Pubdate: Tue, 26 Jun 2007
Source: Williamsport Sun-Gazette (PA)
Copyright: 2007 Williamsport Sun-Gazette
Contact: http://www.sungazette.com/asp/forms/letters-form.asp
Website: http://www.sungazette.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3630
Author: David Thompson
Bookmark: 
http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Bong+Hits+4+Jesus 
(Bong Hits 4 Jesus)

EXPERT: 'BONG HITS' RULING UNLIKELY TO HAVE MUCH IMPACT

Monday's Supreme Court ruling in a highly publicized "Bong Hits 4 
Jesus" case involving an Alaska high school student probably will 
have little impact on student expression.

That's the opinion of an expert on the First Amendment in the wake of 
the eagerly awaited ruling.

Robert D. Richards, distinguished professor of journalism and law at 
Penn State University, had another question as well: what does the 
"bong hits" phrase actually mean?

The court declared that public schools can prohibit student speech 
advocating drug use.

The case involves Joseph Frederick, who, as a high school student in 
Juneau, Alaska, in 2002, unfurled a 14-foot banner containing the 
slogan while the Olympic torch was being carried on its way to Salt Lake City.

Frederick was suspended, prompting a civil rights lawsuit, according 
to the Associated Press.

The court ruled 5-4 in favor of the school district, it said.

But Richards suggested it was "a stretch" for the court to determine 
the message on the banner advocated drug use.

"I understand why (the court is) doing it, but I think it is a 
stretch for the majority to find it a pro-drug message," said 
Richards, who is a founding co-director of the Pennsylvania Center 
for the First Amendment.

Even Frederick acknowledged the message was nonsense and was intended 
as a way of proclaiming his right to free speech, the Associated 
Press reported.

Richards suggested the ruling will have little impact on student 
rights. A law already in place prohibits lewd, offensive and vulgar 
speech by students in public schools, and the court cited that law in 
making its decision in the Alaska case, he said.

In addition, the decision does not do away with all types of student 
expression, he said.

"It's a very narrow ruling," Richards said. "They simply said they 
found (the slogan) to be a pro-drug message and decided schools could 
be consistent with the First Amendment and bar pro-drug messages." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman