Joe Frederick's free-speech battle

How far can public school officials go in muzzling their charges when the little darlings go "off-message"? Does the authority of school officials reach beyond the classroom -- even off school grounds? Those questions and more are raised by the case of Joe Frederick, a former high school student in Juneau, Alaska, who was punished for exercising his right to free speech in a forum that many people would consider beyond the reach of teachers and administrators.

In 2002, Frederick and his fellow students were released from school to attend a Winter Olympic torch relay event along a public street. As TV cameras panned across them, Frederick and his buddies unfurled a banner reading, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Whether Frederick and company meant it to be a pro-drug message, or were just being wise-asses is unclear. But Principal Deborah Morse had no doubt as to the banner's meaning. She tore down the banner and suspended Frederick for ten days.

Frederick sued, alleging that his free speech rights had been violated. A lower court disagreed, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the prankster, and the case has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

What's important to remember is that, even if Frederick had pulled his stunt on school grounds, the case wouldn't be a slam-dunk for school officials. According to the standard set in Tinker v. Des Moines, schools can restrict students only if their speech is disruptive to the educational process. It's not obvious that the banner represents any such thing.

But Frederick was, in fact, on a public street. His free speech rights should be even more strongly protected there, beyond the conformist embrace of the holding pen managed by Ms. Morse. School officials may not like their students to voice opinions contrary to what they're being taught in the classroom, but there's no obvious reason why they should be able to gag students who want to voice dissent -- unless that dissent is expressed in such a way that it actually disrupts the function of the school.

But Tinker was a bit of a high-water mark for students' free speech rights. Our black-robed high priests of legaldom have hedged their bets on the issue in decisions ever since, finding repeatedly in favor of administrators' power to regulate speech.

With public schools housing and (allegedly) educating the vast majority of America's youth the stakes are high. If school officials can control what students say on -- and off -- school grounds, they'll exercise enormous power over the boundaries of debate permitted to young people. Any opinion deemed to vary too greatly from the official stance of government-run schools could essentially become off-limits to students until they achieve adulthood and suddenly, like prisoners emerging from dark cells, enter a world where speech is still protected.

That's enormously dangerous.

A decision in Joe Frederick's case is expected in June.