'BONG HITS 4 JESUS' COULD SET DANGEROUS PRECEDENT

Boy, I tell you, I never know what to expect when I read the newspaper
these days. Between more bombings in Iraq and The Interminable Inquest
into Anna Nicole Smith's life and death, it's one crazy, crazy world.

And so just imagine my weathered surprise when last week I opened up
the paper to read that Jesus Christ was a pothead.

Or was it that Jesus wanted to be a pothead?

Or that Jesus supported potheads?

Great. Now I'm really confused.

I'm talking about the recent Supreme Court case Morse v. Frederick,
known more fondly by press and public as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case.

In general, its issue has little to do with bong hits and even less to
do with Jesus. Really, it asks the question: can school officials
prevent students for voicing messages that go against those endorsed
by the school?

Specifically, "Bong Hits" deals with to what extent a school
officials' can enforce a zero-tolerance drug policy. It asks whether
high school principal Deborah Morse violated student Joseph
Frederick's First Amendment rights when she forced him to take down a
banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and suspended him for 10 days.

Helping Frederick's case is the fact that he displayed his banner off
school property and at an event not sponsored by the school.

Furthermore, an extremely important trilogy of Supreme Court cases
that has set the precedents by which students' free speech rights are
judged, Tinker-Fraser-Kuhlmeier, serve to help, not hurt, Frederick's
case.

First, Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser restricts a student's
free-speech if it offensive in a lewd nature. Though Frederick's
message may be offensive, inherently sexual in nature it is not.

Second, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier allows for the
censorship of extracurricular activities. However, because the event
in which Frederick displayed his banner was not school sponsored,
Kuhlmeier does not apply.

Third, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
endorses student free speech so long as it is not disruptive.
Previously, the appeal's court decided that no disruption occurred
with Frederick's banner.

Indeed, the banner served merely to attract the attention of a passing
camera crew.

Despite the student's seemingly airtight case, many have reason to
believe that the Court will rule in favor of the principal. Helping
the defense is the argument that the principal was only acting to
preserve the school's anti-drug policy.

Likewise, Ross Runkel of the Supreme Court Times writes, "...there was
no political opinion being expressed - only Frederick's support for an
illegal action... The school has a right to prohibit advocacy of
illegal actions without showing that the student has caused a
disruption."

If we should deem such thinking as this legitimate, then shouldn't the
Alaska Supreme Court, which toyed with the idea of legalizing
marijuana, be guilty of "illegal action" as well?

Furthermore, all of us who simply express opinions that oppose those
of government, those of the Bush Administration notwithstanding, are
subject to the conviction of illegal action.

Bye-bye, First Amendment. Hello, Big Brother.

Overall, it is very disturbing to think that a school can restrict a
student's right to free speech when the student is outside of its
grounds, let alone within it. If the Court finds that it was within
the principal's authority to censor the student, it would spell
disaster for the quality of discourse in our school systems.

Any topic matter, whether deemed too conservative or too liberal by
school officials, could potentially be made off-limits for discussion.

Still, there's one just one thing I can't figure out. Just what did
Frederick mean by writing "Bong Hits 4 Jesus?" Although there's no
denying its reference to drugs, there's also no denying the message's
blithe stupidity.

My verdict: How unfortunate that the banner led to a First Amendment
violation rather than discourse as to why our high school students
have nothing better to put on their banners.