Pubdate: Wed, 27 Jun 2007
Source: Baltimore Sun (MD)
Copyright: 2007 The Baltimore Sun, a Times Mirror Newspaper.
Contact:  http://www.baltimoresun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/37
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Bong+Hits+4+Jesus (Bong Hits 4 Jesus)

LOW POINT FOR HIGH JINKS

If the issue of student free speech were not so serious, the U.S. 
Supreme Court's unfortunate decision in the case of a high school 
senior who held up a provocative banner - for which he was suspended 
by school authorities - could almost be chalked up to a generational 
misunderstanding. But the overreaction by adult authorities in this 
case, from school officials to a majority of the high court, has led 
to a bad precedent for First Amendment rights.

Joseph Frederick, who was an 18-year-old senior in 2002, has admitted 
that the main reason he and some of his friends created a 14-foot 
banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and displayed it as the Olympic 
torch came through their town of Juneau, Alaska, was to attract the 
attention of television cameras. Mr. Frederick and his fellow 
students had been excused from classes to watch the torch parade from 
a public sidewalk across the street from their school.

Although school officials conceded that the banner display did not 
interfere with classroom work or prompt complaints about drug use, 
Mr. Frederick was banned from campus for eight days because the 
principal insisted that the banner violated school policy against 
public expression that promotes illegal drug use. But Mr. Frederick 
eventually persuaded a federal appeals court to agree that his First 
Amendment rights had been violated and that the principal should be 
liable to him for damages.

While the Supreme Court did not determine whether the principal 
should be personally liable for damages, a majority felt that she had 
made the right call. Even though Mr. Frederick's banner could be 
considered "gibberish," noted Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., 
writing for the court, the reference to drugs seemed to trump 
everything, especially free speech and good sense. Most of the 
justices who voted to overturn the appeals court ruling seemed to be 
swayed by the false importance of not undermining a school's efforts 
against illegal drug use.

Students have not traditionally been extended the same First 
Amendment rights as adults, but the majority's general tolerance of 
censorship when the subject involves drugs seems a rather extreme 
reaction to what was, essentially, a prank. Mr. Frederick certainly 
got the attention he wanted, and the Supreme Court has taught him and 
other students a lesson in unintended and unanticipated consequences.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman