The Supreme Court decided last week that the right to free speech doesn’t necessarily apply to students if the speech can be construed to promote drug use.

This, of course, makes perfect sense (note the sarcasm in my voice). In Morse v. Frederick, the Court upheld a public high school’s punishment of one Joseph Frederick for his promotion of drug use at a school-sanctioned event. Here’s how he perpetrated this pernicious peccadillo:

In 2002, the Winter Olympic torch was scheduled to pass by Frederick’s high school in Juneau, Alaska, and school had been let out to watch the ceremony.

Frederick had what you might call a half-baked idea to get on TV. Namely, he made a 14-foot-long banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” and unfurled it as the torch went past.

Needless to say, the banner garnered a great deal of attention, including that of his principal, and he was suspended for 10 days for “promoting” or “celebrating” the use of illegal drugs at a school event.

Frederick appealed his case all the way up to the Supreme Court, which ruled with finality in favor of the principal’s punishment, because Frederick’s banner could “reasonably” be interpreted to be pro-drug.

I see a number of problems with this decision, not the least of which is the fact that “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” doesn’t really mean anything. Frederick himself has acknowledged this, saying the banner is “absurdly funny. It doesn’t make any sense at all.”

It’s funny because it doesn’t actually mean anything, and automatically controversial because it connects two things most people wouldn’t want to see connected. But how that makes the banner pro-drug, I just can’t see.

Of course, the ability to discern meaning where there is none is a known effect of taking certain illegal substances. Anything you’d like to tell us, Chief Justice Roberts?

But there are greater things at stake than some dazed and confused 18-year-old’s punishment for displaying a stupid banner. The Supreme Court’s logic is that because his speech supposedly interfered or conflicted with the educational message the school tried to project (i.e., don’t do drugs), it was not permissible. A student may not be “disruptive” in his speech, nor may he “contravene” school policy, the court argues.

This last bit makes me wonder what speech is permitted. Is a student allowed to question or disagree with a school policy? Could I complain about a strict dress code in high school, or participate in a philosophical debate on the theme of “homework sucks?” A friend of mine in high school wrote a research paper on LSD. Could that be seen as pro-drug, and therefore illegal? I wonder how many events at the University would meet the criteria for advocating drug use: showings at Tate of “Pulp Fiction” and “Requiem for a Dream?” The History of Rock and Roll class? Finals week?

Frederick v. Morse, as Justice Roberts acknowledged in his opinion, does not involve a constitutional conflict. A student may be punished for breaking the rules, which is what Frederick did. But if his appeal makes it all the way up to the Supreme Court, it should not result in a greater restriction of our rights to talk about policies that affect us.

The whole case is senseless to me. Senselessness has begotten senselessness, all the way from the Olympic torch ceremony to the steps of the Supreme Court.

I say, why don’t we all just sit back, relax and pass around the . docket?

- Matt Brandenburgh is a junior from Columbus majoring in physics.