PRECEDENT 4 STUDENT SPEECH

WHAT IS a bong hit 4 Jesus? We're not sure, and we doubt anyone
really knows what the phrase means -- which is one reason the Supreme
Court ought not to regard it as prohibited speech.

Joseph Frederick, the protagonist in a case the justices heard
Monday, unfurled a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across from
his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002. His unamused principal
ripped it down and suspended him. The Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit ruled that the principal had violated Mr. Frederick's First
Amendment rights; now it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether
Mr. Frederick's sophomoric signage was protected speech.

Existing precedent, which is rightly cautious about limiting First
Amendment freedoms, indicates that high school administrators can
regulate speech on campus if it is school sponsored, vulgar or
disruptive to the school's basic work. Mr. Frederick's banner was
neither school sponsored nor vulgar, and it did not cause a
disturbance on campus. The school's lawyers argue that the banner
promoted marijuana smoking, which is antithetical to the school's
anti-drug mission. But the sign's nonsensical content does not
support that claim. In fact, the banner essentially said nothing and
did not cause a stir, so it's difficult to see how it harmed the
school's anti-drug efforts.

The harder question, which the justices do not necessarily have to
answer in this case, is what happens when a student tries to send a
real message at school -- perhaps one that is unambiguously pro-auto
theft or anti-gay. As current precedent maintains, there is room
within the First Amendment for school districts to regulate student
speech in order to educate and maintain discipline. That covers
speech that is patently offensive.

But as the 9th Circuit pointed out, establishing a standard that is
too deferential to school administrators would make it legal, for
example, to stop students from distributing copies of the Alaska
Supreme Court's decision allowing personal marijuana use in the
state. It is distressingly easy to see how such a precedent could
apply to expressions of support for other activities that
administrators might not condone, such as the distribution of
pamphlets discussing civil disobedience or expressions of
disagreement with standing laws. The court should ensure that
administrators cannot define a school's basic educational mission so
broadly -- inculcating "good citizenship," for example -- that they
have the power to suppress any meaningful speech with which they, or
their school boards, disagree.