It is probably worthwhile to encourage 7th graders to engage in political dialog, but allowing them to engage in disruptive and deliberately offensive political speech on school grounds? Tell the kid to go home and change his damn shirt.

The kid who held up the Bong Hits sign made a critical mistake at a very early juncture in this case — he acknowledged that he didn’t intend to have any particular meaning behind his sign, that he was just screwing around. If he had taken the position that his sign was, in fact, advocacy of drug legalization, I think the ruling might have gone the other way.

In this case, as the concurring opinion that really controls the scope of Morse v. Frederick indicated, we have a shirt that clearly does have political meaning and intent being held to be protected speech. That there is a drug-related theme associated with it makes the Court’s message that much clearer to school administrators — virtually any message of a political nature will have to be permitted, even if it does include a drug reference.

Now the question will be what happens in a case like Harper v. Poway where the message is one about homosexuality, or a case involving a message about abortion. Despite my initial concerns about the holding in Morse v. Frederick, this particular move by SCOTUS may yet be an indication that Morse v. Frederick may turn out to be a great friend to those engaged in conservative speech.