Bong Hits 4 Jesus Hits Supreme Court

In 2002, a high school senior by the name of Joseph Frederick, decided to test his 1^st amendment rights by rolling out a banner that read, "BONG HITS 4 JESUS". Since the unveiling of the oddly worded banner took place during the running of the Olympic Torch-a ceremony that the school allowed students to leave class for-Frederick was suspended for 5 days due to promoting illegal drug use, but after quoting Thomas Jefferson his suspension was doubled. He promptly filed a lawsuit contending that the suspension is in violation of his 1^st amendment rights. Not only did he feel the suspension was constitutional unjust, but he felt the school had no right to suspend him since he displayed the banner on a public sidewalk. The school felt that because he and other students were let out of class to view the Olympic Torch relay that his statement was in direct violation of the school's drug policy.

Regardless of the reasons for the involved parties' actions, this case has made its way to the US Supreme Court, 5 years later and with a famous prosecutor on the side of the Juneau school board. Kenneth Starr has signed on, free-of-charge, to help aide the high court in making a decision that will give school administrators more power in their fight against inappropriate slogans on school grounds. While there is no guarantee on which way the court will rule, one thing is guaranteed: 'BONG HITS 4 JESUS' will be the most popular headline used by the mass media since, 'HAGGARD SEX SCANDAL', read across newspapers and television screens nationwide. Merchandise will be made, and in the end this will be a very profitable investment for those who are first to print the crude slogan.

Nevertheless, the implications the court's ruling has on free speech and the American education system is essentially why Kenneth Starr is going pro bono for this case. The man simply wants his name attached to a case that will decide whether or not we have moved forward as a society-it wasn't enough to be the man who tried to squeeze Clinton's nuts 'til they popped (Lewinsky pun intended). Ever since Columbine and the wave of school shootings that have taken place since the late 90's into the 21^st century, schools have been more paranoid than a coked up drug dealer at a police convention. Passing new security policies and taken such measures as metal detectors, locked doors, barred windows, cops assigned to schools and other security additions have surely made students feel safe in school-and more like prisoners.

After 5 years the case has reached the Supreme Court with a different agenda, one that will decide how much power school administrators have when it comes to regulating student speech. The lawsuit originally filed by Frederick against his principal was an attempt to acquire money as a result of his constitutional rights being infringed upon; in retrospect that is what lit the fuse that is about to ignite a free speech explosion. However, this raises the question of whether or not administrators should be monetarily responsible for punishments they enforce. Of course not, but they should not be able to punish students for exercising their constitutional rights. If the court rules in favor of the school board then we as a society have taken a step backward, crapping on the constitution in the process. Such a ruling could spark the revival of the Free Speech Movement that took place in the 1960's.

Crazed loons would contend, "Well it's in the constitution to bare arms. Do you think it is okay for students to carry guns to school?" This is an argument that has no solid foundation since most students aren't even old enough to own a gun and most states have laws that prevent carrying a firearm around in public. With that out of the way, the best action to take when a student decides to test their free speech is to ignore it, unless it directly affects the school or another student (i.e., racial slurs, sexist comments, etc.). Chances are the kid is just acting out for attention and in this case that was exactly what Frederick was doing; he even said so himself. By giving him attention, the school was involved in a free speech lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court, 5 years after the incident occurred with Frederick now 23 and teaching English in China.

What this case illustrates is not just free speech related; it is a sign of our country becoming too sensitive, weak and insecure. If the principal of the high school in Juneau, Alaska really thought a silly banner would cause kids to take up smoking weed then she is not fit to be the principal of a school. For as long as drug policies have existed, high school kids have never stopped using drugs (including alcohol and cigarettes). Even Nixon's War on Drugs has been a monumental failure as it continues to cost tax payers billions of dollars, but will never stop the use and sale of recreational narcotics. There are only two kinds of speech that are truly detrimental to the youth of this country: sincere racist speech and fear-inducing speech. Unfortunately, our schools and our government are chronic abusers of the latter. As I have said numerous times before, the mainstream messages being funneled into the minds of American youth are incredibly dishonest and misleading. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of increasing administrative power in schools, it will be the start of a national regression, and the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the United States education system will only increase the problems such a ruling is meant to prevent. Who knew a case that started with a banner reading, "BONGS HITS 4 JESUS", would end up being one of the most important cases to reach the Supreme Court in American history.