Morse v Frederick ("Bong Hits for Jesus")

In 2007, the Supreme Court made another decision regarding the First Amendment and speech in the public schools: Morse v. Frederick. This is commonly known as the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case.

According to the ruling:
"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts wrote for the majority. "It is no doubt offensive to some, perhaps amusing to others. To still others, it probably means nothing at all. Frederick himself claimed 'that the words were just nonsense meant to attract television cameras.' But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one.

"The question thus becomes whether a principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. We hold that she may."

Morse suspended the student, prompting a federal civil rights lawsuit.

The winning side in the case was quick to assert that the decision was not anti-free speech.

In their concurrence, Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy specified that the Court's opinion provides no support for any restriction on speech that goes to political or social issues.

Alito wrote: "The opinion of the Court does not endorse the broad argument advanced by petitioners and the United States that the First Amendment permits public school officials to censor any student speech that interferes with a school's 'educational mission.' This argument can easily be manipulated in dangerous ways, and I would reject it before such abuse occurs."

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in dissent: "In my judgment, the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students. This nonsense banner does neither, and the court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding — indeed, lauding — a school's decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed."


Here is more about the case.