What I don't get

The Supreme Court made two high-profile decisions related to the First Amendment last week. On the one hand, you had Wisconsin Right to Life v. the Federal Election Commission, in which the FEC argued that any politically charged advertising within 60 days of an election, regardless of whether its approach is specifically designed to influence the election or, as in the case of Right to Life, simply designed to encourage people to, oh what's the phrase, oh right, redress grievances by contacting their Congressional representatives. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, in favor of Right to Life.

On the other hand, you have Morse v. Frederick, in which the Supreme Court ignored the student speech precedent set by Tinker v. Des Moines and said that a student did not have the right to wave a banner that read "Bong Hits for Jesus" at a school event. (Perhaps if he's only been wearing an armband, they would have ruled differently.) One of the many ridiculous aspects of this decision was that the Court couched it under the auspices of preventing illegal drug use. (That the drug in question, marijuana, should be legal anyway due to the increased tax revenue and reduced prison costs such legalization would entail is utterly beside the point.) Other opinions suggest that they interpret the banner more as impertinence rather than advocacy, which makes restricting such speech even more ridiculous.

So here's what I don't get: is the Supreme Court for or against the First Amendment? You see the Right to Life case, you think, "Oh good, the Supreme Court is finally taking a stand in favor of free expression." Then you shot down by the Morse case, and you start thinking that maybe the Court only backs the speech it agrees with.

Because naturally, you have to ask yourself if the decision might have been reversed if, say, instead of Wisconsin Right to Life it was Wisconsin Right to Bong Hits. Or, from the other angle, what if the banner Frederick had waved said "Fetuses Carried to Full Term for Jesus". I ain't no lawyer and I may not type too good grammatorically speaking, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts in both these alternate universe scenarios the Court's decision would have been changed. Which, as far as I can tell, is totally contradictory to what the First Amendment is all about.

I should clarify that I'm not at all surprised, merely disappointed. I hope the Supreme Court decides whether or not it's going to support the U.S. Constitution soon, before all of our heads begin to swim.

(Incidentally, does anyone know where I can get a "Bong Hits for Free Speech" bumper sticker? Because I'd really like one.)

Song lyric of the day:
"Well all my songs used to end the same way:
'Everything's gonna be okay'
You fuckers make that impossible to say
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah"
- Portastatic, You Blanks