BONG HITS 4 WHAT?

Viewpoint: The Washington Post

What is a bong hit 4 Jesus? We're not sure, and we doubt anyone
really knows what the phrase means -- which is one reason the Supreme
Court ought not to regard it as prohibited speech.

Joseph Frederick, the protagonist in a case the justices heard this
week, unfurled a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across from his
Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002. His unamused principal ripped it
down and suspended him. The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
ruled that the principal had violated Frederick's First Amendment
rights; now it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether
Frederick's sophomoric signage was protected speech.

Existing precedent, which is rightly cautious about limiting First
Amendment freedoms, indicates that high school administrators can
regulate speech on campus if it is school sponsored, vulgar or
disruptive to the school's basic work. Frederick's banner was neither
school sponsored nor vulgar, and it did not cause a disturbance on
campus. The school's lawyers argue that the banner promoted marijuana
smoking, which is antithetical to the school's anti-drug mission. But
the sign's nonsensical content does not support that claim. In fact,
the banner essentially said nothing and did not cause a stir, so it's
difficult to see how it harmed the school's anti-drug efforts.

The harder question, which the justices do not necessarily have to
answer in this case, is what happens when a student tries to send a
real message at school -- perhaps one that is unambiguously pro-auto
theft or anti-gay. As current precedent maintains, there is room
within the First Amendment for school districts to regulate student
speech in order to educate and maintain discipline. That covers
speech that is patently offensive.

But as the 9th Circuit pointed out, establishing a standard that is
too deferential to school administrators would make it legal, for
example, to stop students from distributing copies of the Alaska
Supreme Court's decision allowing personal marijuana use in the state.

It is distressingly easy to see how such a precedent could apply to
expressions of support for other activities that administrators might
not condone, such as the distribution of pamphlets discussing civil
disobedience or expressions of disagreement with standing laws. The
court should ensure that administrators cannot define a school's
basic educational mission so broadly -- inculcating "good
citizenship," for example -- that they have the power to suppress any
meaningful speech with which they, or their school boards, disagree.