SUPREME COURT RULES ON ALASKA FREE SPEECH CASE

While watching an Olympic Torch Relay in 2002 pass through his hometown of
Juneau, Alaska, Joseph Frederick and several of his classmates unveiled a
banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." He was suspended from school for
displaying the banner. In justifying the suspension, the school principal
stated that Frederick's banner contained a message contrary to the school's
educational policy to discourage drug use. In other words, the principal
suspended Frederick because of the content of his speech.

Regulating the content of Frederick's speech by suspending him from school
is clear violation of Frederick's First Amendment free speech rights. It
makes little difference that Frederick did not speak his message. The U.S.
Supreme Court has granted First Amendment protections to expressive actions
- -- actions with a communicative element -- such as the display of a banner.
Frederick's stated purpose in displaying the banner was not to promote drug
use, but to exercise his free speech rights.

The message he chose was one he thought would attract the attention of TV
crews covering the relay. Upon seeing the banner, the school principal
immediately seized it and suspended Frederick for five days, adding another
five days to the suspension when Frederick pointed out to her that he was
merely exercising his right to free speech.

To understand why the principal's action amounts to content regulation,
consider whether Frederick would have been suspended had his banner read
"Jesus Loves You" or "God Bless America." Surely, the display of any such
banner would not have resulted in the same type of suspension.

A long line of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, however, tells us that picking
and choosing among messages such as this by the government is
unconstitutional. The basic idea behind this line of cases is the view,
reflected in a famous dissenting opinion authored by Oliver Wendell Holmes
Jr. in Abrams v. U.S. (1919), that there must be a "free trade in ideas"
and that the truth of an idea will be determined by the "competition of the
market."

Thus, the Supreme Court's answer in these cases has been to give First
Amendment protection to the speech and to recognize that others may
challenge that speech with their own thoughts and ideas.

This approach to free speech can often be difficult to accept because it
often requires us to tolerate and listen to ideas that we disagree with or
abhor. Would you be willing to let an individual stand on the street corner
and advocate the views of Al Qaeda?

So long as the individual is not advocating or inciting imminent lawless
action (e.g. violence), the free trade of ideas concept behind the First
Amendment prohibits the government from prohibiting this person from
expressing his or her views.

While you may think Frederick's speech was stupid and inane -- I know I do
- -- you must recognize that supporting the right to free speech in the
abstract is not enough. Only when we, as a society, are willing to support
the application of protections provided by the First Amendment to speech
that we disagree with or abhor do we truly celebrate the free speech values
established by the Constitution.