Highest Court Takes the Bong Hits 4 Jesus Case

The "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case has been presented to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2002 Juneau high school student Joseph Frederick had been excused from class along with the other students to see the Olympic Torch on its way to Salt Lake City. He went across the street from the school and unfurled a banner that read, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." He was suspended for violating the schools drug policy. Presently Fredericks is a teacher, and now says the sign was meaningless and that it was just a test of his rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case of this type in 1969 where a school principle suspended students for wearing armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. In Tinker v. Des Moines school district, the case came down to the fundamental question: Do the First Amendment rights of free speech extend to symbolic speech by students in public schools? The Tinkers won. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the students had the right to wear armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. I don't think this juvenile stunt is quite the same thing.

Where's the protest? In 2002 Frederick, by his own admission, stated he thought the banner was funny and that he just wanted to get on TV. The lawyers are turning this into the issue with Frederick now saying it's about free speech. Students who disrupt the learning process should be dealt with according to school policies. Ok, the incident happened across the street from the school, not in the classroom, but it was still disruptive and sent a pro-drug message to minors. What if the banner had read Bong hits for Mohammed, or Buddha. Would we still be hearing the case?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Should this apply to children who may not even know what they are saying? In another free speech case, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988 the Supreme Court stressed that students in public schools do not always have the same First Amendment rights as adults in other situations.

Former independent counsel Kenneth Star goes to the mat (free of charge) for the school district and is going to spin this as the promotion of illegal drugs in the name of free speech. Should minor students be allowed free speech protection when said speech symbolically or otherwise promotes drug use?

This looks like nothing more than an intentional act of disobedience intended to defy and disrupt school authority in the name of free speech. I'm inclined to agree with Justice Hugo Black (who was one of the dissenters in the Tinker Case) who said, "Allowing this behavior would have a negative effect on schools and on the country as a whole."