Bong hits 4 Jesus rules

Well, well, the Supreme Court gets to decide if an Alaska high school students "Bong hits 4 Jesus" duct tape banner from back in 2002 can be proudly re-waved in the face of the school principal who originally curtailed his activity with a suspension.
The courts first ruled in the school districts favor. The 9th circuit court of appeals reversed that decision. The principal may now have significant financial liability and none other than Ken Starr is representing the school district free of charge. Other supporters of the school and principal include the Bush administration, school boards and of course drug Czar William Bennett. My guess is they'll need him to explain what a bong is.
Then you have the father who lost his job, due in some way to his fatherly and financial support of his son, apparently in partnership with the American Civil Liberties Union. He later won a lawsuit and $200,000 from his former employer.
There's more. The bad deed happened across the street from the school on a day when students were excused to watch the Olympic Torch parade. The boy said the banner meant nothing. He just saw it on a snowboard and thought it was right for what he wanted to accomplish, assert his right to free speech.
There is mention of some prior friction with school Administrators and in 2004 a guilty plea to selling marijuana in Texas. So the kid is no saint.
At a glance what struck me first was a specific difference between this case and the Viet Nam era high school case when the Supreme Court did rule in favor of a students right to free speech. The principle behind this case was admitted to be experimental as opposed to an actual substantive timely expression. There of course is principle involved here to, but limitations may apply a little sooner than in the original precedent. The court said that these limits or balance as sometimes referred to are that students can't be disruptive, lewd or interfere with a schools basic educational mission.
At this point I was leaning in favor of the school district until you realize that the two cases may really have nearly nothing in common. In fact we need to call the kid Mr. Frederick because student is just plain misleading. He was not on school grounds when the incident happened and had not come to school that day so the principal had no right to suspend him. I'm sure she felt pressured to do something but she did the wrong thing and now she should suffer the consequences. Am I heartless? I don't think so. It shouldn't matter but if in doubt look into what a high school principal gets paid these days in your area. I think you'll agree that it's enough that she should have know the rules before she subjected the school district and herself to this kind of expense and criticism. You might call these folks lucky that the outcome of their case was important enough to someones agenda to warrant a free lawyer.
Let me make it clear that I'm no ACLU guy nor do I want to sound unconcerned about this. I realize that schools are up against allot and it may have seemed the sensible thing to do in this case but, there are limits to authority and jurisdiction and when there is a rule it must be followed. Sometimes it also pays to ask oneself in a situation like this, "is this really bothering anyone else as much as it may be bothering me?"