FREEDOM ABRIDGED

The First Amendment rights of students suffered a dent Monday when
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a former Alaska high school
student who waved a banner that his principal found objectionable.

Popularly known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, the court ruled that
then senior Joseph Frederick's teenage hijinks in front of his high
school were not protected by the Constitution.

The 5-4 court ruling, which split along liberal and conservative
lines, is a setback for free speech rights of students.

Here's what transpired back in January 2002, in Juneau, Alaska, that
ended in the Supreme Court. The Olympic Torch was coming through town
in anticipation of the Winter Olympics. School officials decided to
allow students to watch the passing of the torch outside
Juneau-Douglas High School. Frederick and some of his friends,
standing the sidewalk -- not on school property -- unfurled a 14-foot
banner with the words Bong Hits 4 Jesus on it. Principal Deborah
Morse told him drop the banner; he refused. Frederick was suspended
by the principal, and, after numerous appeal hearings and court cases
to have his suspension expunged from his school record, Frederick's
case found its way to the Supreme Court, where a Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals ruling in his favor was struck down.

Frederick, who now teaches and studies in China, said the phrase was
a nonsense verse he saw on a snowboard. He never intended for the
banner to advocate illegal drug use, which is how Morse and the
majority of the Supreme Court interpreted the phrase.

It is established that students have limited free speech rights while
on campus and at school-sponsored events. The limitations are
intended to prevent disruption to the education process and to
prevent lewd language and behavior. Those are reasonable-restrictions.

But the high court's ruling goes too far. The banner was not unfurled
on school property or during a school event. Frederick and his
friends were simply doing what teenagers do well -- behaving in a
mildly outrageous manner to call attention to themselves.

The court's wrong-headed ruling not only fails to recognize juvenile
antics, it intrudes on the most cherished of American rights -- the
right to speak one's mind, even if the message is offensive to some.

Frederick's case has drawn attention -- and support -- from both
liberal and conservative free speech advocates. Sadly, the high court
doesn't understand the fundamentals of this basic right.