Pubdate: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 Source: DrugSense Weekly (DSW) Section: Feature Article Website: http://www.drugsense.org Author: Stephen Young Note: Stephen Young is a freelance writer and an editor with DrugSense Weekly. BONG-OBSESSED COURT JUST SAYS NO TO JESUS Understanding that some people will use almost anything as an excuse to celebrate, does the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" really tempt the abstinent to indulge? Can those three little words (and a single-digit numeral) threaten all the billions spent on anti-drug advertising by the federal government over the past decade? According to a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision on Morse v. Frederick, the answer to both of those questions is yes. The court's majority acknowledged that the phrase could be interpreted as nonsense (a claim made by the banner's creator Joseph Frederick), but the majority also said that the words could reasonably interpreted as encouraging illegal drug use. Therefore, the high school principal did not violate anyone's free speech rights when she took the banner down and punished Frederick. According to the court, the principal was doing her best to protect other students from a pro-drug message that cannot be interpreted as political. Compared to all the seductive imagery used to sell legal drugs ( beer-inspired fun on the beach and Viagra-inspired intimacy at home ) through a variety of realistic media, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" hand-painted on a scruffy banner lacks something in the persuasive punch department. Regardless of Frederick's motivation, the majority's tortured effort to justify their decision shows, quite to the contrary of their stated arguments, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is truly political speech. From the perspective of prohibition's true believers, even ambiguous messages are seen as threatening enough to sanction censorship. The fact that the majority made an affected effort to treat the banner seriously shows that they unthinkingly accept the rigid political ideology of the drug war, and that they apply that rigid ideology to their decisions. The banner simply cannot be perceived as a challenge to any individual's sobriety, but it did challenge an article of faith among prohibitionists: illegal drugs must not be associated with anything positive. To make such an association doesn't just undermine the war on drugs, somehow it actually encourages use ( at least in the convoluted logic of the drug war ). The opinion didn't have much to say about Jesus himself; the poor guy is all but ignored, his invocation not enough to give the banner religious weight. He is, however, quietly present in the equation used by the majority to come to its conclusion. Though not explicitly stated, it appears to be given in the court's algebra that Jesus equals good, just as bong hit equals bad. Adding the two values together presents a difficult problem that can't be solved, only censored. Fortunately, there was a dissenting minority opinion contained in the decision as well, and it clearly points out the faulty logic of the majority. The dissent not only challenges the narrow interpretation of the phrase, it places the banner within the boundaries of the political battle over the war on drugs, and even likens that political battle to the political battle over alcohol prohibition. Drug policy activists who wonder if anyone on the Supreme Court really "gets it," might want to take the time to read the dissent, as it appears our message is being heard at least by some in high places. The dissent is also grim, as it offers a stark assessment of the future of "drug speech" in schools. "Although this case began with a silly, nonsensical banner, it ends with the Court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, at least so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in the dissent. Stevens seems to be right, which raises troubling questions not only about Free Speech, but about open education. Can this recent Supreme Court decision be discussed honestly in a high school classroom without fear of reprisal by administrators? After all, if the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is a threat when printed on a banner, is it any less of a threat when it's said aloud? What about challenging the interpretation of the banner as a pro-drug message? Does merely voicing the argument equal treason in the drug war, and therefore make a student subject to punishment? And what of further discussion of the slogan's actual meaning? I'm not familiar with any evidence suggesting Jesus came close to a bong hit in his lifetime, though some biblical scholars suggest the anointing oil used by Jesus and his followers contained cannabis. It's a subject fit for debate, but if you're a student on school grounds, it's probably in your best interest to keep your mouth shut on the issue. You heard it straight from the Supreme Court - despite our long history of religious tolerance, even Jesus backed by the First Amendment won't save you from punishment if you mention drugs without proper denunciations. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake