Posted on March 23, 2007 by Jamie Spencer

What Does "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Mean? (Morse v. Frederick)

The transcript of oral arguments in Morse v. Frederick, argued at the Supreme Court a few days ago, makes for some interesting reading. (For a summary of the facts, see my earlier comments on the case here.)

Ken Starr (arguing that the principal had the right to suppress the speech) focuses the beginning of his argument, predictably, with the usual Drug Czar type language. His first sentence in fact:

Illegal drugs and the glorification of the drug culture are profoundly serious problems for our nation.

A student holds up a sign (off campus, mind you) that reads “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” and now the Supreme Court is being asked to jump to the conclusion that the message glorifies drug culture? What exactly does “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” mean anyway?

Does it mean the speaker believes Jesus supports marijuana use? Does that automatically mean it is pro drugs? Perhaps it’s a suggestion that Jesus should be allowed to use marijuana?

What is the anti-“Bong Hits 4 Jesus” message?

I told my wife that I thought the opposite of “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” would be “No Bong Hits 4 Jesus”, and therefore that would have to be protected speech, at least according to the Government’s argument.

Would “No Bong Hits 4 Jesus” be as obviously pro-Drug War as the government thinks “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” is pro-Drug Culture?

My wife suggested that the opposite message might actually be “Bong Hits 4 Satan”. If the “4 Jesus” part of the sign is automatically an endorsement, then wouldn’t “4 Satan” send the appropriate “Just Say NO” message that the government expects us all to chant?

Any discussion about the actual meaning of this phrase would, I predict, devolve into equally subjective and silly analysis. And that’s exactly my point.

Actually, this case presents an excellent demonstration of the dangers of the government coming in after the fact and interpreting what a particular speaker means, when they argue the right to suppress the speech. Let’s not add the First Amendment to the growing list of Drug War victims.

Tags: , ,
Posted on March 18, 2007 by Jamie Spencer

Morse v. Frederick: Bong Hits 4 Jesus

Tomorrow the US Supreme Court will hear arguments in what will inevitably be known to future generations of law students as the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case (technically entitled Morse v. Frederick).

While watching the Olympic torch being carried in Juneau in 2002, 18 year old Joseph Frederick held up a large sign which said “BONG HITS 4 JESUS”. His high school principal (Deborah Morse) saw him with sign, crossed the street and demanded that he take it down. When he refused she crumpled it up, and eventually suspended him for 10 days.

Unfortunately, there is no small chance that the case may end up being decided on grounds such as “it wasn’t a school sponsored event”, or “even if semi-school sponsored, then off campus speech is entitled to more protection than on campus speech”– which are admittedly valid issues in the case. 

Lawyers for the student also argue in their briefs that it was just a meaningless phrase, not one that can necessarily be defined as anti-drug war. This is possibly the most valid point – after all, do you have any idea what the sign means? Me neither. (The student himself claimed it was nothing more than teenage hijinks, or possibly a statement about free speech, but not drug use.)

But here’s hoping that SCOTUS decides the case on its much more interesting merits…that is, whether or not a student has a right to speak out against our ridiculous national drug control policy. Really, at least to me, it’s an issue of free thought more than free speech – and isn’t that what schools should be fostering?

Through this blog, I’ve been contacted from time to time by students writing papers assigned to them by teachers about the pros and cons of “legalizing marijuana”. Will “thinking in school” be the next victim of the War on Drugs?

Tags: , ,