Pubdate: Wed, 27 Jun 2007
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)
Copyright: 2007 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc
Contact: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/340
Author: Claude Lewis
Note: Claude Lewis is a longtime Philadelphia journalist
Bookmark:
http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Bong+Hits+4+Jesus
(Bong Hits 4 Jesus)
'BONG' DECISION A WISE ONE
The school principal and the high court did the right thing. Every
day, children die from illegal drugs - an issue far beyond free speech.
Among a slew of late-term U.S. Supreme Court decisions, there was at
least one with which I found myself in agreement.
In the case Morse v. Frederick, an Alaska high school principal had
decided to bar student Joseph Frederick from school for 10 days for
waving a 14-foot banner emblazoned with this enigmatic message: "Bong
Hits 4 Jesus." Frederick had unfurled the banner as the Olympic Torch
passed through Juneau in 2002.
In a 5-4 decision, the court wisely ruled that the student's
free-speech rights under the First Amendment had not been violated.
While Frederick insisted the banner was just a prank and was about
nothing, the principal, Deborah Morse, disagreed. She felt the
message celebrated or promoted illegal drug use. Even though the
display had not taken place on school grounds, it was at a
school-sponsored event, since the torch was carried through Juneau en
route to the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City.
Morse had earlier been found liable for damages by a federal appeals
court for violating Frederick's First Amendment rights.
The question that deeply split the Supreme Court was how much weight
should be given to public schools in regard to free speech.
In his majority decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote
that the principal's reaction to the banner had been a reasonable one
that did not violate the Constitution. While the banner may have been
"gibberish," Roberts wrote, it was reasonable for the principal, who
"had to decide to act - or not act - on the spot," to determine both
that it promoted illegal drug use and that "failing to act would send
a powerful message to the students in her charge, including
Frederick, about how serious the school was about the dangers of
illegal drug use."
The chief justice further wrote that "the Amendment does not require
schools to tolerate at school events student expression that
contributes to those dangers."
It may come as a surprise to some, but in many cases, the law has
decided, again and again, that children do not have full rights under
the Constitution. That means they do not have full First Amendment
protection. The traditional reasoning - and it makes excellent sense
- - is that since children are young and relatively immature, they lack
the ability to make fully aware decisions on their own behalf. It's
actually an issue of fairness: Since children cannot make fully
cognizant decisions, they cannot be held to be fully responsible, or
fully free under the Constitution. Because of this, some older and
wiser heads must intervene on their behalf and make thoughtful judgments.
By the same token, this week's ruling on free speech in public
schools should not be viewed as a broad clamp-down on the rights of
students. Roberts made clear that the decision was meant to apply to
issues such as illegal drug use and other dangerous or potentially
harmful matters. Other, less-incendiary issues should be weighed on
their own merits. It is not arguable that students, simply because
they are young, have no free-speech rights whatsoever. Quite the
contrary. All Americans do have some First Amendment rights. But care
must be taken to protect the immature from themselves.
Rarely do I find myself siding with Justice Clarence Thomas, who
wrote in support of the overturning of the lower court's free-speech
ruling. In this case, though, I do. Justice Thomas, with unaccustomed
clarity, argued: "In light of the history of American public
education, it cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment
freedom of speech encompasses a student's right to speak in public
schools." The court's precedents had become incoherent, he said,
adding, "I am afraid that our jurisprudence now says that students
have a right to speak in school except when they don't."
There must come a time in this country when we decide that particular
dangers must be harnessed and controlled in order to protect our
citizens. One of these dangers is illicit drug use, and we must find
a way to end this scourge. That extends even to seemingly playful
exhortations to such acts.
Every day in America, children perish from abusing drugs, and there
is no end in sight. Anyone who promotes or encourages illicit drug
use must be dissuaded or (as in this case) prevented within the law.
Certainly, it must not be permitted at any school. Whether Frederick
intended to encourage drug abuse with his little prank is not the
question. The question is what we, as Americans, are going to do to
reduce the prevalence of such behavior.
The issue, in other words, goes beyond free speech. Principal Morse
did the right thing, and the Supreme Court reached the right decision
in defending her.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman