LATEST DEFINITION OF FREE SPEECH HINGES ON WACKY TEEN PRANK

It's rare that arguments about something as stupid as a banner
declaring "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But oral arguments were heard in Washington on Monday in a lawsuit
styled Morse v. Frederick that participants and observers alike
consider one of the most important First Amendment cases in decades.
At the heart of the issue is a difficult question: How much power do
schools have to restrict student speech?

Rebellious high school senior Joseph Frederick, then 18, wanted to be
on television and annoy his school principal, Deborah Morse, when he
unfurled the paper banner with "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" spelled out in
duct tape. He did it while cameras filmed the running of the Olympic
torch through Juneau, Alaska, in 2002.

Though Frederick was across the street and not on school property,
Morse, clearly sick of Frederick's antics, confiscated his banner and
suspended him for 10 days. Frederick appealed and, when he lost,
sued. A federal district judge dismissed the suit, but the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, citing a Vietnam-era student speech
decision, held for Frederick. Monday, the highest court in the land
heard arguments in the suit.

Morse and the school district are defended by Kenneth Starr, the
independent counsel who led the investigation of President Clinton.
The American Civil Liberties Union and many other free-speech groups
support Frederick.

In this federal case that never should have been one, the arguments
go to the foundations of Americans' constitutional right to free
speech. School officials contend they can ban any speech inconsistent
with the education mission. They also said Frederick's silly,
nonsensical banner promoted drug use and disrupted a school function.

Frederick and the ACLU say an 18-year-old, not on school property,
has the right to express himself, even if what he says is inane. And
if he were promoting marijuana use, so what? That's a legitimate
issue for debate. (Frederick subsequently was arrested in Texas for
marijuana possession).

How did something so daffy get to be a constitutional crisis?
Largely, because a disciplinarian principal was fed up with a
rebellious student and looking for a chance to punish him. After
spending her career around teenagers, Morse should have recognized
Frederick's banner for the harmless prank it was. She should have
clucked in dismay and walked away from a confrontation.

But she didn't. And now the highest court will decide whether student
First Amendment rights are broad and deep, or whether school
officials, in the name of order, have the power to shut down speech
they deem disruptive.

It's kind of nuts, but Morse v. Frederick is an important speech
issue, and First Amendment rights must be regularly redefined. All of
our constitutional rights are decided one case -- in this case, one
silly prank -- at a time.