CIVIL RIGHTS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORDS

First Amendment Rights Should Be Defended, but Can Easily Be Abused.

The case of Frederick v. Morse, otherwise known as bratty pothead v.
anal principal, is in the Supreme Court, making a mockery of the
judicial system.

In 2002, Joseph Frederick, a high school senior in Juneau, Alaska,
unfurled a 14-foot sign that proclaimed, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus!" in
front of passing news cameras at a school field trip to the Olympic
Torch Relay. After his school principal, Deborah Morse, tore down the
sign and gave him a 10-day suspension, Frederick sued the school on
the grounds that, under the first amendment, his right to free speech
had been violated. He won.

Five years later, the case of Frederick v. Morse, otherwise known as
bratty pothead v. anal principal, is in the Supreme Court, making a
mockery of the judicial system. Unlike famous past cases that made
groundbreaking rulings to establish civil liberties, this case won't
really establish anything for the better. No matter who the Supreme
Court sides with, their decision is problematic.

Frederick was on public property, and his sign was both innocuous and
nonsensical. Whether Morse should have taken the sign down, she
shouldn't have suspended him. Free speech doesn't have to be
intelligent speech. However, if the justices side with Frederick, who
publicly admitted he wanted to irritate school officials and be
televised, and has, incidentally, also been arrested for distribution
of marijuana, the decision could cue misbehaving students around the
nation to abuse their right to free speech and disrupt school cohesion.

On the other hand, it is not difficult to imagine acting as Morse did
or believing that a school official could (and should) block a
student's illegal drug reference from public television on a school
outing. It certainly doesn't seem fair that Morse should provide
monetary compensation to a kid who pushes limits to irritate school
officials. If the Justices side with Morse, their decision may hinder
students' ability to constructively voice opinions or to oppose school policy.

The verdict? Please, have some respect for the judicial system.

The first amendment is a serious matter; it's not a superfluous law
that allows people to annoy others. While we enjoy it daily, we also
learn to leave certain unnecessary comments at the door, particularly
in institutional settings. Employees are expected to act
appropriately in a work setting; students are expected to act
appropriately in a school setting.

At the same time, the first amendment can be unjustly violated, and
it is important to ascertain when free speech is being unfairly
limited. For example, should school officials have the ability to
limit productive class conversation about illegal substances? How
much control should schools have over students' studies? These are
questions that need to be seriously addressed.

Unlike these hypothetical cases, however, bratty pothead v. anal
principal creates more confusion than clarification.