Will a funnier case ever go before the Supreme Court than Morse v. Frederick? If you don't know the story already, a witty (and apparently litigious) high school student unrolled a large banner stating, simply: "Bong Hits for Jesus" in front of his school. But this was no ordinary day, rather it was the day the Olympic torch ceremony came through Juneau, Alaska, along with accompanying tv crews. So his antics could have concievably been broadcast to a wider audience- had not his incensed principle removed it. The boy sued, trial court found for the the school, the ninth circuit found for the bong-hitter, and that brings us to today, when when we get to hear Justice Scalia asking Kenneth (yes that one) Starr "this banner was interpreted as meaning smoke pot, no?"

A few other favorite moments:

JUSTICE GINSBURG: So if the sign had been "Bong Stinks for Jesus," that would be, and Morse had the same reaction, that this was demeaning to the Olympics and it was unruly conduct, that there would be a protected right under Tinker because the message was not promoting drugs?
....
JUSTICE BREYER: Suppose that this particular person had whispered to his next door neighbor, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus, heh heh heh," you know. Supposed that's what had happened?
.....
MR. MERTZ: Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court: This is a case about free speech. It is not a case about drugs.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It's a case about money. Your client wants money from the principal personally for her actions in this case.

Damn straight its about money! Money for more bong hits! But seriously, legally this case had some value as well. These are important questions in this days of heaightened school security. How far does a school's discretion go in regulating speech? Can a kid put up a B.H.F.J. banner in home room? What about wearing black armbands? What about putting up a banner that said Democrat/ Republican for Jesus? Many groups on the left and right (usual suspects ACLU and not so usual like Liberty Legal and American Center for Law and Justice, Pat Robertson's guys) filed amicus briefs on the side of the student, who was not particularly political or religously observant, but rather wanted "to get on television".

Reading the transcript of the oral argument, it seems at first like the Justices simply weren't up on the hip-kid slang. But really, the interpretation at the banner was at the heart of the matter. Was this political speech? Probably not- that might have been more along the lines of "Legalize bong hits...for jesus". Was is religous speech? Um, no one was willing to buy that. But this ambigous kind of jackassery- ought this sort of speech be protected? Even if it vaguely promotes drug use?

The court seemed to come down on the side of Jesus... I mean, the students. This banner was outside the school, not in the classroom, and although it was pretty much meaningless nonsense, with a few words changed it could have been a political or religous expression. And the Justices didn't seem to be comfortable with the idea of a "school message" that was being contradicted. After all, were that the case schools could be republican, pro-choice, or pro-war and expression the contrary could be stricken as disruptive. All in all, I think speech rights are fairly safe for now.

Safe for when someone comes up with something more important to say than "Bong Hit for Jesus," for fuck's sake.

Whose Bong Would Jesus Hit?