COURT INFRINGES ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The U.S. Supreme Court made an important decision Monday that placed
tighter control on students' freedom of speech.

The Court ruled, 5-4, that schools can restrict student expression
when their messages seem to support illegal drug use. This decision
directly stemmed from an incident where a high school student
displayed a 14-foot long sign reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" near his
high school in 2002.

The student, Joseph Frederick, who was later suspended from the
school, displayed his banner outside the high school grounds while
the Olympic torch relay passed through Juneau, Alaska, for the 2002
Winter Olympics.

However, this ruling appears unconstitutional.

The U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech."

According to the Associated Press, Frederick said the banner was
meant to exercise "his right to say anything at all."

The school's principal, Deborah Morse, said the sign did not belong
at a "school-sanctioned event."

While children should receive more consideration for legal protection
from potentially obscene or offensive material, how can we teach
these same children the value of the most fundamental right on which
this country was founded if the highest court in the land is
restricting that right?

We believe this ruling was handed down mainly because of the
potentially-offensive nature of the message. Free speech is built on
a strong foundation that supports citizens' rights to say anything
they want, regardless of how offensive someone may interpret a message.

How far can the Supreme Court go with interpreting obscenity?

Using the Miller test as the constitutional standard for obscenity,
would the Supreme Court object to an atheist or agnostic being
offended by a "What Would Jesus Do" bracelet?

Notice the Constitution has no asterisks that limit the bounds of the
First Amendment.

Perhaps the most upsetting part of this ruling is the implications it
may have on future cases. With this ruling, how is someone to know
where to draw the line when saying something that may offend a
certain group of people?

We can only hope Monday's ruling is not a sign of what is to come for
our rights in the future.