It was a curious case, an oddity that was mildly humorous in the middle of an otherwise slow news day. The case of Morse v. Frederick, or “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” A high school student in Alaska was suspended from school for the off-color banner bearing the nonsensical slogan, which was not on school property nor during school hours. He sued the principal for damages, and a federal court ruled that the school was in violation of the student’s first amendment rights.

On Monday, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, overturned the lower court ruling and said that the school had the right to intervene and restrict student free speech.

Also on Monday, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, overturned a key provision of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill passed in 2002 and upheld by the 2003 court decision McConnell v. FEC. In the case, FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life, the court found that restrictions on “issue ads” and electioneering communications were unconstitutional.

There are actually reasonable arguments to be made against certain aspects of campaign finance reform. But it’s the rationale used by Chief Justice Roberts in his opinion that exposes the hypocrisy in these two rulings.

In a splintered 5-to-4 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that as interpreted broadly by federal regulators and the law’s supporters, the restrictions on television advertisements paid for from corporate or union treasuries in the weeks before an election amounted to censorship of core political speech unless those advertisements explicitly urge a vote for or against a particular candidate.

“Where the First Amendment is implicated,” the chief justice said, “the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.”

Get the message, folks? You only have free speech if you’re over eighteen and you have a ton of money.