'BONG HITS' IS FREE SPEECH

The Supreme Court Should Rule That Writing "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" on a
Banner Is Free Speech, Even for a Student.

ALMOST FOUR DECADES after ruining the day of public school
administrators nationwide by proclaiming that children do not "shed
their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the
schoolhouse gate," the Supreme Court was asked Monday to change
course. It should decline the invitation.

In its 1969 Tinker vs. Des Moines decision upholding the right of
students to express themselves -- so long as the speech doesn't pose
a threat of "substantial disruption" -- the high court overturned the
suspensions of some Iowa students who had worn black armbands to
protest the Vietnam War. Monday's oral arguments concerned a less
high-minded expression of opinion: a banner waved by a Juneau,
Alaska, student that said: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

It's tempting, in comparing the two cases, to suggest that they
vindicate Karl Marx's observation that history eventually repeats
itself as farce. Certainly a silent protest against war is a more
dignified use of the 1st Amendment than the banner unfurled by
18-year-old Joseph Frederick in January 2002 as the Olympic torch
relay passed through Juneau.

Actually, it isn't clear what message Frederick was trying to convey,
though the principal of his school regarded it as an offensive
pro-drug message and suspended him for 10 days. (Never mind that he
was standing on a public street when he displayed his banner for the
edification or amusement of schoolmates who had been accompanied to
the procession by their teachers.)

Frederick may not be the ideal poster boy for student free-speech
rights. But there is a reason that the American Center for Law and
Justice, which was founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson,
filed a brief supporting the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" kid. As is so often
the case in free-speech cases, a ruling against Frederick would
undermine the rights of others who want to express very different
opinions -- including religious ones.

On Monday, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said he found "very, very
disturbing" the argument that a public school could suppress an
opinion inconsistent with its educational mission -- in this case,
its mission to discourage drug use. So do we.

Many school officials (and a few judges) would like the high court to
squeeze the genie of student free speech back into the constitutional
bottle. Children and teenagers are not adults, they say, and the
expression by some students of sincerely held opinions on everything
from religion to drugs to the war in Iraq can make life uncomfortable
for their classmates. Besides, they argue, school is a place for
learning, not for controversy.

The high court dealt with these concerns in the Tinker decision.
Quoting an earlier ruling, the court said: "The nation's future
depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to [the] robust
exchange of ideas." So long as the expression of those ideas doesn't
disrupt the educational process, students should be able to speak
their minds -- even about bong hits for Jesus.