We’ve read plenty of court rulings in our time, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in the case of Deborah Morse et. al. v. Frederick is one for the record books. And by record books, we mean Hall of Ignominious Transgressions Against the Goddess Justice, which as you know is located in Philadelphia.

We dissent from the majority opinion, written by Justice John Roberts, point-by-point, below:

• While the watching of the torch was a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, Frederick was not on school property when he unfurled his banner. In fact, he was on public property. No one could argue that he doesn’t have the right to broadcast his message on public property, but the majority imbues the "school-sanctioned" nature of the event with the ability to impose school policy outside the jurisdiction of the school, on public property. We don’t believe any school has such authority, and thus, this is grounds for rejecting the school’s claims.
  
• The majority gives great credence to the school’s policy (indeed, the national policy) that urges people — and especially young people — to avoid drugs. But then the court’s majority does a strange thing: It equates "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" with advocating drug use. But we think the banner does no such thing. It doesn’t say "[TAKE] BONG HiTS 4 JESUS." In fact, on Page 7 of the majority’s opinion, the court constructs several meanings for the banner, all of which add words in brackets so to reach the conclusion that the sign encouraged drug use. If you have to add words to establish the advocacy, we’d suggest there was no advocacy in the first place.
  
• From Page 13: "Student speech celebrating illegal drug use at a school event, in the presence of school administrators and teachers, thus poses a particular challenge for school officials working to protect those entrusted to their care from the dangers of drug abuse." Here, the court ridiculously conflates a banner that mentions drug use with drug use itself. Do the justices really believe that kids will see a banner like this and immediately begin scrounging around for marijuana? Or, as the sensible dissent penned by Justice John Paul Stevens says, "Most students, however, do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate, and most students know dumb advocacy when they see it. The notion that the message on this banner would actually persuade the average student or even the dumbest one to change his or her behavior is most implausible." Go Stevens!
  
• The court’s majority rests its decision on the special nature of the school environment (even though this conduct was not committed on school grounds). "The danger here is far more serious and palpable. The particular concern to prevent student drug abuse at issue here, embodied in established school policy … extends well beyond an abstract desire to avoid controversy," the majority writes. But the "danger" here is nonexistent! First, Frederick was not advocating anything. Second, even if his banner could be read to be advocating drug use, it was unlikely to persuade anybody to use drugs. To use a word like "danger" is unnecessary fearmongering, perhaps the inevitable result of combining the two biggest foils for authoritarians in our society: the war on drugs, and "the children."
  
• Justice Clarence Thomas‘ dissent — which argues students don’t have free speech rights at all — was ridiculous, albeit well-reasoned, much more so than the incomprehensible concurring opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
• The correct answer to this case is simple: Frederick has the right to broadcast his message, as lame as it was, especially given that he was not on school grounds at the time he did it. His principal violated his First Amendment rights by confiscating his banner, and the suspension further exacerbated the violation. To give credence to the particular message on the banner — and contrast it with the policy of the school, which cannot apply off school grounds — is to establish a content-conscious standard of censorship of a message simply because the school disagrees with that message. In short, the majority erred seriously, and eroded a bit of the First Amendment in the process. Thank you very much, justices.