Pubdate: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 Source: Times Argus (Barre, VT) Copyright: 2007 Times Argus Contact: http://www.timesargus.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/893 Author: Peter Berger Note: Peter Berger teaches English at Weathersfield Middle School Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Bong+Hits+4+Jesus (Bong Hits 4 Jesus) A SCHOOL EDUCATOR OFFERS THOUGHTS ON THE MEANING OF FREE SPEECH Every year as I teach history, I want my students to know and value the rights they've inherited as citizens. Prominent among those rights is the freedom of speech, a freedom I'm exercising right now. I agree with Mr. Madison, the first amendment's author, that free speech is "one of the great bulwarks of liberty." We examine what the amendment says, which is simply that the government "shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." Then we discuss what Mr. Madison and his fellow framers intended those words to mean. Their intent is essential because according to Mr. Madison, if you "separate text from historical background...you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution." It isn't hard to determine what the framers were thinking about. They'd just fought a war against a government that had forcibly denied them the right to criticize it, ignored their petitions for change, and frequently punished the critics and petitioners. Their amendment was talking about a citizen's right to speak his opinions about public issues without fear of a magistrate or bayonet. Had you asked Mr. Madison what his amendment had to say about pornography, making trousers out of the flag, and other equally weighty modern first amendment issues, I suspect he would've been mystified by your question. When he described free speech as "the only effectual guardian of every other right," he wasn't talking about idle chatter. He meant "the right of freely examining public characters and measures," exchanging "knowledge of the comparative merits and demerits of the candidates for public trust," and the "equal freedom" of "examining and discussing these merits and demerits." Freedom of speech for Jefferson involved the "spread of information." George Washington had in mind discussing issues "which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind." I doubt they would've included "Bong hits for Jesus" among those serious and consequential issues. That's the free speech lawsuit currently before our Supreme Court. Back in 2002 a high school senior named Frederick stayed home from school one morning. That afternoon students assembled outside, complete with band and cheerleaders, to witness the passing of the Olympic torch down the street in front of the school. Mr. Frederick showed up for the event, during which he unfurled a sizable banner labeled in duct tape that read "Bong hits for Jesus." The principal viewed the banner as a violation of the school's federally-mandated anti-drug policy. When Mr. Frederick refused to lower it, she removed the sign and suspended him. This being modern America, he promptly sued for monetary damages. The first court found for the school, the second for Mr. Frederick, and the case recently landed in front of our nine Supreme Court justices. The court has ruled in the past that students "don't shed their Constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door." The court has also allowed that a school can forbid speech which is "inconsistent with its basic educational" mission or which "materially and substantially disrupt[s] the work and discipline of the school." The principal maintains that the sign violated the school's anti-drug policy, that students were outside for a school activity, and that she, therefore, had the authority and obligation to remove the banner. Mr. Frederick contends that he wasn't technically on school property, and that his banner was "certainly not intended as a drug or religious message," a dubious assertion since a bong is a device for smoking marijuana. He claims the sign's words were "lacking in any particular meaning other than to provoke." In short, the school says the case is about drugs. Mr. Frederick says it's about his "inalienable right of free speech." I think they're both wrong. This case revolves around whether being a jerk is covered by the first amendment. I'm not saying this because I disagree with Mr. Frederick. Lots of disagreeable statements are covered by the first amendment. I'm saying this, in part, because Mr. Frederick's words, by his own description, aren't speech, which by definition and precedent has to have meaning. You can't simultaneously maintain that you're innocent of violating drug rules because your statement has no meaning, meaning it isn't speech, while you also argue that your meaningless statement is protected speech. More to the point, we can't afford to confuse an informative statement of deeply held convictions, whether spoken by adults or students, with the actions of a self-absorbed adolescent whose admitted sole purpose was to provoke his school's principal and get his banner on television. Nobody's talking about locking Mr. Frederick up or suing him for damages. But if he doesn't choose to live within his school's rules, he's perfectly free to stay home. If we don't equip principals and teachers with the power to control student behavior, especially intentionally obnoxious behavior, then we have no right to expect our schools to be places where our children are safe and their educations undisrupted. Mr. Frederick isn't the only one with rights. And in this case, his don't come first. - - Peter Berger teaches English at Weathersfield Middle School. Poor Elijah would be pleased to answer letters addressed in care of the editor. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin