Pubdate: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 Source: Morning Call (Allentown, PA) Copyright: 2007 The Morning Call Inc. Contact: http://www.mcall.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/275 http://www.mapinc.org/people/Joseph+Frederick (Joseph Frederick) FREE EXPRESSION Justices Missed The Point Of Teen's Banner A 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court chalked one up for school principals this week. In doing so, they tweaked the First Amendment. The justices upheld a Juneau, Alaska, principal's decision in 2002 to rip up a student's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner and suspend him, saying she was justified because the sign promoted illegal drug use "at a school event." To put it mildly, that's a stretch and ignores the history that preceded the incident: a bright, authority-challenging teenager who succeeded in getting under his principal's skin. It was hardly a danger so serious that warranted the tightening of student free speech rights. In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that there are limits to students' First Amendment rights. In Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District, the court ruled that school officials couldn't prohibit students from protesting the Vietnam War by wearing black arm bands. Students, the court said, "do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The key issue was whether the student expression disrupted the school's mission of education. A difference in the Alaska case, however, was that senior Joseph Frederick wasn't on school property. He was across the street as his high school gathered on the other side to watch the Olympic torch pass by. The relay was sponsored by Coca-Cola, not the school. As television cameras rolled, he unfurled his banner and school officials ripped it down. Lower federal courts first upheld the school then the student, awarding him monetary damages. Supported by the Bush administration and the National School Boards Association, the school appealed to the Supreme Court. They argued school officials have an obligation to censor messages promoting illegal drug use that conflicted with the schools' "educational mission." Drug abuse is a serious problem. But Mr. Frederick's sign was ambiguous, at best. Did it promote drug abuse or did it promote religion? Earlier this year, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to show a clear head when he said, referring to the monetary award, "It's a case about money." Justice Samuel Alito expressed concerns about giving school officials too much latitude. Justices Alito and Anthony Kennedy provided the deciding votes only on the understanding that the decision applied only to speech advocating illegal drug use and not "any political or social issue." This ruling blurs too many facts. It allows schools to reach beyond the schoolhouse gate. It raises questions about what type of speech might next clash with a school's "educational mission." It goes too far. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom