Press attention on the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday has focused almost exclusively on free-speech issues for high school students while they’re in school or involved in school activities. (See string of updates below.)
And, while the justices may well issue a narrow ruling one way or the other, the possibility exists that their decision will reverberate into the online world; in particular, it may help establish guidelines for school officials who have or have been tempted to clamp down on what their students say and post on social-networking sites such a MySpace.
Those who have presumed this case a trifling matter because of the juvenile nature of that banner that sparked it should know that “Bong Hits” is considered by legal experts a critically important test of student First Amendment rights. The specifics in a nutshell, according to this report:
“Joseph Frederick, was an 18-year-old senior in 2002 when the torch for the Winter Olympics was scheduled to pass in front of the high school. Frederick was standing on a public street as the TV cameras came into range. He and several other students then unfurled the 14-foot banner that said, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” The school’s principal, Deborah Morse, ripped it away from the students and sent Frederick to the office.” He was suspended for 10 days. “A federal judge rejected his claim, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the student and said the principal could be forced to pay damages. No damages have been set, and the school board urged the Supreme Court to overrule the 9th Circuit.”
A critical aspect of this case, it seems to me, is whether or not the school’s authority – whatever its breadth – extends to a public place? Yes, the students were on a “field trip,” but Frederick and banner mates were in a public street during a very public event when they did the deed. That type of venue should afford even a teenager significantly more leeway in terms of expression than would, say, the school gym. Now extend that reasoning to the online world, say MySpace. If the court sides with the teen in Alaska, I’m thinking schools are going to have one very difficult time regulating anything that students do online.(As for the business about the banner “condoning drug use” if school officials hadn’t acted? A canard. Nonsense. Pure folderol. … Which isn’t the same thing as saying our conservative Supreme Court won’t buy it.)
By the way, what frosts me most about the principal’s actions – more than even the unnecessary banishing of the banner and its carrier – is that she doubled Frederick’s suspension from five days to 10 after he brought up Thomas Jefferson and the First Amendment in his defense. That outrageous abuse of power – a veritable spitting on the Constitution – will stay with those Alaskan teenagers long after they’ve forgotten the words that got their classmate in trouble.
(Update 2, Friday: A Maine newspaper says “children are different” and argues that school officials shouldn’t be second-guessed. That’s what my mom would have said, were she still with us. She raised a son who doesn’t quite have that same degree of confidence in authority, though.)
(Update, Friday: Chicago Tribune readers are all in a lather about this case. And, at least according to a non-scientific polling of reader attitudes, more than 90% believe the student’s First Amendment rights were violated.)
(Wednesday Update: The editorial pages are weighing in … The Baltimore Sun says the principal overreacted and now the Supreme Court should side with the First Amendment … USA Today concurs. … And New Hampshire’s Concord Monitor takes its traditional veer to the right, having apparently forgotten that “Live Free or Die” business plastered on every N.H. license plate.)
(Another Wednesday update: And if you want to see how ridiculous school authoritarians can be when left unchecked, I offer the case of the Winnie the Pooh socks.)
(Update: If I worked at staid, old CBS News instead of ultra-hip Network World, I would worry about writing a wise-acre headline such as this: High Court Hears “Bong Hits” Case. Although I suppose at staid, old CBS it’s possible the headline writer didn’t even realize what he or she wrote. … Same thing at Newsday. … And deep in tobacco country, they apparently also have editors who enjoy a good high court/bong joke.)
(Update: My favorite commentator about the Supreme Court, Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick, has her say on “Bong Hits” here.)
(Yet another: This blogger – “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” Case Threatens Church-State Divide – actually had me hooked for a moment.)
