BONG HiTS 4 JESUSthe controversies surrounding Morse vs. Frederick

Imagine a world of thought police and speech codes designed to ensure the protection of the mental health of students. Imagine a world where, at college campuses, speech zones are clearly marked areas lettered A-C, and any joke deemed “derogatory” can be grounds for expulsion. Imagine a world that is obsessed with political correctness, disapproves of parody and satire, and hands down draconian punishments for silly and innocuous acts.

No, I am not plagiarizing the plot of 1984 or Brave New World. I am merely describing the state of college campuses today. As a summer intern for the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a group dedicated to preserving liberty on college campuses, I was astounded by the prevalence of these speech codes at contemporary universities. For example, Drexel University not only punishes “inappropriate humor” but also “inappropriately directed laughter.” Gettysburg College’s sexual harassment policy requires verbal, continuing consent for all sexual action: brushing, touching, pinching, hugging, etc. Furthermore, rulings such as Morse v. Frederick (2007) only aggravate the situation by giving administrators more leeway in regulating the campus with respect to student “safety.”

Handing down a 5-4 decision in Morse v. Frederick, popularly known as the “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” case, the Court effectively limited the speech rights of high school students. As college students, we should be concerned because, as David French points out in Phi Beta Cons, a blog hosted by the National Review Online:
“In every single free speech case I’ve ever argued, the university’s first line of defense is the high school speech standard. When high school student rights shrink, universities grow bolder.”

On June 22, 2002, Juneau-Douglass HS in Juneau, Alaska, approved, as a class trip, the participation of students and staff in the Olympic Torch Relay. Joseph Frederick met up with his friends across the street from the school and they unfurled a 14-foot banner that read, “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” as the torchbearer and camera crew passed. Principal Deborah Morse crossed the street and demanded that the banner be torn down. When Frederick denied her request, she confiscated the banner and suspended Frederick.

The Supreme Court found no First Amendment violation, citing that schools may regulate speech when the speech seems to advocate or “celebrate” drug use. After all, according to Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion:
“First, [BONG HiTS 4 JESUS] could be interpreted as an imperative: “[Take] bong hits…”—a message equivalent, as Morse explained in her declaration, to “smoke marijuana” or “use an illegal drug.” Alternatively, the phrase could be viewed as celebrating drug use—“bong hits [are a good thing],” or “[we take] bong hits” —and we discern no meaningful distinction between celebrating illegal drug use in the midst of fellow students and outright advocacy or promotion.”

Dahlia Lithwick of Slate.com cleverly remarks:
“When did we enter into the era of constitutional interpretation through inserting pretend words? The sign could have as easily been read to say ‘bong hits [will kill you].’”