Pubdate: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 Source: Broadside (George Mason U, VA Edu) Copyright: 2007 Broadside Contact: http://www.broadsideonline.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2718 Author: Catrina Belt, Broadside Opinion Editor Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Bong+Hits+4+Jesus (Bong Hits 4 Jesus) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?225 (Students - United States) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana) 'BONG HITS' GOES TO COURT The Supreme Court recently heard the case Morse v. Frederick, more commonly known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, concerning former Juneau-Douglas High School student Joseph Frederick. Frederick held a 14 foot sign that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across the street from the school as the 2002 Olympic was passing by. The principal of the school, Deborah Morse, immediately seized the sign and went on to punish Frederick with a 10-day suspension. Though the incident happened off school property, Morse believed the banner was disruptive, religiously offensive and went directly against the school's anti-drug mission by promoting marijuana. In response to the suspension, Frederick filed a suit against Morse and the school board, in the U.S. District Court of Alaska, claiming his constitutional right to free speech was violated. The court ruled in favor of Morse, but the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision and gave the case to Frederick. Rather than accept defeat, Morse and the school board, who were represented by Kenneth Starr, decided to take the case to the Supreme Court. All over the country, school administrators have banned clothes supporting the likes of drugs, sex, alcohol and gangs. Many schools also limit the language students may use in schools, or require approval of fliers before students pass them out or post them around school grounds. Schools have the right to limit students on the message they choose to project. In the case Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District, the Supreme Court ruled that school officials violated the First Amendment right of free speech of three students who, protesting the Vietnam War, wore black armbands to school. It was during this case that the Supreme Court established a standard for student expression, which states that school officials can only censor student expression if they can reasonably forecast that it will cause a substantial disruption of school activities or invade the rights of others. It may have been within the rights of the school to punish Frederick for the message if the event was disruptive and offensive to others, or even if it was on campus, but sadly for them, it was not. Because the event was held across the street from the campus and was not a school-sponsored event, Frederick was well within his right to display his "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner. Even if the event somehow took place on campus, the only leg the administration would have to stand on would be that the message was pro-marijuana in nature. The banner was not a direct promotion for drug use meant to offend any religious group, or anyone else for that matter, nor did it cause a large disturbance. It is ridiculous to speculate the message Frederick was trying to get across with the obscure phrase presented by his banner. Frederick wanted attention from the cameras and has been noted in saying that he created the display primarily to upset and annoy his principal. Well, Frederick fulfilled his goal and then some. No matter which side is successful, what should come of this case is a clearer definition of what schools may deem as disruptive. Administrators should not be allowed to discipline a student for expressing something they may not necessarily agree with. Schools should be made to create clearer guidelines for what they will or will not tolerate so situations such as these do not turn back up in the Supreme Court. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake