Y’know that “Rip things in half!!” commercial for some frozen energy drink? Well, the Supreme Court apparently took it literally, and tried that on the 1st Amendment. Observe…

-Issue Ads within 60 days of an election? Sure:

Free speech rights take precedence over government restrictions on political advertising, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a decision that opens the door for greater influence by interest groups in the closing days of an election.  In a 5-4 ruling, the court eased legal barriers aimed at corporate- and union-financed television ads, a decision whose tone suggests greater hostility on the court to federal limitations on money in politics.

The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that a Wisconsin anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group’s First Amendment rights, the court said.

The law, a provision in the 2002 campaign finance act, banned corporations and unions from paying for political “issue ads” that mentioned a candidate for federal office within 60 days of a federal election and 30 days of a primary or caucus.

“Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. “Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.”

Seems quite obvious. Election season is clearly the ideal time for people who actually get involved in the rat race to criticize politicians. It comes with the territory of their jobs, toss that and you might as well forget about elections at all. Note the negative spin given to this ruling in the article — “hostility to … limitations on money in politics“, as if it’s the money talking on its own; “interest groups”, as if having an agenda is a bad thing — to hear them tell it, you’d think “campaign finance reform” was the only thing standing between us & tyranny, when in fact it’s yet another example of it.  The thing to worry about isn’t the open influencing of elections, but what the elected do when we stop paying attention.

-Nonsensical joke sayings by students not on school property? Nicht gerade nein, aber Hölle Nein!:

A divided Supreme Court on Monday curtailed free-speech rights for students, ruling against a teenager who unfurled a banner saying “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” because the message could be interpreted as promoting drug use.

In its first major decision on student free-speech rights in nearly 20 years, the high court’s conservative majority ruled that a high school principal did not violate the student’s rights by confiscating the banner and suspending him.

The student himself said he wasn’t intending to specifically promote drug use, just trying to get on TV. That’s beside the point though; even if he DID intend on it, he was across the street & had never actually showed up to school prior to the event. The students were over there because they were let out to observe the Olympic torch going by. The question here was NEVER “does it promote drug use?”, but rather “does the school have the authority to regulate student speech outside of school property?”. Whether the sign said “bong hits for Jesus”, “Screw the baby seals”, or “what is the sound of one hand clapping?”, for the purpose of the actual constitutional issue, is COMPLETELY irrelevant. In effect, the Supreme Court has just ruled that students are held to the same standards outside of the hallways of their school as inside, and cannot make statements that don’t fulfill some propaganda goal.

There’s a common thread here, and a troubling one. That thread is the right-wing assumption that the 1st Amendment SOLELY applies to overtly political speech, and any non-political expression can be tossed on a whim. I don’t know which Constitution they’re reading, but I don’t see an asterisk there.

Edit @11:43 EST 062607: I figured some people might say “but there’s no mention of schools in the 1st Amendment”.  Well, you’re right on that, it doesn’t mention schools.  However, at the time “public” school actually meant PUBLIC, and not government-controlled.  Due to the current status quo of political involvement in education, any school system that operates off of tax dollars is in effect acting on the behalf of the State.

Their ability to make rules of conduct within the halls is a no-brainer, as it’s necessary for their purpose; one can question the rules themselves (as has been done before with regards to the black armband’s to protest Vietnam in the past) but not their power to make them.   The reason that, within my understanding, this ruling went against the 1st Amendment was that it extended the boundaries of that power to an unreasonable point, all for the purpose of defending a government propaganda campaign that the student himself was not even seriously challenging.  Just because you’ve violated the 10th Amendment doesn’t mean you can ignore them all.