FREE SPEECH UP IN SMOKE

The case is Morse v. Fredrick, 06-278. The issue is First Amendment rights.
And the heart of the matter? A 14-foot banner suggesting Jesus Christ sucks
marijuana vapors from a bong.

However, before anyone can dismiss the odd marriage of Jesus and drug
paraphernalia as irrelevant, one must understand a notable facet of the
case: religion, God and Christianity have nothing to do with it. In fact,
there is only one higher authority at work and that is the U.S.
Constitution. And even though this controversy doesn't carry with it the
ideological weight of other similar cases, Morse v. Fredrick does pose an
interesting question: When is freedom of expression less relevant, or less
important, than institutional authority?

The peculiar case started in 2002, before the Winter Olympics began. As the
Olympic torch snaked through Juneau, Alaska, en route to Salt Lake City,
local high-school students were allowed to leave the campus and watch the
ceremony. Among the crowd, across the street from the school, Joseph
Fredrick carried a rather large, conspicuous sign that read, "Bong Hits 4
Jesus."

Principal Deborah Morse, who was also present as the torch parade rolled
through town, didn't find the banner humorous or constitutionally profound
on any level. She suspended Fredrick for 10 days because the sign, she
said, advocated the use of illegal drugs, which violates school policy.

Now, after five years, the Supreme Court Justices are hearing arguments
from both sides - even if the case is a bit zanier than previous ones.
During the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines School District case, when the U.S.
Supreme Court had to walk a judicial tightrope between administration and
student interests, the Tet Offensive had already dampened domestic support
for the Vietnam War, and disgruntled students wore their outrage on their arm.

Times, at least in terms of the case's relevance to society, were
different. Circumstances were different, too. Obviously, protesting a war
takes a bit more emotional and civic-minded maturity than slapping some
paint on a sign, which is why the court upheld the rights of students to
dote black arm bands in protest of the Vietnam War. After all, Mr.
Fredrick's somewhat blasphemous, somewhat failed attempt at humor isn't
exactly the poster child for constitutional rights.

But the court, in the landmark Tinker decision, ruled that students and
teachers do not surrender "freedom of speech or expression at the
schoolhouse gate." And Morse v. Fredrick accentuates that judicial
precedent in a more complicated manner - and carries with it the
possibility of a ruling with remarkable implications. According to the
lawyers for the school and Ms. Morse, which include Kenneth Starr, a school
should not have to tolerate a message or expression inconsistent with the
mission of the school.

However, the incident in question took place off school grounds, rendering
the authority of administrators about as effective as an old man who waves
a stick to get kids off his lawn. So, if the court ruled in favor of the
school district, as appropriate as it may seem in light of the silly
bong/Jesus banner, the message would be troubling.

Supposing a school's mission were to suppress objections to the way George
W. Bush governs, or the way Ted Kennedy legislates, would that take
precedence over free speech as well? Educational institutions should have
mission statements; and certainly students should be held to the standards
therein. However, school missions should not smother students' core
ideological values.

If the court does rule on behalf of the school, the decision must be
narrow, dealing only with expression that advocates illicit activities such
as drug use. Otherwise, school authority is limitless - resembling
something out of a Dickens novel.