DLC Blog

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" to the Supreme Court

In one of the most interesting cases to land before the Supreme Court this year, the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" suit is stirring up nationwide interest. A high school student held up a sign with that slogan during a parade, and his principal saw and suspended him for 10 days. The implications of this case are far-reaching, as they could change the very relationship between schools, students, and our Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech.

The incident, which happened five years ago during the Olympic Torch relay parade in Juneau, Alaska, did not occur on school grounds. Normally, the student, Joseph Frederick, who was 18 years old at the time, could not receive any disciplinary action for the event, since he was a private adult citizen expressing his views, whatever they may have been (he openly acknowledges that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" was meant to be a nonsensical statement, not a religious or drug-related message). However, the catch is that his school had been let out early to watch the Olympic procession on its way to the 2002 games in Salt Lake City. Thus the parade became a quasi-school sponsored event, as teachers and administration were present, watching the parade along with the students and the rest of the city.

Frederick held up his sign during the parade, as TV cameras passed by, and waited for attention. It came in the form of his principal, who witnessed him unfurling the sign and told him that he had to put it away or face disciplinary action. He refused, and she immediately suspended him for 10 days. It should be noted that whatever one's views on drugs, religion, or the statement in general, Frederick had a clearly Constitutionally-protected right to unfurl the sign. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech for everyone. Its exact wording is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (First Amendment to the US Constitution, 1791).

So, clearly Frederick violated no law. The issue is that schools are allowed to restrict certain rights in their students in order to maintain an educational environment. For example, it's your Constitutional right to swear, wear a bikini, say bad things about your teachers, or pretty much anything else, as long as you're not in school. But once in school, if you become highly disruptive, you lose your right to speak freely. The courts have ruled that dress codes and student newspaper censorship, in some cases, are permissible in schools. On the other hand, in the most famous school censorship case, Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court ruled that students "don't shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." In that case, high school students wore black armbands to oppose the American invasion of Vietnam, and were subsequently suspended.

Picture is an open source document from www.wikipedia.org

As of now, the student, Joseph Frederick, has won at every single lower level court against Deborah Morse, the principal who suspended him. With a ruling coming in the near future, we have yet to see what will happen in this important case affecting your free speech. I wager that the case is thrown out and the multiple prior rulings in favor of the student are kept. Keep in mind that the United States has among the harshest drug and alcohol restrictions in the Western world, where even mentioning drug paraphernalia (such as a bong), can land one in jail. Many people in Europe and Canada view American restrictions against drugs, especially marijuana, as wrong, cruel, and immoral. It should be noted that cannabis, the plant that produces marijuana, has been grown in North America since colonial times, both for the medicinal purposes of marijuana and the cloth you can make out of the plant's fibers. The US Department of Agriculture sponsored much research on cannabis until it was effectively outlawed in the 1930s (although not officially so until the 1960s). Given the long history of cannabis cultivation in this country, I think that suspending a student for using a slang word for a device that may be used with this drug is a gross violation of his rights. All of the lower courts have agreed; we'll see what the Supreme Court says.

But most importantly, what do YOU think???
Here is a pro v. con resource guide on the legalization of marijuana, from the SIRS resource in the DLC library.

Anyhow decide for yourself.

Posted by Josh on March 30, 2007 10:58 AM.