No constitutional Freedom of Speech if you joke about drugs.

Or are a student. Or some other absurd, inane, bullshit rationalized justification.

Once again, par for the fucking course, order trumps freedom in 21st century America.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

NOT "except if you're talking about drugs, or you're in school, or if some faceless bureaucrat has decided it's a matter of national security."

I'm no lawyer, but seriously, how fucking complex is the legal definition of "no law"?

Coverage here:

PBS Teachers | learning.now . Supreme Court Rules Against Student in "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Case | PBS:

"In the first major Supreme Court decision on student free speech in almost a generation, the Court ruled against a student who was suspended for displaying a banner with drug-related messaging just off the school campus."

Andy Carvin's Waste of Bandwidth: Supreme Court Rules Against "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Kid:

"The majority opinion basically says that the school could punish the student because the student's actions took place at a school-sanctioned event, even though it was off-campus, and that his speech condoned illegal drug use. Based on the ruling, I make the argument that schools that block student access to blogs and social networks would have a hard time using the ruling in their favor, since blocking access is basically the opposite of sanctioning these websites. In contrast, schools that allow access to social networks in an educational context might be able to argue that drug-related student content, even if it takes place off-campus, is punishable, because the websites were indeed sanctioned."

DARE Generation Diary: No Rights 4 Students:

"Today, for example, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, in the ridiculously publicized 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case, that speech that could encourage drug use is so bad - and the control of it so fundamental - that it is more important than the protections guaranteed by the first amendment, at least in school.

We must wonder - will there be the creation of a list of content-based bans on speech? Which topics will be offered the mitigated version of freedom of speech, if any? First drugs, then sex, then religion, and soon and inevitably: dissent or radical topics of any kind."

Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > The Drug Exception to the First Amendment:

"The Supreme Court has ruled that Joseph Frederick, then a high school senior in Juneau, Alaska, did not have a First Amendment right to hold up a 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' banner at an off-campus Olympic torch rally in 2002. Since students were let out of class to attend the rally (although Frederick himself came directly from home), the Court ruled, it was in effect a school event and they were still under school supervision. Because the banner sent a pro-drug message, the Court ruled, Principal Deborah Morris was within her rights when she crumpled it up and suspended Frederick for 10 days.

As I feared, the Court seems to be opening up a 'drug exception' to the First Amendment, albeit limited (so far) to students in school."