SUPREME COURT PROBES LIMITS ON STUDENT SPEECH

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court dissected a teenager's sign Monday and
tried to divine whether its "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" message was advocating
drug use or just talking nonsense.

Students' free speech rights could hinge on the outcome of the
case.

Joseph Frederick was a high school senior when he held up the 14-foot
"Bong Hits" banner in Juneau, Alaska. He said he was testing his
constitutional right to free speech. His principal thought he was
delivering a pro-drug message and, invoking the right to discipline a
student for infractions, suspended him.

During the hourlong argument Monday, the justices struggled to draw
the line between the two principles.

Most of them sounded as though they were leaning in favor of the
school principal. "I thought we wanted our schools to teach something,
including something besides just basic elements, including the
character formation and not to use drugs," Chief Justice John Roberts
said.

At the same time, they were wary of saying officials have broad power
to punish students whenever they think a student's message is
offensive or inappropriate.

The court could rule for Frederick if it determines he was, as he has
contended, conducting a free-speech experiment using a nonsensical
message that contained no pitch for drug use.

"It sounds like just a kid's provocative statement to me," Justice
David Souter said.

Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, whose Kirkland and Ellis law
firm is representing Morse free of cost, argued that the justices
should defer to the judgment of the principal. Morse reasonably
interpreted the banner as a pro-drug message, Starr said.

Douglas Mertz of Juneau, Frederick's lawyer, struggled to keep the
focus away from drugs. "This is a case about free speech. It is not a
case about drugs," Mertz said.

Conservative groups that often are allied with the administration are
backing Frederick out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let
schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that
might oppose homosexuality or abortion.

Justice Samuel Alito seemed more concerned by the administration's
broad argument in favor of schools than did his fellow
conservatives.

"I find that a very, a very disturbing argument," Alito told Justice
Department lawyer Edwin Kneedler, "because schools have ... defined
their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all sorts
of political speech and speech expressing fundamental values of the
students, under the banner of getting rid of speech that's
inconsistent with educational missions."