First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
For high school students, free speech is no joke
Inside the First Amendment

By Charles C. Haynes
First Amendment Center senior scholar

“Bong Hits 4 Jesus” doesn’t have a hidden meaning. In fact, the phrase doesn’t mean anything at all.

But when high school senior Joe Frederick held up a banner with those now-famous words in 2002, he triggered a chain of events that led to last week’s 5-4 Supreme Court ruling drawing new lines around student free-expression rights in public schools.

Frederick unfurled his “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” message while students and faculty were gathered to watch the Olympic torch pass by his school in Juneau, Alaska.

“The phrase was not important,” he recently explained. “I wasn’t trying to say anything about religion. I wasn’t trying to say anything about drugs. I was just trying to say something. I wanted to use my right to free speech, and I did it.”

When the principal, Deborah Morse, asked him to take the banner down, Frederick refused. She confiscated it and later suspended him for 10 days. Frederick sued.

What Frederick believed was a nonsensical joke that he had a First Amendment right to display, Morse saw as promotion of illegal drugs in violation of school policy. On June 25, a closely divided Supreme Court sided with the principal.

The Court’s decision in Morse v. Frederick carves out what might be called “an illegal drug use” exception to student free-speech rights as defined in the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. School officials may now censor student speech that a “reasonable observer” would interpret as advocating the use of illegal drugs.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito takes great pains to underscore the narrow scope of the decision. Nothing in the ruling, he claims, restricts the right of students to comment on political or social issues, including debates about drug laws.

But the dissent, written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, describes the decision as a “ham-handed, categorical approach” that is “deaf to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high school students, about the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use.”

Where Alito sees a bright line, Stevens sees a slippery slope. What about speech that mentions alcohol — also a drug illegal for minors? “While I find it hard to believe,” writes Stevens, “that the Court would support punishing Frederick for flying a ‘Wine Sips 4 Jesus’ banner — which could quite reasonably be construed either as a protected religious message or as a pro-alcohol message — the breathtaking sweep of its opinion suggests it would.”

Narrow or sweeping? We won’t know until we see how school districts apply the decision and how courts interpret it. But don’t be surprised when many school officials and judges use it to find new grounds for censoring students. If an absurd reference to drug paraphernalia can be suppressed, what’s the stopping point?

Given how messy the fallout from this decision is likely to be, school officials should focus less on how to use it and more on how to avoid future conflicts.

After all, Frederick didn’t make that banner out of whole cloth. His protest came after a series of run-ins with the administration over what he believed was unfair treatment. He claims, for example, that previously he got into trouble for refusing to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance (which is his right).

From the conflicting accounts, I don’t know what actually happened at Frederick’s high school. But I do know that far too many schools mistakenly assume that the best way to maintain discipline is to control student expression. Draconian speech codes and censored school publications may create the appearance of order, but they breed alienation, distrust and rebellion.

It may seem counterintuitive, but students are far more likely to behave well in schools that take free speech seriously. Schools where students are given meaningful opportunities to express themselves — and to participate in decision-making about school rules — are schools where high school rebels like Joe Frederick have little or nothing to rebel against.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209. E-mail:


High court limits student speech in 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case

Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts writes. 06.25.07

Conn. teen punished for Internet insult sues school officials
Avery Doninger contends her free-speech rights were violated when she was removed as class secretary for offensive slang posted on blog. 07.18.07

Conn. teen to appeal ruling that OK'd punishment for blog posting
Federal judge upholds administrators' decision to discipline Avery Doninger for derogatory comments she made outside of school. 09.09.07

Judge: District won't pay damages in 'Bong Hits' case
Attorney for former student who displayed banner in case that reached high court says state issues can still be appealed. 10.15.07

Mo. teen files free-speech suit in photo flap
Superintendent says it was classroom disruption — not Logan Glover's surreptitious picture-taking and posting of images of teacher — that prompted discipline. 12.18.07

2nd Circuit considers appeal from teen disciplined for blog post
Lawyer for Connecticut teen argues that what students write on the Internet shouldn't give schools more cause to regulate off-campus speech. 03.06.08

Federal judge upholds 5th-grader's suspension for alleged threat
By David L. Hudson Jr. Elementary school student in Montgomery, N.Y., wrote in class assignment that his wish was to 'blow up the school with all the teachers in it.' 05.13.08

2nd Circuit: School can punish teen for online criticism
Students 'may be disciplined for expressive conduct, even conduct occurring off school grounds, when this conduct "would foreseeably create a risk of substantial disruption within the school environment."' 05.30.08

First Amendment claims get mixed reception at Court
By Tony Mauro Rulings shed light on how more conservative majority looks at the First Amendment — and how the moderate-liberal wing is losing ground. 06.26.07

Did student-speech rights go up in smoke?
By David L. Hudson Jr. Court's ruling in 'Bong Hits' case limits student speech, but it wasn't a complete disaster. 06.27.07

Lower court takes narrow view of 'Bong Hits' ruling
By Douglas Lee In case involving student ridiculing principal on MySpace, district judge refuses to read high court's decision in Morse v. Frederick as expanding deference due school officials. 07.18.07

5th Circuit extends limits on student speech
By Douglas Lee Panel makes several curious twists and turns to reach conclusion that its decision 'follow(s) the lead' of recent Supreme Court ruling. 11.27.07

Analysis/Commentary summary page
View the latest analysis and commentary throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

print this   Print

Last system update: Friday, July 25, 2008 | 07:58:50
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment

First Reports
Supreme Court
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Freedom Sings™
First Amendment

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment

Lesson plans
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links