LOW POINT FOR HIGH JINKS

If the issue of student free speech were not so serious, the U.S.
Supreme Court's unfortunate decision in the case of a high school
senior who held up a provocative banner - for which he was suspended
by school authorities - could almost be chalked up to a generational
misunderstanding. But the overreaction by adult authorities in this
case, from school officials to a majority of the high court, has led
to a bad precedent for First Amendment rights.

Joseph Frederick, who was an 18-year-old senior in 2002, has admitted
that the main reason he and some of his friends created a 14-foot
banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and displayed it as the Olympic
torch came through their town of Juneau, Alaska, was to attract the
attention of television cameras. Mr. Frederick and his fellow
students had been excused from classes to watch the torch parade from
a public sidewalk across the street from their school.

Although school officials conceded that the banner display did not
interfere with classroom work or prompt complaints about drug use,
Mr. Frederick was banned from campus for eight days because the
principal insisted that the banner violated school policy against
public expression that promotes illegal drug use. But Mr. Frederick
eventually persuaded a federal appeals court to agree that his First
Amendment rights had been violated and that the principal should be
liable to him for damages.

While the Supreme Court did not determine whether the principal
should be personally liable for damages, a majority felt that she had
made the right call. Even though Mr. Frederick's banner could be
considered "gibberish," noted Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.,
writing for the court, the reference to drugs seemed to trump
everything, especially free speech and good sense. Most of the
justices who voted to overturn the appeals court ruling seemed to be
swayed by the false importance of not undermining a school's efforts
against illegal drug use.

Students have not traditionally been extended the same First
Amendment rights as adults, but the majority's general tolerance of
censorship when the subject involves drugs seems a rather extreme
reaction to what was, essentially, a prank. Mr. Frederick certainly
got the attention he wanted, and the Supreme Court has taught him and
other students a lesson in unintended and unanticipated consequences.