The U.S. Supreme Court made an important decision Monday that placed tighter control on students’ freedom of speech.
The Court ruled, 5-4, that schools can restrict student expression when their messages seem to support illegal drug use. This decision directly stemmed from an incident where a high school student displayed a 14-foot long sign reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” near his high school in 2002.
The student, Joseph Frederick, who was later suspended from the school, displayed his banner outside the high school grounds while the Olympic torch relay passed through Juneau, Alaska, for the 2002 Winter Olympics.
However, this ruling appears unconstitutional.
The U.S. Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.”
According to the Associated Press, Frederick said the banner was meant to exercise “his right to say anything at all.”
The school’s principal, Deborah Morse, said the sign did not belong at a “school-sanctioned event.”
While children should receive more consideration for legal protection from potentially obscene or offensive material, how can we teach these same children the value of the most fundamental right on which this country was founded if the highest court in the land is restricting that right?
We believe this ruling was handed down mainly because of the potentially-offensive nature of the message. Free speech is built on a strong foundation that supports citizens’ rights to say anything they want, regardless of how offensive someone may interpret a message.
How far can the Supreme Court go with interpreting obscenity?
Using the Miller test as the constitutional standard for obscenity, would the Supreme Court object to an atheist or agnostic being offended by a “What Would Jesus Do” bracelet?
Notice the Constitution has no asterisks that limit the bounds of the First Amendment.
Perhaps the most upsetting part of this ruling is the implications it may have on future cases. With this ruling, how is someone to know where to draw the line when saying something that may offend a certain group of people?
We can only hope Monday’s ruling is not a sign of what is to come for our rights in the future.
———–Contact the editorial board at [email protected]