Seen on the newswires:
The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner.
Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.
Even though this ruling is being hailed as the standard-bearer in a big victory for conservatives in today’s SCOTUS decisions, I think the Supremes were probably correct this time.
Wikipedia has a decent synopsis of the case. The Cliffs Notes version is that the plaintiff, a student who had been playing hookey from school showed up with his classmates across the street from campus when they were released to watch the Olympic torch run pass by. The plaintiff and a few of his cohorts unfurled a “Bong Hits for Jesus” banner as a defiant demonstration of free speech. The school principal promptly had the banner taken down, and suspended the truant for the stunt. A violation of civil rights was claimed, lawyers were involved, and the rest is history.
The gist of the ruling appears to be that schools are free to prohibit speech that advocates or romanticizes illegal activity, on school grounds or at school functions, in the interest of maintaining order and promoting responsible behavior. The “get out of school to watch the torch run by campus” was deemed to have been a school function…and thus it follows that the suspension was not out-of-line under the circumstances.
For the most part, I can agree with that.
However, where I do get a bit uncomfortable is with the distinction the SCOTUS makes between the notion of political speech being protected under the First Amendment, but not advocacy for law-breaking. The Court clearly states that black arm-bands in protest of war are OK, but “Bong Hits” banners are not.
Well, there are times where an activist is making a political statement to advocate a change in the law. Where does that fall in the black-and-white scheme being advocated? What if the banner had been a clear message calling for the legalization of medical marijuana? Would the suspension still have been constitutional?
I don’t think that the Court started down the slippery slope with this ruling, but I think if Justice Roberts were to look down, he’d see his toes hanging over an icy down-grade.