> [The opinion is here:
> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf I have only
> scanned it. The only good news I can discern is that the Court seems
> to make clear that the school had the power to suspend the kid because
> 1) it was at a "school event" and 2) the message was "promoting
> illegal drug use." So arguably the decision is very narrow, but you
> can count on this being used to crack down on kids who express
> political opinions at times and places far removed from school --
> especially in less enlightened regions of the U.S.]
I don't think the opinion is narrow. It effectively allows schools to punish any speech advocating a political viewpoint about drug use, which in my opinion necessarily includes any viewpoint about drug legalization. It also blithelely expanded school authority by finding that the Olympic Torch procession--an event not organized or sponsored by the school and open to any member of the public--constituted a "school event." (The student in question hadn't attended school that morning and went to the procession independently as a member of the public, not as a student at his school, which had allowed its students to attend under the supervision of staff--the procession came right down the street on which the school was located.)
What the opinion represents to me is the beginning of erosion of the First Amendment, similar to that of the Fourth, for no other reason than that it is incompatible with the war on drugs. (The majority opinion spent a good deal of time telling us how bad Congress thinks drugs are, which is somehow supposed to serve to trump constitutional protections that make that consideration irrelevant. 80-year-old Stevens, in dissent, suggested that public opinion on drug use just might change in time and that the majority opinion represented an attempt to silence the opposing view on the topic.)
Further analysis: http://timelyappeal.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-bong-hits-4-you.html