THE RIGHT TO FOOLISH EXPRESSION

SOMETIMES it takes a nonsensical event to bring out the Monty Python
in thoughtful people. That was the case in Juneau, Alaska, in 2002
when Joseph Frederick, 18, unfurled a large banner reading "Bong hits
4 Jesus" directly across the street from his high school as the
Olympic torch relay passed through town.

Though inexplicable, the banner was sufficiently "pro-drug" in the
eyes of the school's principal to justify snatching it from Mr.
Frederick. He was suspended for 10 days for his prank.

Mr. Frederick appealed his punishment, sued the principal, and became
an unlikely free-speech martyr. After losing his case initially, the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision. It
was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral
arguments last week.

Thirty-eight years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker vs. Des
Moines that student free-speech rights didn't disappear at the
schoolhouse gate. That case upheld the right of students to wear
black armbands to protest the Vietnam War as long as it didn't disrupt school.

Mr. Frederick's lawyer argued that his client wasn't standing on
school property when he unfurled the sign, but even if he had been,
he was entitled to his mystifying opinion because it was a variation
of black armbands and didn't disrupt anything.

Enter Kenneth Starr, the former special independent counsel in the
Clinton-Lewinsky affair. Arguing the school's position, Mr. Starr
insisted that Mr. Frederick's sign fell under the school's rightful
jurisdiction to censor because it disrupted school order by
advocating drug use.

It isn't clear to anyone, including the Supreme Court's justices,
what the sign was advocating - if anything. Yet Mr. Starr saw dark,
pro-drug conspiracies where others see what could be a religious
appeal of some kind - or total nonsense.

The Supreme Court, through its questions, appeared split on the
issue, with Justice Samuel Alito surprising everyone by appearing
sympathetic to Mr. Frederick. The consistently conservative justice
said, "I find [the school's position] a very, very disturbing
argument because schools have defined their educational mission so
broadly that they can suppress all sorts of political speech and
speech expressing fundamental values of the students, under the
banner of getting rid of speech that's inconsistent with educational missions."

That's a mouthful, but it bears re-reading. Let's hope his words
prove persuasive when he and his colleagues rule.