KEEP THOSE KIDS IN LINE

Our country fails without freedom of speech, plain and
simple.

I realize this, which is why even though I may feel the occasional
urge to verbally, perhaps physically, thrash the fat-faced likes of
Glenn Beck, I at the very least acknowledge his condescending
half-chuckled nonsense is somehow a representative pillar of our society.

I know every adult must put forth his or her unrestricted opinions and
expressed contentions in order for others to re-evaluate their own
viewpoints, and in the case of the aforementioned hack, to re-affirm
their own assertions by comparison to a ridiculous third party.
Notice, however, I specify this freedom is reserved for adults, who
have reached a mature level of thought through experience.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court began the proceedings to a case that will
determine how much freedom of speech non-adults are afforded in this
country.

Personally, every time my younger brother begins to lecture me about
life, I remind him of the words of the 20th-century philosopher Ludwig
Wittgenstein, who said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be
silent." The last thing adults like to hear are sermons by
self-enlightened adolescents who are utterly convinced they have found
the "truth." And seeing as how adults are not only the majority in
this country, but are also constitutionally afforded more rights than
juveniles, I bear no legal objection to some collective effort to
silence their "bullshit."

Nonetheless, in the case of Frederick vs. Morse, the plaintiff Joseph
Frederick had filed a lawsuit in 2002 against then-principal Deborah
Morse and the Juneau-Douglas High School of Juneau, Ala. According to
a summary of the case, the Juneau-Douglas High School allowed its
students to leave class one January day back in 2002, to watch the
Olympic torch pass through their town. Mr. Frederick, aware the event
would most assuredly be publicized, decided to satisfy his craving for
fame and fashioned a large banner festooned with the phrase "Bong Hits
4 Jesus." Principal Morse, concerned the message conveyed by the
banner was contrary to the school's basic mission and attitude toward
drug use, confiscated the sign and thereafter suspended Mr. Frederick,
eventually raising the duration of suspension to ten days after he had
refused to turn in his co-conspirators.

In response to this disciplinary action, Mr. Frederick, who was by age
an adult at the time, appealed the suspension to the school board, who
in turn upheld the principal's decision.

Left with no alternative, Mr. Frederick filed a lawsuit against the
principal and the school board in the United States District Court for
the District of Alaska, asserting he had been the victim of a free
speech violation. As a result, the district court passed down a ruling
in favor of the school's action, thereby prompting Mr. Frederick to
appeal the decision.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a verdict that
reversed the decision of the district court, wherein Judge Andrew
Kleinfeld released an 18-page opinion that chastised the school board
for censoring "non-disruptive, off-campus speech by students during
school-authorized activities because the speech [promoted] a social
message contrary to one favored by the school."

Now, at the time of the incident, Mr. Frederick was technically an
adult and was not in anyway disrupting school activities, nor was he
on school property.

Mr. Frederick further argues that his sign was not even intended to
promote illegal drug use, but was simply an outlandish phrase aimed at
getting him on television. Taking this into consideration, there is a
bit of difficulty with respect to the consequences of any potential
ruling.

If the school board is to gain a favorable judgment from the Supreme
Court, it will establish a precedent affirming that a public school
has the right to censor virtually anything with which it disagrees or
finds unacceptable. In that regard, it would be essential for the
parents of all children who attend public schools to ensure the school
is not being run by Principal Glenn Beck, who would expel any kid who
did not acquiesce into letting him cut them off in mid-sentence. On
the other hand, if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling of the
appellate court, therein lies the potential for a generation of
student Glenn Becks who scoff at authority and milk their free speech
rights for everything they're worth, even if they come off as
offensive, soulless, discourteous and nonsensical. So no matter what
is decided, we have to face the obviously inevitable future of Glenn
Beck extremism and gibberish in our public schools.

Although in the distinct case of Mr. Frederick I would personally
support his case against the school board, I must concomitantly
acknowledge my reluctance toward lending encouragement to every
adolescent loudmouth who would attempt to corrupt his fellow students
with his own displays of free speech.

Mr. Frederick may have been an 18-year-old senior at the time, but the
effects of this ruling will surely reach those younger teenagers who
are still greatly impressionable and inexperienced. Vesting power of
censorship with the schools may turn out to be a good thing, as
parents will increase participation in their children's education in
an effort to make certain the views of the schools are analogous to
their own. Besides, the last thing I want to hear is my younger
brother lecturing me on life, now with a tone of authority in his
voice reinforced by a ruling that fortifies his free speech rights.

Maybe by the time he gets home, his sophomoric, undeveloped opinions
will be quelled by fat-faced Principal Glenn Beck. Who thought he'd
end up saving me aggravation!