How far can it extend off campus?

Back in 2007, Avery Doninger, former class secretary of Lewis S. Mills High School in the little fish hatchery town of Burlington, Conn., became upset with Principal Karissa Niehoff and Superintendent Paula Schwartz over the cancellation of a student event called Jamfest. In an online message, Ms. Doninger referred to Ms. Niehoff and other school officials as "douchebags."

Apparently determined to confirm Ms. Doninger's evaluation, Ms. Niehoff barred the student from running for re-election for student office. Later, the principal also prohibited students from wearing "Team Avery" T-shirts.

Ms. Doninger sued, contending the principal violated her First Amendment rights by punishing her for off-campus, online speech and for censoring the non-obscene T-shirts.

First Amendment Center scholar David L. Hudson Jr. reports the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with school officials on both the Internet free-speech claim and the T-shirt issue. The 2nd also ruled the principal and other school officials were entitled to qualified immunity.

Ms. Doninger now petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her case, arguing the 2nd Circuit's decision conflicts with a pair of decisions issued last month by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In those decisions, the 3rd Circuit ruled school officials exceeded their authority in punishing students for off-campus, online speech that did not cause a substantial disruption.

A conflict between lower courts -- and the need to guide both school officials and the students made subject to their oversight through compulsory attendance laws -- argue this matter may indeed be ripe for review.

The courts have given school officials considerable leeway to maintain order and discipline on campus. If young people foolishly post online evidence of actual crimes or offenses, authorities can hardly be expected to look the other way.

But it seems clear Ms. Doninger's expression fits none of those criteria. How many other planks of the Bill of Rights are suspended -- 24-7, as they say -- just because a young person is enrolled in a public school?

We often hear of a law not written down anywhere, which promises punishment for "contempt of cop." Can outraged school officials now block the distribution of "Ferris Buehler," "Rock 'N Roll High School," or "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," because they promote "contempt of principal"?

Let the justices explain whether 17-year-olds retain any constitutional rights, at all.