SUPREME COURT RULING ON FREE SPEECH MUST BE NARROW

A case centering on a student's right to free speech could, if not
handled with care, undercut the authority of teachers and school
administrators.

When students are in school they can't do what they like nor can they
say what they like. That's a widely accepted principle, and it's one
that is critical to ensure that teachers and administrators can keep
order.

But what if the student is on the street just outside the
school?

Well, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco
sided with a student who says he was unfairly punished by a high
school principal for unfurling a 14-foot banner that said "Bong Hits
4 Jesus" in front of the school. The student pulled the stunt for the
benefit of the TV crews filming the Olympic torch going through
Juneau, Alaska.

The 9th Circuit judges said the student, Joseph Frederick, is
protected by the First Amendment because he was standing on a public
street.

But school officials argued that watching the Olympic torch go by was
a school activity and therefore under school control.

Now the case has gone to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices,
depending on how narrowly they rule, could alter the accepted
principle that principals have the power to curb speech that is deemed
inappropriate at school.

This is a tricky case that's been compounded by actions that were not
very well thought out. The teenager who unfurled the banner wasn't
making any big political statement. He thought he was being funny. If
so, we would advise him not to get on the comedy club circuit anytime
soon. What he did was more stupid than funny.

But the principal didn't show the best judgment. After she took down
the banner she suspended the kid for five days. When he argued that he
had the right to free speech, she made it 10 days.

Maybe she could have worked with the student's parents to find a
compromise. Why not knock it down to three days and write a report on
free speech and its limits? Let's turn a negative into a positive.

It seems that, if this truly was a school event, the principal had the
authority to take action to silence the student.

However, given the nature of the event, it seems as if school was let
out to watch the Olympic torch. If so, then the student had every
right to unfurl his idiotic banner.

We hope the high court will uphold the 9th Circuit Court. Protecting
free speech - even if the message is dopey - is vital to the personal
liberties we enjoy in this country. But we want the court to produce a
very narrow ruling. It must be made very clear that the teenager was
expressing his views off school property, and he was not under the
direct supervision of the school.

This would make it clear that when students are in class, or involved
in a school activity, such as a field trip, teachers and
administrators are in charge.