> 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.)
Yeah, Breyer's opinion pretty much hit the nail on the head as to where this is heading:
"One concern is that, while the holding is theoretically limited to speech promoting the use of illegal drugs, it could in fact authorize further viewpoint-based restrictions. Illegal drugs, after all, are not the only illegal substances. What about encouraging the underage consumption of alcohol? Moreover, it is unclear how far the Court's rule regarding drug advocacy extends. What about a conversation during the lunch period where one student suggests that glaucoma sufferers should smoke marijuana to relieve the pain? What about deprecating commentary about an antidrug film shown in school? And what about drug messages mixed with other, more expressly political, content? If, for example, Frederick's banner had read "LEGALIZE BONG HiTS," he might be thought to receive protection from the majority's rule, which goes to speech "encouraging illegal drug use." Ante, at 2 (emphasis added). But speech advocating change in drug laws might also be perceived of as promoting the disregard of existing drug laws."
That said, things could have been much much worse. Look what Thomas wrote in his concurrence, which basically says that since SCOTUS's rulings on the role of the First Amendment in public schools are incoherent, fuck it -- let's dump free speech rights in public schools altogether:
"Today, the Court creates another exception. In doing so, we continue to distance ourselves from Tinker, but we neither overrule it nor offer an explanation of when it operates and when it does not. Ante, at 10–14. I am afraid that our jurisprudence now says that students have a right to speak in schools except when they don't—a standard continuously developed through litigation against local schools and their administrators. In my view, petitioners could prevail for a much simpler reason: As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools."
...I mean, that'll really send a chill up your spine, -WD