BONG HIT FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

In its 1969 Tinker decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled an Iowa
public school could not expel students who wore black armbands to
protest the Vietnam War because students do not "shed their
constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the
schoolhouse gate."

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a muddled ruling -- with four
justices agreeing, one partially agreeing and three dissenting -- that
restricts those free-speech rights, even outside the schoolhouse gate.

The story begins in January 2002. An Alaska high school student
attending a Winter Olympics Torch Relay on a Juneau sidewalk unfurled
a banner that read, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Joseph Frederick hoped that
prank would land him on TV news.

Because the school had sanctioned the event and school staff
supervised it, Juneau-Douglas High School Principal Deborah Morse saw
fit to confiscate the banner and suspend the student.

Young Mr. Frederick sued. A lower court ruled in the principal's
favor.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Mr. Frederick's
favor.

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the school's
favor.

As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, when Miss Morse saw the banner,
it was "reasonable" for her "to conclude that the banner promoted
illegal drug use -- in violation of school policy -- and that failing
to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge,
including Mr. Frederick, about how serious the school was about the
dangers of illegal drug use. The First Amendment does not require
schools to tolerate at school events student expression that
contributes to those dangers."

So the court ruled that public schools have a right to censor
opposition to the war on drugs, even as it has upheld the right of
students to oppose military wars. Eric Sterling, a board member of
Students for Sensible Drug Policy, described the decision in the
nutshell: "They're saying there's free speech in the schools, but you
can't advocate drug use."

I understand why the big bench would want to side with Miss Morse --
although it's news to me that unfurling a banner on a public sidewalk
is a principal's business, even if the school did sanction student
attendance. Miss Morse was trying to do her job -- even if she was
heavy-handed. Mr. Frederick comes across as a disrespectful cut-up,
who lacked the spine to admit the banner was a pro-marijuana message.

But Supreme Court rulings are not supposed to be adjudicated like a
popularity contest.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote a pragmatic results-oriented decision
likely to please many parents.

But to rule that schools can suppress ideas officials don't like --
well, who knows where that will end?