SUPREME COURT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOUNG PEOPLE

It is not often that the Daily O'Collegian runs an obituary, but I
think this death calls for one. After all, it is one that touches each
and every American.

The First Amendment, 220, was born September 17, 1787, in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was fathered by James Madison and
adopted by the American people as the part of the U.S. Constitution
known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment protected the freedom
of religion, speech, the press, the public's right to peaceably
assemble and citizens' rights to petition the government. In many
ways, it was what set America, "the home of the free," apart from the
rest of the world.

The First Amendment died on June 25, 2007, in the U.S. Supreme Court's
chambers in Washington, D.C.

The First Amendment first fell ill in 1969 at a high school in Des
Moines, Iowa. Four years earlier, an anti-Vietnam War organization in
Des Moines had its members wear black armbands as a means of peaceful
protest. Students John and Mary Beth Tinker were among the supporters
and decided to wear their armbands to school.

In a preventative measure, the school banned the armbands, threatening
suspension for the noncompliant.

John and Mary Beth went to school, were suspended and later sued the
school district.

The case was heard four years later by the Supreme Court, and won
landmark victory in the name of students' rights, according to
http://www.landmarkcases.org.

The seemingly endangered First Amendment had what appeared to be a
miraculous recovery.

Fast forward to 2002, when an 18-year-old Juneau, Alaska, high-school
senior Joseph Frederick held up a 14-foot-long banner that read "Bong
Hits 4 Jesus," while standing on a public sidewalk near his high
school as classes went to watch the running of the Winter Olympic torch.

Upon seeing the banner, the school's principal, Deborah Morse, took it
down and suspended Frederick. Frederick sued and the case went to the
Supreme Court.

It was in the Supreme Court's chambers Monday that the First Amendment
was put out of its misery. I'd like to say it died a dignified death,
but I can't. Simply because it didn't.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Morse's actions were within her
rights as an administrator protecting her students from Frederick's
so-called pro-drug message -- even though there was no such intent
behind the banner.

Frederick only meant to cause controversy, not actually promote
anything illegal. And if he had made a banner with the intent to
promote drug use, well, hopefully it would have made more sense than
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

Rest in peace, First Amendment. You will be sorely missed.

Perhaps I'm being overly dramatic with the whole thing, but I think
the decision is very much a major step backward in the history of free
speech and goes great lengths to undo the great good the Tinker case
did for the First Amendment and for students.

I might feel the slightest bit better about this decision if more
guidelines for interpretations were given. For example, does this
extend to the college level? What qualifies as a negative image and
merits censorship? Could it possibly give way to other issues, such as
sex, sexual orientation and so on?

The Supreme Court's decision also left holes in the
issue.

If the school determines what is or is not offensive, how is fairness
guaranteed? If we are to go by the schools' decisions in both the
Tinker and Frederick cases, I'm going to say it's not. I'd also
venture a guess that the Court is setting itself up for at least one
repeat case.

But maybe that's what needs to happen. Perhaps the Court will see the
error of its ways.

The Court did try to prevent the complete eradication of students'
rights. A student is immune from punishment if the controversial
statement is political in nature. But again, the school decides if it
is a political message or just inappropriate. It's still not entirely
fair.

I know many people will read this decision and say, "So what? It
doesn't hurt a lot of people and doesn't apply once you're out of
school." To be completely cliche, it's the principle of the entire
ordeal that matters to everyone.

I'll cite the old saying, "If you give an inch, they'll take a
mile."

We've unfortunately given a good foot of our rights, and the Court has
happily taken out another two or three.

Wake up, America. Your rights are being taken away from you. Not only
that, they're being taken, for your protection, by the people who gave
you the rights in the first place -- for your own protection. This is
not OK, people.

The United States prides itself as a prime example of how democracy is
supposed to function and is attempting to spread its form of democracy
to less-than-cooperative countries across the globe. How dare we make
claims of freedom and equality for all if we gradually strip our own
citizens -- even if just one -- of their basic rights?

That would be severe hypocrisy, folks.

I shudder to think what the international community will think of this
decision. It certainly sends the clear message that our system is
flawed and ineffective and that the self-proclaimed superior Americans
can't handle these freedoms.

And if the best of the best can't make the system work, who
can?

So you see, ladies and gents, this is in no way about one high
schooler trying to cause trouble. The ripple effect in this case could
have devastating effects not only on our personal freedoms, but also
on the United States' international clout.

So pat yourself on the back, Supreme Court. You have successfully
stripped the rights of and isolated an entire generation. And there
are more where they came from.

According to constitutional amendments, the supreme law in this
country, you must be 18 to enlist in the military and vote and 21 to
consume alcohol. Nowhere is it mentioned that any citizen will be
denied their First Amendment rights based on age and status of school
enrollment. The Court upholding this decision is in itself
unconstitutional.

I can find no solution to this problem now that the final decision has
been handed down. Anyone else up for Shots 4 Injustice? Supreme Court
doesn't care about young people Vote for yourself, please