BONG HITS 4 JESUS'

Justices should be able to see the obvious when determining the fate
of student free speech

The U.S. Supreme Court took on its first case about student free
speech rights in almost 20 years this week.

The case came from Juneau, Alaska, where a student was suspended for
having a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," the high school
principal's reason for suspension being that the student was promoting
drug use.

In 2002, student Joseph Frederick held up the banner on a public
sidewalk across the street from the school during school hours, in an
attempt to be funny and get on television while the Winter Olympics
torch relay passed. He was suspended for 10 days.

The last case the court heard about public school students exercising
free speech turned out negatively for the students, as the court ruled
that student newspapers could be censored. In 1986, the court also
ruled that a student does not have free speech rights to give a
sexually oriented speech on campus.

This pattern does not seem promising, but comments from justices
during the hearing Monday hint that these cases may not hold precedent
in deciding Frederick's fate.

Justice David Souter called it "political speech" and didn't see how
the banner disrupted the learning environment.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed, pointing out that no one was
smoking pot in the crowd. A Reuters story on the issue said Justice
Stephen Breyer seemed indecisive, saying a ruling in favor of
Frederick could lead to high school students "testing" the limit on
free speech at school, but voting against him could limit people's
rights to free speech in a negative way.

The decision will not be made until June, but the right decision is
obvious. Vote in favor of the students.

Frederick was not doing anything illegal. He was simply holding up a
banner, one which high school students would of course find funny. The
banner was not hanging off a table covered in marijuana, and as some
justices pointed out, just having the sign does not promote drug use
on the campus. Frederick was not even on campus in the first place, so
the principal seemed out of line in her decision to suspend him for
what she thought was negatively affecting her students in school.

Ruling in favor of Frederick is easily justifiable. Freedom of speech
is a constitutional right, and as a 1969 ruling by the court allowing
students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War stated,
students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech
or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

The same rules should apply on campuses as they do outside school
walls. A person does not yell "fire!" in a crowded theater when there
is no fire said Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes. This is a basic rule
learned by all students. When a student misbehaves, he or she is
punished. But how is a banner, which is not harming anyone, a type of
misbehavior? This issue also comes up with clothing, as students
wearing t-shirts and jewelry with suggestive ideas often are told to
change or get suspended. However, expressing one's individuality,
beliefs or even just humor through visual symbols should not be
grounds for punishment. If Frederick possessed an illegal substance,
participated in aggressive or hurtful behavior, or said something to
another student to cause harm, suspension would be understandable. The
kid just stood on a sidewalk and held a sign with a smile on his face.
No harm done.

It makes one wonder what can and can't be displayed. Is a banner
announcing one's political beliefs allowed? If Frederick had a sign
that said he supports gay marriage, would he still get suspended? If
it said he hates George W. Bush, would he get away with it? Since
there doesn't seem to be a limit on what students can and cannot say,
and having a court case to determine the answer every time would be
ridiculous, following precedent with the 1969 Vietnam protest case
seems the most sensible option. "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" may not be as
important to some as protesting a war, but if students decide they
want to do so in the future, they have that right.

College campuses have more leeway when it comes to freedom of speech,
but this is unfair, because students in high schools wanting to
express their opinions, whether intellectual, religious, or humorous,
should be allowed to do so as long as they are not causing mad riots,
massacres and burning and pillaging their schools. It's not a fine
line -- what should be punished and what shouldn't is obvious. And
this principal was obviously wrong.