Bong Hits 4 Jesus

June 27, 2007

I’m thoroughly disgusted by the party line Supreme Court decision in the Morse v. Frederick (aka Bong Hits 4 Jesus) case. I’m too angry and frustrated to write a dispassionate, analytical post. But I would like to make a few points.

• Frederick was not on school grounds at the time he put the banner up and the activity he was watching was not a school event! It’s true that Frederick’s classmates were on a school sponsored trip to watch the event, but that’s no different than going to the zoo or the museum. Fredericks didn’t go to school that day; he was not the school’s responsibility at the time any more than it is the schools responsibility to discipline, punish, or reward one of my children if they are at the museum at the same time as any group of students from their school (or any other).
• There is no such thing as speech that “deserves” the protection of the First Amendment. That should be the default stance. The only question is what speech might be denied that protection. That denial must only be made rarely and for exceedingly clear and well-defined reasons.
• Whether you support the decision or not, the “obvious” meaning of the banner (it’s non-sensical on at least one level) is beside the point… the speech act must be considered as a whole. The majority opinion on this case is hopelessly confused. Alito writes that he supports the restriction, but “only” as long as:
  

  (a) it goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use and (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use

  Pretty much any statement on drug use can be plausibly understood as a comment on a social and political issue if for no other reason than the fact that the legality and illegality of drugs is itself a social and political issue! Saying “Take a Bong Hit, Jesus Would Approve” is not only advocating drug use, but also a commentary on religion and drugs, on the nature of the character known as Jesus, etc. Simply saying “Take a Bong Hit!” can be easily understood not only by the “obvious” meaning, but also as a statement about marijuana and legalization. Alaska is one of many states that constantly seems to be addressing this issue, it is very easy to see how this is a kind of political speech.

  And let’s not forget something else that should make school officials and teachers twitch: by Alito’s own definition, many of their existing rules prohibiting (for example) t-shirts with slogans that are racist, gang-related, or that take a position on sexuality should be protected. It’s pretty hard to argue that a shirt with the logo “White Power” or “Man on Man” is not an example of social and political commentary.

Our local paper has an article about school district officials that “applaud the decision.” Any school administrator or teacher that supports this decision is not fit to be a school administrator or teacher. Personally I think they ought to be fired, but I know that’s not reasonable. However, not only is the decision an egregious, ideologically motivated attack on free speech, but if these teachers and adminstrators think about it for a while they will realize that the decision does not only give them the extra-curricular power they seem to desire but also obligates them to be responsible for children all around them who are not in their care anytime they go anywhere on a school function. Is that really a responsibility they desire?

The whole thing makes me sick. Given this case and the nearly simultaneous decision on campaign reform (another vexing issue regarding speech and the political process) it’s not an overstatement to say that I feel despair for our country, our culture and my children, for whom this constant erosion of rights and ideologically driven acts are sadly going to be the norm. Someone on a mailing list I belong to wrote “If we save our constitution, we’ll be grabbing it at the last minute before it plunges into flames. The edges are starting to smoke.” I can’t help but agree.

I have a hard time not feeling deep contempt for anyone that supports this decision. That contempt in turn makes me question myself and how I handle such disputes. How do I should orient myself towards these things in my own life given my emerging attempts to be more “present” in my day-to-day activities. Strangely, withdrawal from even worrying about them seems like the most attractive way. I’m lost just thinking about it.

Tags: politics, Psyche