Pubdate: Mon, 02 Apr 2007
Source: University Daily Kansan, The (Lawrence, KS Edu)
Copyright: 2007 The University Daily Kansan
Contact:  http://www.kansan.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2809
Author: Alison Kieler, for the editorial board.

CIVIL RIGHTS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORDS

First Amendment Rights Should Be Defended, but Can Easily Be Abused.

The case of Frederick v. Morse, otherwise known as bratty pothead v. 
anal principal, is in the Supreme Court, making a mockery of the 
judicial system.

In 2002, Joseph Frederick, a high school senior in Juneau, Alaska, 
unfurled a 14-foot sign that proclaimed, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus!" in 
front of passing news cameras at a school field trip to the Olympic 
Torch Relay. After his school principal, Deborah Morse, tore down the 
sign and gave him a 10-day suspension, Frederick sued the school on 
the grounds that, under the first amendment, his right to free speech 
had been violated. He won.

Five years later, the case of Frederick v. Morse, otherwise known as 
bratty pothead v. anal principal, is in the Supreme Court, making a 
mockery of the judicial system. Unlike famous past cases that made 
groundbreaking rulings to establish civil liberties, this case won't 
really establish anything for the better. No matter who the Supreme 
Court sides with, their decision is problematic.

Frederick was on public property, and his sign was both innocuous and 
nonsensical. Whether Morse should have taken the sign down, she 
shouldn't have suspended him. Free speech doesn't have to be 
intelligent speech. However, if the justices side with Frederick, who 
publicly admitted he wanted to irritate school officials and be 
televised, and has, incidentally, also been arrested for distribution 
of marijuana, the decision could cue misbehaving students around the 
nation to abuse their right to free speech and disrupt school cohesion.

On the other hand, it is not difficult to imagine acting as Morse did 
or believing that a school official could (and should) block a 
student's illegal drug reference from public television on a school 
outing. It certainly doesn't seem fair that Morse should provide 
monetary compensation to a kid who pushes limits to irritate school 
officials. If the Justices side with Morse, their decision may hinder 
students' ability to constructively voice opinions or to oppose school policy.

The verdict? Please, have some respect for the judicial system.

The first amendment is a serious matter; it's not a superfluous law 
that allows people to annoy others. While we enjoy it daily, we also 
learn to leave certain unnecessary comments at the door, particularly 
in institutional settings. Employees are expected to act 
appropriately in a work setting; students are expected to act 
appropriately in a school setting.

At the same time, the first amendment can be unjustly violated, and 
it is important to ascertain when free speech is being unfairly 
limited. For example, should school officials have the ability to 
limit productive class conversation about illegal substances? How 
much control should schools have over students' studies? These are 
questions that need to be seriously addressed.

Unlike these hypothetical cases, however, bratty pothead v. anal 
principal creates more confusion than clarification.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Elaine