Quote du Jour – BONG HiTS 4 JESUS

“it is one thing to restrict speech that advocates drug use. It is another thing entirely to prohibit an obscure message with a drug theme that a third party subjectively —and not very reasonably— thinks is tantamount to express advocacy. (..) To the extent the Court independently finds that “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” objectively amounts to the advocacy of illegal drug use —in other words, that it can most reasonably be interpreted as such— that conclusion practically refutes itself. This is a nonsense message, not advocacy.”

Laat het maar aan de Amerikanen over om een geschil dat wij in onze compromisdoofpot zouden doodkoken, uit te vechten tot de hoogste juridische instantie. Supreme Court-rechter Stevens schreef (met 2 andere rechters) bovenstaand minderheidsstandpunt in de zaak Morse v. Frederick. Gisteren bepaalden vijf van zijn collega’s dat een spandoek met de tekst ‘BONG HiTS 4 JESUS”’, opgehangen tegenover een school tijdens een schoolactiviteit, geen bescherming van het First Amendment (vrije meningsuiting) geniet. In tegenstelling tot wat de lagere rechter besloot, luidt het finale oordeel dat de school het doek mocht verwijderen en de scholier die het doek ophing mocht schorsen.

Precies dezelfde vijf hogerechters (allen praktiserende rooms-katholieken) die de zoon van de Here behoedden voor een overdosis waterpijp, besloten gisteren in een andere uitspraak dat Amerikaanse belastingbetalers niet Bush’ financiering van geloofsgeënte groepjes (Faith Based initiatives) in rechte mochten aanvechten. Met een nipte meerderheid van 5-4 werd in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation uitgemaakt dat de FFRF geen zaak mocht aanspannen tegen de besteding van miljoenen (mogelijk miljarden) dollars die de Bush regering op grond van een ‘executive order’ (dat is buiten controle van het Congres om) pompt in religieuze clubjes.

Dan Barker, (co-)voorzitter van de FFRF vreest dat deze uitspraak het mogelijk maakt de grondwettelijke scheiding tussen kerk en staat te ondermijnen door dergelijke discretionaire bevoegdheden, en ziet nog slechts een uitweg: “The only remedy left, since individual Americans are being barred from challenging this violation, is for Congress to defund the Office of Faith-based Initiatives at the White House and Cabinets. Let Congress provide the oversight that the Court is refusing to give!”

Ook naar aanleiding van de BONG HiTS-beslissing wordt gevreesd voor verder strekkende effecten. Alhoewel de uitspraak zich toespitst op het promoten van illegaal drugsgebruik en niet de vrijheid van scholieren lijkt aan te tasten om politieke statements te maken, viert advocaat Kenneth Star (die we nog kennen van het fervente Clinton-Lewinsky sigaardooponderzoek) het als een zeer sterke boodschap om begripvoller te zijn voor de moeilijke positie waarin schoolpersoneel zich bevindt.

Mark Goodman (executive director Student Press Law Center), kan het niet zo zonnig zien:
“It’s disappointing that the Court once again felt the need to diminish student First Amendment protection at a time when teenagers’ understanding and appreciation for the First Amendment is so incredibly low. The last thing the country needs is a court ruling that further diminishes its relevance to their lives.”

Omdat precies dat begrip en die waardering niet alleen in de VS, maar wereldwijd tanende lijkt. En omdat ze het in Amerika zo mooi kunnen verwoorden, waarschijnlijk omdat ze het zo vaak tot het bittere principiële eind moesten uitvechten. En omdat dat slag momenteel steeds meer in de minderheid is. Daarom hieronder nog de slotwoorden uit de ‘dissenting opinion’ van Judge John Paul Stevens (1920):

Although this case began with a silly, nonsensical banner, it ends with the Court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, at least so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message. Our First Amendment jurisprudence has identified some categories of expression that are less deserving of protection than others—fighting words, obscenity, and commercial speech, to name a few. Rather than reviewing our opinions discussing such categories, I mention two personal recollections that have no doubt influenced my conclusion that it would be profoundly unwise to create special rules for speech about drug and alcohol use.

The Vietnam War is remembered today as an unpopular war. During its early stages, however, “the dominant opinion” that Justice Harlan mentioned in his Tinker dissent regarded opposition to the war as unpatriotic, if not treason. That dominant opinion strongly supported the prosecution of several of those who demonstrated in Grant Park during the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. In 1965, when the Des Moines students wore their armbands, the school district’s fear that they might “start an argument or cause a disturbance” was well founded. Given that context, there is special force to the Court’s insistence that “our Constitution says we must take that risk; and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom —this kind of openness— that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.” As we now know, the then-dominant opinion about the Vietnam War was not etched in stone.

Reaching back still further, the current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our antimarijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs. The ensuing change in public opinion occurred much more slowly than the relatively rapid shift in Americans’ views on the Vietnam War, and progressed on a state-by-state basis over a period of many years. But just as prohibition in the 1920’s and early 1930’s was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs. Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting —however inarticulately— that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely.

Even in high school, a rule that permits only one point of view to be expressed is less likely to produce correct answers than the open discussion of countervailing views. In the national debate about a serious issue, it is the expression of the minority’s viewpoint that most demands the protection of the First Amendment. Whatever the better policy may be, a full and frank discussion of the costs and benefits of the attempt to prohibit the use of marijuana is far wiser than suppression of speech because it is unpopular.

I respectfully dissent.——————