When the Olympic Torch Relay came through Juneau, Alaska, in 2002, high school senior Joseph Frederick was ready: as the relay passed through the neighborhood Frederick stood on the sidewalk – not school property – and unfurled a large banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” What, exactly, that meant is open to interpretation. Could it be that he was referring to the history of Cannabis and its contemporary relation to Jesus? Maybe. Could it be that he was just giving a shout out to God’s Son? Sure. Could it be that he was simply looking to get on TV? Absolutely.
In the end, it doesn’t really matter what he meant, because school principal Deborah Morse didn’t bother to ask before walking up to him, demanding he lower the sign. She then snatched it from his hands when he refused to comply. Back at school, Morse suspended Frederick for five days for an alleged violation of the school’s zero-tolerance, anti-drug policy. Confronted with that punishment, Frederick pulled a little Thomas Jefferson on the principal, explaining that he was simply exercising his right of free speech. That didn’t go over so well and, without any other reason, Morse increased Frederick’s suspension to 10 days. Frederick cried foul and with the support of the ACLU of Alaska, sued the school for censorship. The district court ruled against him – ruling that his BH4J sign “directly contravened” school board policies “relating to drug abuse prevention,” (even though that makes no real logical sense), but the 9 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, agreeing that the school had violated his right to free speech. High school principal Morse – represented by former government attorney-whore Kenneth Starr, no less – appealed to the Supreme Court, which is set to hear the case on March 19.
At issue are two things: First, whether the First Amendment allows public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages “promoting” illegal drug use and, second, whether the appeals court erred in holding that Morse could be held individually liable for her actions violating Frederick’s rights. As it turns out, pushing the free speech issue was Frederick’s only goal in unfurling the somehow-offensive banner: “I wasn’t trying to spread any idea,” he said. “I was just trying to assert my right.” Indeed, in a brief filed with the Supremes, Frederick’s attorneys argue that the school had no right to constrict Frederick’s free speech – and that it’s connecting the sign’s message to an anti-drug policy was tenuous, at best. (And, as to the second question, that Morse should be held liable for her obvious infringement on Frederick’s right to free speech.) “In this case, Frederick has consistently denied that his speech was intended to promote any illegal behavior,” the brief reads, and neither Morse nor the school board have “seriously rebutted” Frederick’s position “except to assert that the banner he displayed ‘expressed a positive sentiment about marijuana use.’” (Seriously, for all the money the Juneau school folks must be throwing at Starr, you’d think he could come up with something better. On second thought, maybe not.) “This case is not about drugs,” reads the brief. “This case is about speech.”
This article appears in March 9 • 2007.