that the conservative judges voted
against Frederick when many conservative groups actually backed him
on the case. Taking away Frederick's free speech rights could mean
leaving room for the Court to take away the same rights of religious
groups - or could it?

On the same day Frederick lost his case for free speech, the Supreme
Court voted in a - surprise! - 5-4 ruling to lift a ban that blocked
political advertisements naming a specific candidate from airing on
TV 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary election.

A Wisconsin anti-abortion group originally brought the case to the
Court, claiming that a 2002 bipartisan campaign funding act
containing the ban was unconstitutional because it infringed upon
their rights of free speech. With the ban lifted, the organization
would have been able to run an anti-abortion advertisement right
before the 2004 presidential election. Chief Justice John Roberts
wrote in the majority opinion, "An issue cannot be suppressed simply
because the issues may also be pertinent in an election."

With these two Supreme Court decisions, it would seem the
ever-present "war on drugs" is no longer a pertinent issue.