BANNER CASE IN ALASKA FOR STUDENT FREE SPEECH

Whenever the nation's highest court hears a case that could ultimately
restrict free speech, the nation should hold its breath.

Here's the case heard this week by the Supreme Court: In 2002, Joseph
Frederick and his fellow students at Juneau-Douglas High School in
Alaska were allowed to leave school grounds to watch the Olympic
torch as it was paraded through the city. Frederick and some friends
unfurled a 14-foot banner on a public sidewalk across the street from
the school. The message on the banner read, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

The principal took the banner from Frederick, and suspended him for 10
days.

This is a story about a principal who overreacted and a high school
senior who pulled a sophomoric stunt to get on TV. The case would not
have reached the U.S. Supreme Court if the principal had quietly
shared some history with Frederick by reciting for him a quote by
Hubert H. Humphrey, "The right to be heard does not automatically
include the right to be taken seriously."

That said, the Supreme Court should affirm a ruling by an appeals
court that the school violated Frederick's First Amendment rights when
it suspended him.

In its historic 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines rulings, the nation's
highest court overturned the suspensions of students who had worn
black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, proclaiming that students
do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or
expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Frederick was not in a classroom when he unfurled his banner; he was
not even on school property. The principal had absolutely no right to
restrict his free-speech rights when he was off-campus. It is a
stretch to say the students were on a class trip.

In subsequent rulings, the court has made narrow exceptions that
rightly suppress the free-speech rights of students if they disrupt
the classroom.

A ruling against Frederick and his "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner would
undermine the rights of others who might want to express opinions that
school officials find detrimental to their educational mission.

The court should make this a banner year for free speech by ruling in
favor of the student.