While a senior in high school, I ran for a student government position with what I was certain was the most brilliant campaign ad ever fathomed. It was a bright yellow poster with only the word "SEX!" scrawled across it and a barely legible "Vote for Andy Granias" somewhere at the bottom. The poster did exactly what I had hoped it would do: generated some shock value, stood out among the other ads and prompted a few laughs.

As you might guess, only an hour after I hung up the posters, they were taken down. I was then summoned by my principal and told that my ad was unacceptable for public display on school grounds, and that my eligibility in the race was in jeopardy because of it.

In 2002, high school senior Joseph Franklin of Juneau, Alaska, had a similarly brilliant idea. He decided to unveil a 15-foot banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" right as the Olympic torch was passing through his town.

Now, my educated guess is that Mr. Frederick pulled the stunt for some very familiar reasons: to generate shock value, stand out and prompt a few laughs. But young Joseph's "offense" has led him down a slightly different path from mine, earning him a 10-day suspension and putting him before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since the case was placed on the docket in December 2006, there has been a flurry of commotion surrounding it, and not simply because of its unconventional nature. The ruckus in Washington stems from the landmark free speech implications that could ensue from the court's decision. Depending on the ruling of Morse v. Frederick, the manner in which students exercise their First Amendment rights and the way that administrators exercise their authority could be drastically altered in schools all across the country.

The petition to hear the case was brought to the court by none other than Kenneth Starr, who is representing the school board pro bono. You may remember Mr. Starr from such frivolous cases as Bill Clinton's Whitewater land deal and the Monica Lewinsky fiasco. But this time, Starr is actually involved in a case that has real consequences for the way Americans live their everyday lives, even though he's dead wrong.

In arguments heard Monday, Mr. Frederick's attorney argued that his free speech rights were violated when the principal took down his banner and subsequently suspended him. The school board, on the other hand, argued that the principal's decision to take down the sign was following the basic right of administrators to be able to thwart any efforts at displaying or advocating illegal drug use.

The school board insists that the principal was fully within the designated guidelines as an administrator, but this is an entirely flawed rationale that ignores the blatant violation of Mr. Frederick's First Amendment rights.

As explained to me by UW political science professor and First Amendment rights expert Donald Downs, "If the court were to rule in favor of the administration, it would set a precedent for a student's ability, or lack thereof, to criticize school policy. It would be like suspending a student if he criticized the school for cutting the band program."

Furthermore, the school board has neglected one of the most crucial aspects of the case: Mr. Frederick was not on school grounds when he unveiled his banner. The school board's argument is, then, that the event was school-sanctioned, and the matter in question is whether or not Mr. Frederick had the right to display the banner at the event, even though he was not on school property.

But if he was not on school property, what separates this from any other simple exercise of free speech? The answer is nothing.

As further explained to me by Mr. Downs, the final decision lies in whether or not the student was being disruptive, and it is quite apparent he was not.

Downs said, "It seems to me that this is a classic example of free speech without disruption to the event. And if the court were to rule in favor of the administration, I don't know how they would come up with an explanation as to what would stop this from becoming a slippery-slope situation, where the administration has an ability to thwart any criticism of school policy."

In the end, the importance of Morse v. Frederick does not lie in what was done by Mr. Frederick or the principal, but rather what could be done by school administrators in the future as a result of the ruling. After all, if the court deems it constitutional to thwart an expression contrary to a school's educational message, where will the line be drawn? Will it be drawn at criticizing the lunch menu? What about the material taught in class? Or how about the war in Iraq?

In the end, whether the Supreme Court is able to make the right decision or not will lie in the ability of the justices to read between the lines of a banner that might have well said "Free Speech 4 Students."

Andy Granias ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and international studies.