No Speech 4 You

Jacob Sullum writes about the ruling in the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case. Pete Guither has some interesting excerpts from the decisions, noting that parts of the ruling did put up some barriers in front of the slippery slope many were concerned with in this case.

What I'm taking away from this decision is a better understanding of how school administrators, judges, and others view the role of education in this country. The banner itself didn't explicitly encourage drug use, but it was deemed to be a direct affront to the school's anti-drug policies. Yet, according to the rulings, if it were a more political statement in support of drug legalization, it would have been protected by the court. This presents an odd situation where the court is saying that a school has a greater right to squelch nonsensical speech than to squelch sensible speech.

How the hell did that happen? It happened because the currently accepted function of public schooling is more than just educating children (and this may have been true for ages, I have no idea), it also includes a mandate to instill certain fears in them. When Joseph Frederick held up that sign, he was puncturing a hole in that mandate, but just not saying something with enough value to be protected by his right to free speech. He demonstrated a lack of seriousness over an issue for which seriousness has been deemed mandatory. In the end, the laws of this nation continue to twist and turn through a maze of details and technicalities because we remained paralyzed in fear of a plant that makes people giggle and lose their train of thought.

**** Speaking of a lack of seriousness, Darryl demonstrates even less (more?) over here.