Bong Hits 4 Jesus

[akaoni 0]

Frankly, due to the interesting language of this Supreme Court case, I'm surprised no one has posted on this yet.

 

From the New York Times:

 

A high school senior's 14-foot banner proclaiming ''Bong Hits 4 Jesus'' gave the Supreme Court a provocative prop for a lively argument Monday about the extent of schools' control over student speech.

 

If the justices conclude Joseph Frederick's homemade sign was a pro-drug message, they are likely to side with principal Deborah Morse. She suspended Frederick in 2002 when he unfurled the banner across the street from the school in Juneau, Alaska.

 

''I thought we wanted our schools to teach something, including something besides just basic elements, including the character formation and not to use drugs,'' Chief Justice Roberts said Monday.

 

But the court could rule for Frederick if it determines that he was, as he has contended, conducting a free-speech experiment using a nonsensical message that contained no pitch for drug use.

 

''It sounds like just a kid's provocative statement to me,'' Justice David Souter said.

 

One interesting aspect of this case is just who is lining up on each side. Naturally the Bush administration has lined up on the side of the principals, whose case is being argued by Ken Starr, but surprisingly Conservative Christian groups have been allying themselves with the students in this case. On the other hand some liberals appear to be siding with the principal. Again from the NYT:

 

Conservative groups that often are allied with the administration are backing Frederick out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose homosexuality or abortion.

 

The outcome also could stray from the conservative-liberal split that often characterizes controversial cases.

 

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote several opinions in favor of student speech rights while a federal appeals court judge, seemed more concerned by the administration's broad argument in favor of schools than did his fellow conservatives.

 

''I find that a very, a very disturbing argument,'' Alito told Justice Department lawyer Edwin Kneedler, ''because schools have ... defined their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all sorts of political speech and speech expressing fundamental values of the students, under the banner of getting rid of speech that's inconsistent with educational missions.''

 

Justice Stephen Breyer, in the court's liberal wing, said he was troubled a ruling in favor of Frederick, even if he was making a joke, would make it harder to principals to run their schools.

 

''We'll suddenly see people testing limits all over the place in the high schools,'' Breyer said.

 

On the other hand, he said, a decision favorable to the schools ''may really limit people's rights on free speech. That's what I'm struggling with.''

[GobbleDog 818]

She suspended Frederick in 2002 when he unfurled the banner across the street from the school in Juneau, Alaska.

 

I don't understand.... who owns the land across the street from the school? He just hung a banner on someone's front lawn or that his house? If he put up the banner at his own house I don't see how the school could say anything, regardless if it's in view of the school. As long as the message isn't malicious or obsene.

 

[Recidivist 1]

I'd love to load some bong hits for Jesus. I'm sure he can hang.

[Toro 1]

I'd love to load some bong hits for Jesus. I'm sure he can hang.

 

Technically, according to the Catholic religion, Jesus created weed.

 

If Jesus created it, how can it be bad?

[Jessy 0]

I don't understand.... who owns the land across the street from the school? He just hung a banner on someone's front lawn or that his house? If he put up the banner at his own house I don't see how the school could say anything, regardless if it's in view of the school. As long as the message isn't malicious or obsene.

 

 

The school's stance is, I believe, that it constitutes a distraction since the banner would be visible at the school. And student speech that is considered a distraction (obscene or political t-shirts, for example) has generally not been protected.

[kutulu 1,551]

Technically, according to the Catholic religion, Jesus created weed.

 

If Jesus created it, how can it be bad?

 

I know for a fact that Jesus has created some bad weed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of it is good, though.

[GobbleDog 818]

And student speech that is considered a distraction (obscene or political t-shirts, for example) has generally not been protected.

 

That's true... ON SCHOOL PROPERTY. Seems like this argument is do schools have authority over students OFF school property. And I guess they do, when you consider the internet stuff that kids have gotten suspended for recently. Although, if a website can be seen on a school computer, then maybe that makes it on school property. Don't know.

 

As for a banner in front of a student's own house... what if the school can't see it? Then it's ok? But it's not ok if they can see it? Interesting debate.

[Recidivist 1]

If Jesus created it, how can it be bad?

 

Amen and hallelujah.

[davebg 0]

That's true... ON SCHOOL PROPERTY. Seems like this argument is do schools have authority over students OFF school property. And I guess they do, when you consider the internet stuff that kids have gotten suspended for recently. Although, if a website can be seen on a school computer, then maybe that makes it on school property. Don't know.

 

As for a banner in front of a student's own house... what if the school can't see it? Then it's ok? But it's not ok if they can see it? Interesting debate.

"Officially" it was a school sanctioned event. The students were excused from class to attend. However, the student in question never made it to school that day. So, there is some question whether or not it could be construed as him attending a school sponsored event or if he was just skipping school, in which case the school would presumably have less authority over him.

 

Another thing that hasn't really been covered (and directly goes to the free speech argument) is that his initial suspension was for 5 days. When he started quoting Thomas Jefferson in regards to free speech the principal doubled the suspension to 10 days. So, even if the school won the argument that the initial suspension was not a violation of the kid's free speech rights, it might be a bit more difficult to prove that the extra 5 days suspension for quoting Thomas Jefferson wasn't a violation of his rights.

 

Furthermore, the kid's father was apparently employed by a company that insured the school/district and was fired as a result of this incident. The father won something like a $200k award for being improperly fired.

 

IMO, this makes it even more difficult to believe that the school was suspending the kid b/c of the "disruption" that he casued, as opposed to it being a result of the school objecting to the message itself.

[Uh-huh 0]

One interesting aspect of this case is just who is lining up on each side. Naturally the Bush administration has lined up on the side of the principals, whose case is being argued by Ken Starr, but surprisingly Conservative Christian groups have been allying themselves with the students in this case. On the other hand some liberals appear to be siding with the principal.

Fascinating. Look at Scalia's comment:

Justice Antonin Scalia, ridiculing the notion that schools should have to tolerate speech that seems to support illegal activities, asked about a button that says, ''Smoke Pot, It's Fun.''

 

Or, he wondered, should the court conclude that only speech in support of violent crime can be censored. '''Extortion Is Profitable,' that's okay?'' Scalia asked.

What happened to "not legislating from the bench"?

[GobbleDog 818]

What happened to "not legislating from the bench"?

Nice catch. They aren't supposed to do that, but it happens.

 

Amazing. All this debate involing the Supreme Court to see if a high school kid can be suspended by a public school for provocative speech. It's not illegal so it's only a matter of the school's realm of discipline.

 

If it's already been proven that kids in public schools have forfeited some free speech rights such as how they dress, can't internet slander teachers/classmates, etc..., then I don't see how this case is any different. Public school kids DO forfeit some rights. And the principal gets to make the call on what's acceptable and what isn't.

[Snoopy1 0]

Technically, according to the Catholic religion, Jesus created weed.

 

 

 

I think that might be news to God....

[gocolts 300]

Questions outside the SCOTUS. Kinda funny and sad at the same time.

[Soonerman 0]

What happened to "not legislating from the bench"?

 

I know you're a lying moron, but surely even you don't think asking standard questions to clarify positions constitutes "legislating from the bench"? I mean you thought the NRA was harming the 1st Amendment, so I know your grasp of the constitution is pretty limited, but still...

 

Say, still on the fence?

[Soonerman 0]

What happened to "not legislating from the bench"?

 

More evidence that doh-duh is a moronic liar. He cherry picks a Scalia comment and infers "legislation from the bench" from that. Of course Scalia was simply questioning the attorneys as happens in every case heard by the court. Hey doh-duh, this is what SC Justices do.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/19/free.spe...=rss_topstories

 

Several on the bench tried to test the limits of what kinds of speech the schools could control. Many were clearly grasping at a proper balance.

 

Justice John Roberts wondered whether a button that said "Legalize Marijuana" would be political speech.

 

Souter asked about whether a "substantial disruption" would exist if a student flashed a small sign in class saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

 

What about a button that advocated rape, asked Kennedy.

 

Or a button that read "Extortion is profitable" said Justice Antonin Scalia.

 

"Suppose that this particular person had whispered to his next door neighbor, 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus, heh heh heh,' " speculated Justice Stephen Breyer.

[Uh-huh 0]

More evidence that doh-duh is a moronic liar. He cherry picks a Scalia comment and infers "legislation from the bench" from that. Of course Scalia was simply questioning the attorneys as happens in every case heard by the court. Hey doh-duh, this is what SC Justices do.

 

Another member of my stalker club!

 

So you have no problems with Scalia expressing social opinions from the bench... as long as he supports your point of view.

 

We get it: you're a hypocrite.

 

P.S. By the way, CNN picked Scalia's comment. I just quoted it.

 

P.P.S. What was the lie again?

[Soonerman 0]

Another member of my stalker club!

 

So you have no problems with Scalia expressing social opinions from the bench... as long as he supports your point of view.

 

We get it: you're a hypocrite.

 

P.S. By the way, CNN picked Scalia's comment. I just quoted it.

 

P.P.S. What was the lie again?

 

All the justices asked similar questions you moron. That's what they do in pretty much any case they hear.

 

It's obvious that you have no idea what "legislating from the bench" means. It's apparently some phrase you picked up somewhere and thought it sounded kind of cool.

[Uh-huh 0]

All the justices asked similar questions you moron. That's what they do in pretty much any case they hear.

 

It's obvious that you have no idea what "legislating from the bench" means. It's apparently some phrase you picked up somewhere and thought it sounded kind of cool.

It's obvious you're infatuated with the look and feel of my posts. I'm flattered