'BONG HITS 4 JESUS'

First Amendment Case Sparks Unexpected Alliances

Banner Prompts First Big Free Speech Case In Years

The First Amendment has a way of inspiring unexpected alliances. A
case the Supreme Court began debating Monday, Morse v. Frederick, is
providing just that inspiration.

The case is one of the first substantial challenges to student free
speech rights in more than 20 years, and it is one which both of our
organizations -- the Center for Individual Rights and the American
Civil Liberties Union -- consider vitally important.

The fact that we are solidly together on this case -- joined by
conservative religious organizations and advocates on drug policy,
free speech, and gay rights -- tells you something about its
compelling nature. For more than 200 years, individuals with
otherwise disparate political and ideological views have nevertheless
found common ground in their support and defense of the bedrock
principle of freedom of speech, and this is one of those instances.

The case began with a seemingly unremarkable incident. On Jan. 24,
2002, Joseph Frederick and his classmates in Juneau, Alaska, were
excused from class to watch the Olympic Torch Relay pass by.
Frederick stood on the sidewalk across the street from his school and
as television crews taped the passing of the parade, he unfurled a
banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

Principal Deborah Morse immediately crossed the street and confronted
Frederick, demanding he lower the sign.

When Frederick refused, Morse grabbed and crumpled up the banner and
later suspended Frederick for 10 days -- five days for the initial stunt.

When Morse disagreed with her decision on First Amendment grounds,
citing Thomas Jefferson in his defense, she suspended him an
additional five days. Litigation ensued and Frederick's case, argued
by the ACLU, has now made its way to the Supreme Court

This case is not about drugs. It is not about religion. It is about
the First Amendment. While some might argue that the message at issue
advocated illegal behavior and should therefore rightly be banned,
the larger principle at stake -- constitutionally protected freedom
of speech -- is nevertheless fundamental.

The principal, with the support of the school district, engaged in
blatant censorship of a student's speech based on its content alone.
Under this expansive and incoherent theory, a student could
presumably be punished for wearing a "Go Speed Racer" T-shirt because
the message might encourage student drivers to exceed the speed limit.

The Supreme Court has long held that speech cannot be banned as
"offensive" simply because those in positions of authority object to
its perceived message. The desire to avoid an unpleasant or
uncomfortable conversation, whether about religion or drugs or
abortion or the Darwinists-Creationists debate, is not enough to
warrant the suppression of free speech.

Our schools have an important role to play in promoting civility and
respect for the law. But that lesson is undermined when school
officials themselves ignore the Constitution. As Justice Louis D.
Brandeis observed many years ago, the government teaches by example.
And as the court noted in its historic Tinker ruling, students do not
"shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression
at the 'schoolhouse gate.'" In that important decision, the court
conceived of public schools as a marketplace of ideas. So long as
those ideas are not disruptive, they are generally permissible.

In the current case, while the school may have disagreed with
Frederick's message, it was not disruptive to the school or its
mission. Anyone who was ever a high school student knows that the
school cannot compel respect for the law through censorship.

If you think this is just an academic dispute, think again. Some of
the most profound issues of our day have their roots in student-led
communications. Imagine if schools had been allowed to decide what
speech was permissible during the civil rights era. Surely we all
agree that students expressing support for their peers engaging in
civil disobedience against school segregation policies were protected
by the First Amendment. Today, we make the same argument for students
who voice support or opposition to the teaching of evolution, for
example. Certainly they are entitled to make their opinions known at
school, so long as they are not disruptive.

The First Amendment is central to the American spirit. It is part of
what makes us who we are as a people. From time to time, it is put to
the test -- and sparks unexpected alliances. Time and again, the
First Amendment has triumphed over those who would seek to limit it,
and we trust it will yet again.