USA - High court takes 'Bong Hits for Jesus' case

[enquirewithin]

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - An Alaska high school violated a student's free speech rights by suspending him after he unfurled a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across the street from the school, a federal court ruled on Friday.
Joseph Frederick, a student at Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska, displayed the banner -- which refers to smoking marijuana -- in January 2002 to try to get on television as the Olympic torch relay was passing the school.
Principal Deborah Morse seized the banner and suspended the 18-year-old for 10 days, saying he had undermined the school's educational mission and anti-drug stance.
Friday's ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned a decision by a federal court in Alaska that backed Frederick's suspension and said his rights were not violated.
The appeals court said the banner was protected speech because it did not disrupt school activity and was displayed off school grounds during a non-curricular activity.
"Public schools are instrumentalities of government, and government is not entitled to suppress speech that undermines whatever missions it defines for itself," Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote in the court's opinion.
The court also cleared the way for Frederick to seek damages, saying Morse was aware of relevant case law and should have known her actions violated his rights.

Reuters

[IHrtHalucingens]

Nice to see someones freedom of speech being held up once in a while these days. I dont know why schools think the ycan get involved in what students do outside of school. Around here highschools punish kids for getting alcohol citations at parties, its insane.

[lexifer]

Originally Posted by IHrtHalucingens

Around here highschools punish kids for getting alcohol citations at parties, its insane.

That is absolutely ludicrous. I can't even think of anything else to say its so ludicrous.

[AquafinaOrbit]

Originally Posted by IHrtHalucingens

Around here highschools punish kids for getting alcohol citations at parties, its insane.

Wow, that's ridiculous. (I could see a private college, maybe even private high school, but if it is public then I almost think that would be illegal.)

[Each Hit]

POSTED: 4:36 p.m. EST, December 1, 2006


By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court entered into a free-speech dispute Friday involving a high school student suspended over a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.

The justices accepted an appeal from a school board in Juneau, Alaska, after a federal appeals court allowed a lawsuit by the family of Joseph Frederick to proceed.

Frederick was suspended in 2002 after he unfurled the 14-foot-long banner -- a reference to marijuana use -- just outside school grounds as the Olympic torch relay moved through the Alaskan capital headed for the Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah.

"Bong," as noted in the appeal filed with the justices, "is a slang term for drug paraphernalia."

Even though Frederick was standing on a public sidewalk, school officials argue that he and other students were participating in a school-sponsored event. They had been let out of classes and were accompanied by their teachers.

Principal Deborah Morse ordered the 18-year-old senior to take down the sign, but he refused. That led to a 10-day suspension for violating a school policy by promoting illegal drug use.

He filed suit, saying his First Amendment rights were infringed upon. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California, agreed, concluding the school could not show Frederick had disrupted the school's educational mission by showing a banner off campus.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court relied on the Supreme Court's famous 1969 "Tinker" case, in which two Iowa high students were allowed to continue wearing anti-Vietnam War armbands.

But the justices in other appeals involving free speech have ruled against students' ability to give sexually suggestive speech, and in favor of a school's right to restrict what is published in student newspapers.

Attorney Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor who investigated President Clinton's relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, is representing the school board.

Starr, who is now dean of the law school at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, urged the high court in his appeal brief to clear up the "doctrinal fog infecting student speech jurisprudence."

According to an Associated Press report, Starr is handling the case free of charge.

The case will test school's ability to regulate speech on illegal drugs, particularly when it is done off school grounds.

The appeal will likely be argued in late February, with a ruling expected by late June.

The case is Morse and the Juneau School Board et al. v. Frederick (06-278).

Copyright 2006 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.

[darawk]

Hmm...hopefully they will correctly contend that the student is voicing an opinion on a political and social issue and not simply advocating that students get high...that's the only way they're going to win this case.

[jcdjinn]

What exactly does bong hits for Jesus even mean? I don't really get it.

[~lostgurl~]

Paramount, MTV take 'Bong Hits'
True story inspires free-speech tale

By MICHAEL FLEMING
Variety
21 October 2007

Paramount Pictures and MTV Films have made a deal for fact-based drama "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

Story concerns a high school student in Juneau, Alaska, whose suspension turned into a battle over free speech that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Double Feature Films partners Michael Shamberg and Stacey Sher will produce, with Mark Poirier penning the script.

The student, Joseph Frederick, his father, Frank, and Doug Mertz, the local attorney who took his case, all made life rights deals for the film.

Frederick already had a contentious relationship with the school principal when he got suspended for 10 days for displaying a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" message on a 14-foot sign outside the school. The principal felt the banner promoted drug use.

The case made national headlines, and Frederick became a poster boy for the First Amendment, but in a split decision, the Supreme Court upheld the principal's right to suspend the student.

"The heart of this story is the relationship between a father and son" Shamberg said. "Frank Frederick was an insurance adjuster facing the loss of his job if his son didn't back down." Frederick, who'd often discussed the importance of First Amendment rights with his son at the dinner table, would not force his son to drop the case, and he was fired from his job. Father and son now teach English in China.

"The tone is 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' about a young man standing up for his rights" said Shamberg, who with Sher has mined true stories for the films "Freedom Writers," "World Trade Center" and "Erin Brockovich."

Poirier wrote Dennis Quaid-Sarah Jessica Parker starrer "Smart People" which recently completed production.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...ryid=1238&cs=1

[lulz]

Originally Posted by jcdjinn

What exactly does bong hits for Jesus even mean? I don't really get it.

Frederick said he had seen the phrase "Bong Hits For Jesus" on a sticker on a snowboard.

"To me, it's absurdly funny," Frederick, now 23, said in a recent conference call with reporters organized by the ACLU. "The phrase was not important. I wasn't trying to say anything about religion. I wasn't trying to say anything about drugs. I was just trying to say something. I wanted to use my right to free speech, and I did it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031201699.html

I feel a little awkward playing devil's advocate here, but as I have been arguing, the guy in question was not trying to make any kind of political statement, which would be his constitutional right. In his own words, he wasn't trying to say anything. Which, in my opinion, is a very weak argument on his part.

I'm 100% in favor of free speech. The thing is, free speech has to be specifically defined. Otherwise the constitutional right would be meaningless.

A common example of why it has to be defined is that you can't yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded cinema, and get away with it because you have some kind of unlimited right to say whatever you want.

The kid here is essentially trying to argue that he displayed the slogan "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" to exercise his right to free speech - for him to be speaking, he has to be saying something. But he claims the phrase is meaningless - which is contradictory. To be "saying something", what you say has to have meaningful content, otherwise you're just making random sounds (or in this case, displaying random symbols). If you are not actually trying to say something, then you are not speaking.

He is forced to claim that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is not a statement about drugs, because the only possible interpretation in terms of drugs would be condoning the use of drugs, and he would therefore be in trouble. The only way he could safely claim "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" has any meaning would be if you could interpret it as some kind of political statement, which is pretty much impossible.

Again, I'm playing devil's advocate here, I'm all for free speech. But this kids defence doesn't make any sense. See my post higher up on the page (pun lol) where I posted a counterexample, where the supreme court defended some other kids right to free speech after he displayed a drug related message that had some kind of political meaning, and was therefore defended by his right to free speech.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good post buddy

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by lulz

The kid here is essentially trying to argue that he displayed the slogan "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" to exercise his right to free speech - for him to be speaking, he has to be saying something. But he claims the phrase is meaningless - which is contradictory. To be "saying something", what you say has to have meaningful content, otherwise you're just making random sounds (or in this case, displaying random symbols). If you are not actually trying to say something, then you are not speaking.

lmao

I know what you're saying now, but man, I had to read that shit twice. Good post buddy.

Reputation Comments on this post:

what a douche!

[Heretic.Ape.]

Bong Hits At The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a free speech case which has become known as 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus'. Concerns have arisen that the Court may create a 'drug exception to students' First Amendment rights.' The Christian Science Monitor reported on March 19, 2007 ("Student Free Speech vs School Drug Policy") that "A dispute over a student prank near a high school in Juneau, Alaska, is raising constitutional questions about student free speech and whether school officials can be sued for damages when they take action to muzzle a teenager's attempt at humor. On Monday, the US Supreme Court takes up a case involving a student-displayed banner that proclaimed: 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus.' At issue is whether a high school principal violated the free-speech rights of a student in 2002 when she confiscated the banner and suspended the student for 10 days after he and others unfurled the sign in front of much of the student body and local television cameras. The principal's action was upheld by the school superintendent, the Juneau School Board, and a federal judge. But a three-judge panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the federal judge, ruling that the principal could be sued personally for money damages for violating the student's clearly established free-speech rights."
According to the Monitor, "The case revolves around an incident that took place in January 2002 when the Olympic torch relay passed through Juneau on its way to Salt Lake City for the Winter Olympics. The torch was set to be carried down Glacier Avenue in front of the high school. School officials allowed students to assemble in front of the school to watch the event. As the torch and television cameras approached, Frederick and nine other individuals standing across the street from the school unfurled the banner, which was 14 feet in length. The banner was meant as a meaningless and humorous phrase that might attract the attention of the TV cameras covering the relay, Mertz says. It was a joke, not an advertisement urging students to use illicit drugs, the lawyer says in his brief. But if it were just a joke, the principal wasn't laughing. She crossed the street and confronted those holding the banner. Frederick refused to take it down, saying he had a First Amendment right to display the banner since he was across the street and off school grounds. Frederick says he told the school administrator that Thomas Jefferson once said that free speech can't 'be limited without being lost.' The principal confiscated the banner and suspended Frederick from school for 10 days."
The Court heard the case on March 19. The New York Times reported on March 20, 2007 ("Court Probes Student Free Speech Limits") that "Kenneth W. Starr had a strategy for convincing the Supreme Court that an Alaska high school principal and school board did not violate a student's free-speech rights by punishing him for displaying the words 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' on a 14-foot-long banner across the street from school as the 2002 Olympic torch parade went by. 'Illegal drugs and the glorification of the drug culture are profoundly serious problems for our nation,' Mr. Starr, a former solicitor general, told the justices in the opening moments of his argument on Monday. In other words, his approach was to present the free-speech case as a drug case and argue that whatever rights students may have under the First Amendment to express themselves, speaking in oblique or even in arguably humorous dissent from a school's official antidrug message is not one of them. That was Mr. Starr's story, and he stuck with it, through a series of hypothetical questions from the justices and on into a one-minute rebuttal at the end of the lively hour. While Mr. Starr may not prevail on the full breadth of his argument, his strategy appeared on the verge of succeeding well enough to shield his clients, the Juneau School Board and Deborah Morse, the high school principal, from having to pay damages to the student, Joseph Frederick. A majority of the court seemed willing to create what would amount to a drug exception to students' First Amendment rights, much as the court has in recent years permitted widespread drug testing of students, even those not personally suspected of using drugs, under a relaxed view of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches."
According to the Times, "One issue in this case, Morse v. Frederick, No. 06-278, was the nature of the event at which the student unfurled his provocative banner. Edwin S. Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general who shared Mr. Starr's argument time and presented the Bush administration's position in support of the school, said the torch event was the equivalent of a school assembly, with students attending under their teachers' supervision and under the school's jurisdiction. Mr. Mertz said it was basically a public event in a public place. In that context, he argued, the sign was not disruptive. The distinction matters, because under the Tinker precedent, student speech can lose its protected status if it is unduly disruptive. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy took issue with Mr. Mertz's characterization of the display as not being disruptive. 'It was completely disruptive of the message, of the theme that the school wanted to promote,' Justice Kennedy said, adding: 'Completely disruptive of the reason for letting the students out to begin with. Completely disruptive of the school's image that they wanted to portray in sponsoring the Olympics.' As in many other cases, Justice Kennedy's vote may prove crucial to the outcome. This case presents a particular challenge for him. While he is perhaps the most speech-protective of the justices, he is also highly pro-government on issues involving illegal drugs. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked a series of questions suggesting that his sympathies lay with the student rather than the school. That would be consistent with a decision he wrote six years ago as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that struck down a Pennsylvania school district's speech code. In that case, Saxe v. State College Area School District, Judge Alito said the policy 'strikes at the heart of moral and political discourse -- the lifeblood of constitutional self-government ( and democratic education ) and the core concern of the First Amendment.' His opinion was based on an interpretation of the Tinker precedent that was notably more robust than that put forward on Monday by Mr. Starr and Mr. Kneedler and, seemingly, by Chief Justice Roberts. During the argument, Justice Alito interrupted Mr. Kneedler as the deputy solicitor general was asserting that a school 'does not have to tolerate a message that is inconsistent' with is basic educational mission. 'I find that a very, very disturbing argument,' Justice Alito said, 'because schools have defined their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all sorts of political speech and speech expressing fundamental values of the students under the banner of getting rid of speech that's inconsistent with educational missions.' In response, Mr. Kneedler said that for that reason, 'it would make a lot of sense' for the court to issue a narrow ruling limited to student advocacy of illegal conduct in general or drug use in particular."
http://www.csdp.org/news/news/family.htm

[Shiacmkmleer]

A majority of the court seemed willing to create what would amount to a drug exception to students' First Amendment rights, much as the court has in recent years permitted widespread drug testing of students, even those not personally suspected of using drugs, under a relaxed view of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches."

And that my freind is whats wrong with America. Random drugs testing isn't unreasonable searches? WTF?

[Nacumen]

In the schools, the administrators make all the rules. If you don't believe me, ask them, they'll tell you.

No vocal student ever lasted long at my high school. SWIM always considered himself fortunate that he was never tested (SWIM had long hair and commonly socialized with known drug-users); they tested people for the silliest of reasons. The best was when SWIM's friend was asked by the administration to take a test because he had slept in class, but pissed clean because he had already quit due to being on probation.

[Each Hit]

i guess swim got through school before they started drug testing non-athletes (i don't even think they tested the athletes, based on the stories i've heard). it's probably a good thing, as that type of flexing of the authoritative muscle is the kind of act that leads swim to defiance. in school, he actually was able to maintain a good image, as far as teachers were concerned, up until his senior year when he pretty much stopped caring. not many school employees expect class officers and club presidents to be among the biggest drug users they know, so swim was able to keep his drug use under the radar.

his senior year his yearbook teacher, who had a disturbing habit of listening to students' rumors, asked him if he had done drugs; swim smiled and gladly admitted, though he had to deny current use in order to stay on the yearbook staff. ironically, a few years after graduating, swim was a waiter at a restaurant and happened to have that same yearbook teacher at one of his tables. the teacher tried to spark a shallow conversation, then quickly asked, "so are you clean now?" in reference to swim's drug use. swim laughed and said, "no, but i'm happy."

looking back, if those drug testing laws were in effect at swim's school, they would have done far more to hinder his education than to promote it. swim never dealt drugs, and he almost never went to class under any unfluence, yet he would have been classified as a "user" and instantly stigmatized. it seems quite apparent that the government, in its unending quest to suppress our rights, has found a convenient niche where they can indoctrinate citizens almost unabashedly. if swim is ever the head of a family, he would rather teach his children at home than force them into the american public school system.

[Shiacmkmleer]

ASHINGTON - The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.


Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.
Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.
His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use.
"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts said. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."
Morse suspended the student, prompting a federal civil rights lawsuit.
Students in public schools don't have the same rights as adults, but neither do they leave their constitutional protections at the schoolhouse gate, as the court said in a landmark speech-rights ruling from Vietnam era.
The court has limited what students can do in subsequent cases, saying they may not be disruptive or lewd or interfere with a school's basic educational mission.
Frederick, now 23, said he later had to drop out of college after his father lost his job. The elder Frederick, who worked for the company that insures the Juneau schools, was fired in connection with his son's legal fight, the son said. A jury recently awarded Frank Frederick $200,000 in a lawsuit he filed over his firing.
Joseph Frederick, who has been teaching and studying in China, pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, according to court records.
Conservative groups that often are allied with the administration are backing Frederick out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose homosexuality or abortion.
The case is Morse v. Frederick, 06-278.

[Heretic.Ape.]

Another article pertaining to the one above
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121041.html
The Drug Exception to the First Amendment

Jacob Sullum | June 25, 2007, 12:48pm
You heard today's good news regarding freedom of speech. Now for the bad news: The Supreme Court has ruled that Joseph Frederick, then a high school senior in Juneau, Alaska, did not have a First Amendment right to hold up a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner at an off-campus Olympic torch rally in 2002. Since students were let out of class to attend the rally (although Frederick himself came directly from home), the Court ruled, it was in effect a school event and they were still under school supervision. Because the banner sent a pro-drug message, the Court ruled, Principal Deborah Morris was within her rights when she crumpled it up and suspended Frederick for 10 days.
As I feared, the Court seems to be opening up a "drug exception" to the First Amendment, albeit limited (so far) to students in school. It's true that high school students do not have the same free speech rights as adults, but the Court has held that they do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." They have a right, for instance, to wear anti-war armbands. In that case, the Court held that student speech may be suppressed only if it will "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school." A "mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint" or "an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression" is not enough to justify censorship. But fear of drugs apparently is.
"Schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use," the Court ruled. So where does that leave a student who wears a "Legalize It" T-shirt, who points out the problems caused by prohibition during a class discussion of drugs, or who shares accurate information about the hazards of marijuana with his fellow students? I suspect principals like Deborah Morris would view all of these student expressions as "encouraging illegal drug use," even though they are also indisputably political speech. If expressing opposition to the Vietnam War is protected even in school, how can expressing opposition to the War on Drugs not be? I have a feeling we're going to find out.

[lulz]

I'm obviously in favor of marijuana, and I'm certainly in favor of free speech, but I have to accept that the Supreme Court made the right decision here - given the fact that drug use is technically illegal. I don't like the decision, but it's rationally correct.

[darawk]

Originally Posted by lulz

I'm obviously in favor of marijuana, and I'm certainly in favor of free speech, but I have to accept that the Supreme Court made the right decision here - given the fact that drug use is technically illegal. I don't like the decision, but it's rationally correct.

Endorsing illegal activity is not a crime. The legality of marijuana is completely irrelevant to this case.

[Heretic.Ape.]

The fact that it was a 5-4 dicision shows that the logic is debatible. I do not see exactly how this fits with rulings on such matters:

Quote: "the Court held that student speech may be suppressed only if it will "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school." A "mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint" or "an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression" is not enough to justify censorship

'nuff said.

[lulz]

My understanding is that it comes down to the fact that at a school sanctioned event, endorsements of drug-taking activity should not be supported legally.

My understanding is also that his defense was that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is "cryptic" in that it doesn't endorse "bong hits". I'm not a lawyer, but rationally that seems to me a weak argument.

Now maybe *I* don't like this law, but how would I feel about people advertising heroin at my kids high school?

I don't respect many of the laws that currently exist, but I respect the rule of law.

[enquirewithin]

^It was just a prank!

[lulz]

Originally Posted by enquirewithin

^It was just a prank!

Originally Posted by darawk

Endorsing illegal activity is not a crime. The legality of marijuana is completely irrelevant to this case.

I'm not trying to morally defend his suspension, I'm just talking about it in legal terms.

It was just a prank, and it's not illegal to endorse illegal activity, but the bottom line is that this was a school event. If he had displayed a banner saying "the principle is a douchebag", and he had gotten in trouble for it, would that have been a curtailment of his free speech? I think not.

Also, his legal defense before the Supreme Court was that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" did not endorse smoking weed, because it was "cryptic".

[Heretic.Ape.]

Bong Hits and Ad Runs

http://www.reason.com/news/show/121073.htmlTwo Supreme Court cases show the perils of making excuses for censorship.
Jacob Sullum | June 27, 2007
In 2004, when Wisconsin Right to Life sponsored radio ads urging people to contact the state's senators, it was trying to stop filibusters against judicial nominees. In 2002, when Joseph Frederick, an 18-year-old high school senior, held up a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner at an Olympic torch rally in Juneau, Alaska, he was, by his own account, only trying to get on TV.
Yet both cases, which resulted in Supreme Court decisions announced on the same day this week, illustrate the perils of carving out exceptions to the First Amendment. Rationales for censorship tend to expand and proliferate, leaving people uncertain about whether they're free to speak their minds.
Because Wisconsin Right to Life's anti-filibuster ads mentioned a senator who was running for re-election that year, they ran afoul of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. That law prohibits corporations, including nonprofit interest groups, from sponsoring TV or radio spots that mention a candidate for federal office close to an election.
This astonishing rule against criticizing politicians flowed logically from the post-Watergate effort to prevent official corruption by restricting campaign donations. The attempt to purify politics led to restrictions on independently financed campaign ads that might replace direct contributions, which led to restrictions on "sham issue ads" that could help elect or defeat a candidate without explicitly telling people how to vote.
Although the Supreme Court ruled four years ago that the latest restrictions were not unconstitutional on their face, it has now held that applying them to the Wisconsin Right to Life spots would violate the First Amendment. "A court should find that an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy," the majority said, "only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."
Since the Court has not simply overturned the restrictions, we can look forward to litigation aimed at defining which ad interpretations are reasonable. In the meantime, interest groups seeking to participate in political debates still will have to think twice before they speak.
There's a similar problem with the rationale endorsed by the same five justices in upholding a public school principal's decision to tear down Frederick's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner and suspend him. Since students were let out of class to watch the Olympic torch relay (although Frederick himself came directly from home), the Court ruled, they were still under school supervision, and the principal was within her rights to take down the banner because it violated the school's anti-drug policy.
"Schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use," the majority said. In contrast with, say, a general rule against banners at school events, this topic-specific, viewpoint-based ban encourages suppression of dissenting opinions.
While students in school do not have the same First Amendment rights as adults, the Supreme Court has emphasized that they do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." That's why two of the justices who ruled against Frederick said in a concurring opinion that the Court's new rationale for censorship should apply only to pro-drug speech, as opposed to political or social commentary.
But this distinction may be hard to maintain in practice. Imagine a student who attacks the war on drugs by arguing that there's nothing inherently wrong with smoking pot, or by sharing accurate information about the relative hazards of marijuana and alcohol, or by noting New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's un-Clintonian response to the question of whether he'd ever smoked cannabis: "You bet I did, and I enjoyed it."
In each example, the student, though engaged in political debate, "can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use." Will his speech be protected anyway? Like the activist with an issue ad, he can't be sure.
© Copyright 2007 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

[Heretic.Ape.]

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n754/a08.html?1042
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."

[lulz]

Hmm this case has had an interesting and unexpected consequence. It has gotten one of the Supreme Court Justices to raise the issue of marijuana being controlled and taxed the same way alcohol is.

On Monday, Stevens dissented in the case of the Alaska teenager who was suspended for displaying a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner at a school event. While a majority of the court said the Constitution does not protect pro-drug student speech, Stevens took the historic view.


Harking back to Prohibition, which began three months before Stevens's birth and ended a month before he turned 13 in 1933, Stevens compared the current marijuana ban to the abandoned alcohol ban and urged a respectful hearing for those who suggest "however inarticulately" that the ban is "futile" and that marijuana should be legalized, taxed and regulated instead of prohibited:


"[T]he current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our anti-marijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs."


Stevens knows something about Prohibition -- he was born and raised in Chicago, where Al Capone and other organized-crime figures controlled hundreds of speakeasies. And he knows something about the moral fervor of Prohibition's supporters, because one of them was his mother, Elizabeth Stevens, who used to say, "Lips that taste wine will never touch mine."


His father, Ernest Stevens, was a hotelier who carefully obeyed the alcohol ban in his establishments but who predicted in 1932 court testimony that his business would benefit from the end of Prohibition, because diners would abandon the speak-easies for legal restaurants like the ones in his hotels.
"[J]ust as Prohibition in the 1920's and early 1930's was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies," Stevens wrote, "today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs."

Rest of the article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062601852.html