As We See It:

ARGUMENT 4 FREE SPEECH

It's at the top of this page, day in, day out:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ."

The First Amendment means that even speech many of us might find
offensive is protected by the Constitution.

And while most people wouldn't argue with that premise, this support
often might be revealed as somewhat shallow, especially when someone
utters or writes words we vehemently disagree with.

Sometimes this can be speech that seems hateful, such as racist
rhetoric, or misogynist music lyrics.

Other times it can be political speech -- perhaps it's a letter to
the editor calling the current president names. Maybe it's someone's
views on religion or against religion.

We believe in free speech ... for our side.

The United States Supreme Court heard a case earlier this week that
poses just such a test of the constitutional right to free speech.

The case dates to 2002, when a then-18-year-old high school student,
Joseph Frederick, hoisted a banner reading, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"
across the street from his high school in Juneau, Alaska as a torch
for the Winter Olympics passed by.

Frederick's principal, Deborah Morse, suspended him, arguing that the
banner was a pro-drug use statement.

Frederick sued.

The issue before the justices is this: Do students have the right to
free speech while at school?

This isn't the first student-speech case to reach the high court. In
1969, the court said students could wear armbands while at school
protesting the war in Vietnam, although this decision was
subsequently constricted a bit by allowing school officials to censor
campus newspapers and obscene or other speech that might prove disruptive.

In this case, the speech in question is just weird -- what exactly
are "Bong Hits 4 Jesus?" Frederick claimed he lifted the phrase from
somewhere else and only used it to get on TV.

But using prior rulings as a precedent, Frederick's speech seems to
fall within previous protections. His banner, unlike a school paper,
was not sponsored by the school. Nor was it obscene.

Although some Christians might have found it offensive, surprisingly,
conservative Christian groups -- viewing the suspension as another
example of political correctness on campus -- have come out in
support of Frederick.

As for the principal's claim it promoted drug use, the very
nonsensical nature of the wording almost certainly provoked more
puzzlement than a desire to rush out and start smoking marijuana.

Former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, arguing on behalf of the
principal, said student speech can be curbed whenever it deviates
from a school's "educational mission"

This is far too broad.

The court's challenge in issuing a final ruling will be to define how
far schools can go to regulate speech. On the one hand, they should
continue to give school administrators the right to regulate student
speech that is obscene or over-the-top offensive, and to maintain
order and discipline on campus.

At the same time, justices need to recognize that just because
administrators, or the public, might disagree with a particular
opinion or form of speech, they do not have the right to suppress it
or punish the speaker.