Pubdate: Tue, 26 Jun 2007
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2007 Los Angeles Times
Contact:  http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/248
Author: David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
Bookmark: 
http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Bong+Hits+4+Jesus 
(Bong Hits 4 Jesus)

JUSTICES LET SCHOOLS BAN PRO-DRUG SIGNS

High Court Rules, 5-4, That Administrators Have The Right To 
Discipline Students For Promoting Illegal Activities.

WASHINGTON -- School principals may punish students for displaying 
signs that favor the use of illegal drugs, the Supreme Court said 
Monday in a narrow decision limiting the free-speech rights of students.

The 5-4 ruling rejected a free-speech claim from a former high school 
student in Juneau, Alaska, who was suspended for unfurling a banner 
outside school that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The student, Joseph 
Frederick, hoped to show up on the local television news because the 
Olympic torch parade was due to pass by. Instead, he ended up in the 
principal's office and received a 10-day suspension.

He sued the principal, Deborah Morse, contending she had violated his 
rights under the 1st Amendment, and he won before a federal appeals 
court in San Francisco.

The justices sided with the principal Monday in throwing out the 
student's lawsuit, but they stressed they would have come to a 
different conclusion if the banner had carried a political or social 
message. For example, if the banner had read "Down with Bush" or 
"Praise Allah," the court might have concluded it was protected as free speech.

Bush administration lawyers had urged the court to permit public 
school officials to censor any student speech that interferes with 
the school's educational mission. But two justices in the majority -- 
Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy -- said they would not go 
along with such a ruling. Alito said school authorities should not 
have "a license to suppress speech on political or social issues 
based on disagreement with the viewpoint expressed."

This strong support for free-speech appeals to conservatives and liberals.

Some conservative groups have gone to court to defend Christian 
students who have worn T-shirts objecting to homosexuality or 
proclaiming their faith in Jesus.

But the Alaska case decided Monday turned on whether principals can 
forbid signs, banners or T-shirts that appear to support illegal drug 
use. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. put together a five-member 
majority to uphold the principal's decision in this case.

"School principals have a difficult job, and a vitally important 
one," Roberts said. "When Frederick suddenly and unexpectedly 
unfurled his banner, Morse had to decide to act, or not act, on the 
spot. It was reasonable for her to conclude the banner promoted 
illegal drug use -- in violation of established school policy -- and 
that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in 
her charge.

"The 1st Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school 
events student expression that contributes to those dangers."

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, along with Kennedy and 
Alito, agreed with Roberts in Morse vs. Frederick.

While Alito and Kennedy said they supported broad free-speech rights 
for students, Thomas said he would have gone further in the other 
direction and said high school students do not have free-speech rights.

The court's main ruling in this area of free-speech law goes back to 
the Vietnam War era. In 1969, it sided with students who had worn 
black armbands to high school to protest the war. The court said then 
in Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District that 
students "do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of 
speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Roberts cited that phrase with approval Monday, and only Thomas, 
speaking for himself, said he would overrule the Tinker decision.

Since 1969, high school students have not won a free-speech case in 
the Supreme Court. In 1986, for example, the court said a student 
could be disciplined for giving a speech that included several mild 
sexual allusions. Two years later, the court said a teacher could 
remove articles from a school newspaper because they mentioned the 
names of girls who were pregnant.

However, the court has maintained the view that speech by students, 
including signs or T-shirts, should be permitted, so long as it is 
not "disruptive." The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals relied on 
that formulation when it ruled in favor of Frederick and his "bong 
hits" banner.

But the Supreme Court said advocating illegal drugs at school could 
not be treated as protected speech.

Justice John Paul Stevens spoke for the dissenters Monday and 
questioned whether the "bong hits" sign had much to do with illegal drug use.

He called it a "nonsense banner" and said "the court does serious 
violence to the 1st Amendment in upholding -- indeed, lauding -- a 
school's decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with 
which it disagreed." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman