"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Attracts Attention at Olympics and Supreme Court

Joseph Frederick’s case was heard at a trial after his Principal, Deborah Morse, suspended him for 10 days due to Morse holding up a 15-foot banner that read, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”, at a school assembly. After being suspended, Frederick didn’t see anything wrong in what he was portraying and sued Principal Morse for violating his First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech.

Frederick had Kenneth W. Starr and Edwin S. Kneedler as advocates for him. This case relied heavily on the Tinker v. Des Moines case because of the location, school grounds. Starr even mentions, “If Mr. Frederick had seen fit to go down Glacier Avenue to J and J's, a popular hangout, there would have been no high school jurisdiction.” The location in this case is one of the most important pieces of information that should be noted. If Frederick happened to wait to unveil his sign until he was at another location and away from school grounds or at the assembly, then this case would not be heard in front of the Supreme Court because there would be no case at all.

Justice David H. Souter was the first justice to question the premise of this case and if it were even fit to be at the Supreme Court. Souter asked Starr, “I can understand if they unfurled a banner in the classroom it would be disruptive, but what did it disrupt on the sidewalk?”

What is important to understand in this question here, is that the Tinker v. Des Moines case allowed students a larger amount of their freedom of speech but only if it didn’t cause a disturbance. Souter posed a question that forced Starr to rethink his stance and it challenged him to understand the varying factors this case had to offer.

Edwin originally focused his supporting arguments on the “illegal use and glorification of drug culture” that can be found both within our nation and in this case at hand. Kneedler took a different approach showing another side of the case. He started by citing another case and its ruling, “I think this is a manifestation of the principle articulated in Earls and repeated in Hazelwood that a school does not have to tolerate a message that is inconsistent with its basic educational [mission].”

Justices found this shocking and reacted immediately. Justice Samuel A. Moltio, Jr. spoke up first with his concerns, “schools have and they can define their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all sorts of political speech and speech expressing fundamental values of the students.” It is apparent very early on that there were multiple varying factors and it goes to show how confusing the law world can truly be.

One tactic that the supreme court justices repeatedly used was creating hypothetical situations for others to see multiple sides of the case as well as predict various contexts that this same ruling could be used for in the future. For instance, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asks, “Suppose it was Saturday, not a school day. And the school children were not required to show up at the Olympic event but were encouraged to and the same thing happened. Would it make a difference that it wasn't in the course of a regular school day?”

As many justices asked questions regarding hypothetical scenarios, it soon enough forced the banner out of the discussion. The banner was no longer talked about as disruptive as it had been at the beginning of the case but instead focus turned towards the actions of the principal and how the situation the handled.

Kneedler made a valid point in regards to the actions of the principal during the incident, “The question is what a reasonable observer would think. And the words ‘bong hits’ are slang that would be particularly, have a particular characteristic of getting across to other students, and they suggest a casual tolerance and encouragement of illegal drug usage.” In attempts to examine the freedom of speech involved in the case, Kneedler began to notice the impacts that the sign would impose on other students.

Because the location was so important, it was important to look at some of the other details of the case like specifics on guardians in that exact moment the sign was displayed. “This I think falls under the Frazier standard, where the Court said that schools have a duty to inculcate matters of civility and to prepare students for citizenship, and not violating the law is an important part of that and teachers' act in loco parentis. They act as guardians and they should be able to do, as this Court says in Earls, what a reasonable guardian would do. That would mean don't allow people to encourage lawbreaking.”

As it has been mentioned prior, this case is being looked at as if it was a school assembly and in the case that it is, the teachers act as guardians of those students in attendance. Also, in this case, the students were required to be there for the torch ceremony, making the teachers guardians. Now, the principal noticed the sign and acted impulsively much like everyone would in a moment of shock and as she was trying to keep a good image of the school.

After many different scenarios and the varying pieces of information that is involved in the case, the Supreme Court came to a 5-4 decision that Fredericks’s punishment of suspension was unconstitutional because he was punished for the message and not the disturbance of the students which is protected under Tinker v. Des Moines.