In 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, a local high school was outside cheering on the runner. In front of a building across the street from the school, Joe Frederick held up a banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” The principal, Deborah Morse, wrestled the sign from Frederick and later suspended him for 10 days. He appealed this decision, saying that his First Amendment rights were violated. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with him, but now the case has landed before the Supreme Court.
What began as a nonsensical slogan has become one of the most important free speech cases of the last 30 years. The court must decide if Frederick was properly disciplined and whether Morse should pay him damages. These decisions will be based on whether Morse infringed upon Frederick’s right to free speech. Tinker v. Des Moines School District, which ruled that students were permitted to wear anti-Vietnam arm bands, set a precedent for free political speech by students unless it disrupts school. Based on this precedent, the Court should rule in favor of the then-high school student because the government cannot squelch speech simply because they disagree with it.
The lawyers for Morse and the Juneau School Board are arguing that the sign undermines the school’s drug-free environment and thereby goes against the school’s mission. Their principal lawyer, Clinton impeachment prosecutor Kenneth Starr, is spinning the case to make it about drugs. On the first day of hearings, Chief Justice John G. Roberts appeared to agree with him, saying, “I thought we wanted our schools to teach something, including something besides just basic elements, including character formation and not to use drugs.”
Fundamentally, this is a free speech issue. The reason that Frederick’s supporters run the gamut of the political spectrum from the American Civil Liberties Union on the left the Christian Legal Society on the right is because they are rallying to defend free speech. Conservative Christian groups worry that a ruling against Frederick would mean schools could limit speech that is against gays or in favor of intelligent design.
The real question of this case is if the Supreme Court will rule that Frederick’s rights were violated simply because he was not on school grounds, or if they will rule that he was under the school’s jurisdiction because it was a school-sponsored activity. In the latter case, the Court would have to rule if schools can curtail students’ First Amendment rights.
Frederick has said that the sign was designed to get him on television. If it was about marijuana, legalizing marijuana is a legitimate debate in some states as well as in Canada. Even if “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” was about advocating marijuana or about ridiculing Christianity, neither the Government nor schools can limit speech because they don’t agree with its content. A certain amount of order is necessary in order to learn in the classroom, but students have the right to challenge school policy as long as they’re doing so in a non-disruptive way. Frederick’s actions didn’t take place in the classroom. The Supreme Court should uphold the 9th Circuit Court’s opinion that Frederick’s constitutional rights were violated.
