News

Staff Editorial: Attention should be put on important issues, not silly banners

The Supreme Court ruled against a former high school student Monday that his "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" sign was not protected under the First Amendment, CNN.com reported. The decision marks another move that has tightened student speech rights.

It is probably one of the few times that drug paraphernalia and the Supreme Court are uttered in the same breath.

Joseph Frederick unveiled a 14-foot sign in public during a field trip in 2002. The sign was taken away and he was later suspended. He sued and has taken his claim throughout the entire court system.

In the end, though, the Supreme Court ruled against him in a 6-3 decision, citing that his "sophomoric" banner was a legitimate reason for administrators to take action – a 10-day suspension for promoting illegal drug use.

The interesting thing about this case, however, is not the fact that the Supreme Court is still debating free speech rights for students, but that such an absurd issue made its way to the justices.

Even Frederick, now 24, acknowledges the sign was purposefully created to provoke a reaction from his high school, CNN.com reported.

The Supreme Court doesn’t work proactively; it works only in response to cases brought before it. And when relatively small cases such at these begin to snake their way through the system, interest groups with specific agendas, on both sides of the political spectrum, pounce on the opportunity.

And while it’s good to know that student rights are still a viable issue in the justice system, this specific case was blown out of proportion.

No serious consideration can be given to a sign that has "bong" and "Jesus" in the same sentence.

Leave a Comment