Pubdate: Tue, 26 Jun 2007
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 2007 The Washington Post Company
Contact:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491
Author: Charles Lane
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Bong+Hits+4+Jesus (Bong Hits 4 Jesus)

COURT BACKS SCHOOL ON SPEECH CURBS

A 5-4 Majority Cites Perils Of Illegal Drugs In Case Of The 'Bong 
Hits 4 Jesus' Banner

The Supreme Court yesterday gave public schools new authority to 
regulate what students say, allowing principals to punish speech or 
demonstrations that may "reasonably be viewed" as promoting illegal drug use.

In its most significant ruling on student speech in almost two 
decades, the court said that the principal of a high school in 
Juneau, Alaska, did not violate senior Joseph Frederick's 
constitutional right to free speech when she suspended him for 
unfurling a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as students waited for 
the Olympic torch relay to pass their school in 2002. A bong is a 
water pipe commonly used to smoke marijuana.

"Student speech celebrating illegal drug use at a school event, in 
the presence of school administrators and teachers . . . poses a 
particular challenge for school officials working to protect those 
entrusted to their care from the dangers of drug abuse," Chief 
Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a five-justice majority of the 
court. "The First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at 
school events student expression that contributes to those dangers."

Frederick had insisted that the slogan meant nothing specific and 
that he was not advocating drug use.

The court recognized students' right to free speech at school in 
1969, when it said that an Iowa public school could not ban the 
wearing of armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, as long as classes 
were not disrupted. Since then, the court has limited that right, 
permitting administrators to ban sexually explicit student speech in 
1986, and to censor school-sponsored student publications in 1988.

But yesterday's ruling was the first time the court has said that 
schools can prohibit a student expression that was neither obscene 
nor published under the school's auspices.

The Juneau School Board, like many others nationwide, forbids "any 
assembly or public expression that . . . advocates the use of 
substances that are illegal to minors" or otherwise "urges the 
violation of law." Some federal school aid is conditioned on schools' 
conveying an anti-drug message.

Public school officials welcomed the ruling, saying that it 
recognizes that the schools' mission includes protecting student 
security and welfare, and that it will now be easier for school 
administrators to do that without worrying about being sued.

"It's terrific news," said Francisco M. Negron Jr., general counsel 
of the National School Boards Association. "Educators aren't going to 
have to second-guess the on-the-spot decisions they make to ensure 
students are safe."

Still, the court did not accept the broadest claims of Juneau school 
officials and some of their supporters, including the Bush 
administration, who had urged the justices to empower schools to 
restrict messages contrary to their "educational mission."

Two members of the majority, Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Anthony 
M. Kennedy, made it clear that they gave Roberts the fourth and fifth 
votes he needed on the understanding that yesterday's ruling applied 
only to advocacy of illegal drug use.

In a concurring opinion joined by Kennedy, Alito wrote that 
yesterday's ruling "provides no support for any restriction of speech 
that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or 
social issue," including student opposition to the drug laws themselves.

The case, Morse v. Frederick, No. 06-278, had created unusual 
alliances, with Frederick receiving the support not only of civil 
libertarians, gay rights advocates and proponents of medical 
marijuana but also conservative Christian legal organizations.

Lambda Legal, which advocates equal rights for gay and lesbian 
students, backed Frederick out of concern that a ruling in favor of 
the principal might encourage administrators to prohibit students 
from openly declaring their gay, lesbian or bisexual orientation.

For their part, the Christian groups argued that a broad ruling in 
favor of the schools could be used to punish students who express 
religion-based opposition to homosexuality, in school districts whose 
policies call for tolerance of gay people.

Negron said the "jury is still out" on those matters after 
yesterday's ruling, but some who filed friend-of-the-court briefs in 
favor of Frederick said the Alito-Kennedy concurrence means that the 
decision will not affect cases involving student speech about sexuality.

"It is unfortunate that the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to depart 
from its long-held practice of protecting the free speech rights of 
students," said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford 
Institute, a civil liberties organization. "However, the decision 
should have a limited effect because it applies only to student 
speech that promotes illegal drug use."

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also joined the majority. 
Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, arguing that Frederick had 
raised a "nonsense banner," which advocated nothing, legal or 
illegal, and that the court's opinion could be read to permit broad censorship.

"[T]he court's ham-handed, categorical approach is deaf to the 
constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among 
high-school students, about the wisdom of the war on drugs or of 
legalizing marijuana for medicinal use," Stevens wrote.

Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Stevens's 
opinion. Justice Stephen G. Breyer also dissented, writing separately 
that the court should not have decided the free-speech issue at all 
and ruled only that the principal was not individually liable for her decision.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman