"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" free speech? Nope.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:10 pm

Good job, idiots.

Court tightens limits on student speech

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.

Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.

Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.

His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use.

"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts said. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."

Morse suspended the student, prompting a federal civil rights lawsuit.

Students in public schools don't have the same rights as adults, but neither do they leave their constitutional protections at the schoolhouse gate, as the court said in a landmark speech-rights ruling from Vietnam era.

The court has limited what students can do in subsequent cases, saying they may not be disruptive or lewd or interfere with a school's basic educational mission.

Frederick, now 23, said he later had to drop out of college after his father lost his job. The elder Frederick, who worked for the company that insures the Juneau schools, was fired in connection with his son's legal fight, the son said. A jury recently awarded Frank Frederick $200,000 in a lawsuit he filed over his firing.

Joseph Frederick, who has been teaching and studying in China, pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, according to court records.

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 case is Morse v. Frederick, 06-278.

-----------------

Reasonable? You're kidding, right? What's next, suspensions for uttering the words "high," "far out" and "roach?"

Unbelievable.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:16 pm

I'm a big BoR guy... but I don't see the problem. Minors don't enjoy the same Constitutional rights as adults, and schools should be allowed to limit what the students that represent them at events say/do.

Although...

"But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."

Really? Since when did taking bong hits become illegal in Alaska?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:22 pm

But when a Justice bases a decision based upon something "promoting ILLEGAL" something-or-other, it would be awfully nice if the Justice actually knew the law. I kinda thought knowledge of the law was a given with SCOTUS judges, but apparently not.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:30 pm

Wrong again.

The event in question occurred in Alaska.

There's no law that prohibits taking bong hits in Alaska. Hard to be promoting an "illegal" activity when the activity in question isn't illegal.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:41 pm

what really sucks here is that the fukking SCOTUS is wasting it's time on such trivial bullshit.

Don't courts have the ability to kick shit back down if it is something this dumb?

I guess being lawyers, though, they don't wanna turn away business.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:48 pm

Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use.

and in a later story:

Frederick..pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, according to court records.

I guess he must have been advocating drug sales instead?

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:50 pm

Dinsdale wrote:But when a Justice bases a decision based upon something "promoting ILLEGAL" something-or-other, it would be awfully nice if the Justice actually knew the law. I kinda thought knowledge of the law was a given with SCOTUS judges, but apparently not.

Marijuana is not legal, per se, in Alaska. There are privacy laws in place there that allow for possession of less than an ounce in the home and prohibit law enforcement officers from searching a home based solely on the smell emanating from there, but as of July 2006:

The new law makes possession of 4 ounces or more a felony. Possession of 1 to 4 ounces is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. The part the court ruled against was that less than 1 ounce would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail.

Nishlord · Post by **Nishlord** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:55 pm

Sounds like a line score in a South Korean-Mexican AA game.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:57 pm

mvscal wrote:Possession of any amount of marijuana on schoolgrounds is a felony crime punishable by up to five years in state penitentiary and 50,000 fine.

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog?

Uhm...where in that article did you get that it was on "school grounds"?

Matter of fact, the ruling revolved around whether school officials could restrict speech at "school sanctioned events."

I don't think there was ever much debate whether school officials could restrict disruptive or offensive speech on school grounds... that's pretty well established...

You complete dumbfuck.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:03 pm

Nice to see that Ken Starr's career has devolved from impeaching a President to advocating "Bong Hits for Jesus".

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_argu ... 06-278.pdf

Also, the "child" in question is now 23 years old. Exactly what kind of relief was he seeking? Monetary relief for the pain and suffering incurred during his 10 days off from school? This could have been settled by awarding the kid a quarter with the instructions to call someone who gives a fuck.

Headhunter · Post by **Headhunter** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:06 pm

Fuck the little douchebag.

His Free Speech was not impeded upon. He was not taken into custody. He was not imprisoned. He did not lose his liberty.

He got kicked out of school for a few days.

And a bigger FUCK YOU to his parents. If my kid got booted for promoting drug use (legal or not) at a school sponsored event I'd kick her fucking ass. I sure as fuck wouldn't go hire a fucking lawyer and tie up court time because I think my little douche should be able to say whatever the fuck, whenever the fuck.

I have freedom of speech, but If I unfurl a controversial banner at a company event, my ass is toast at the office. I'll still get to go home that evening, it'll just be sans employment. Unfortunately, too many people mistake the constitutional right to free speech with the ability to speak without repercussions.

The parents should be beaten for teaching their kid to be a litigious little fuck. Die.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:11 pm

OK, see if you can follow along, pmsgal --

First, you'll note I agreed with the decision.

I pointed out that Roberts used some retarded explainations in his opinion: I.E., that the douche was promoting "illegal" stuff. Where the young douche lived, the activity he was allegedly promoting isn't illegal.

Got your little brain wrapped around that yet?

When justices start using mistruths to support their decisions, there's a big fucking problem.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:16 pm

mvscal wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:Marijuana is not legal, per se, in Alaska. There are privacy laws in place there that allow for possession of less than an ounce in the home and prohibit law enforcement officers from searching a home based solely on the smell emanating from there, but as of July 2006:

The new law makes possession of 4 ounces or more a felony. Possession of 1 to 4 ounces is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. The part the court ruled against was that less than 1 ounce would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail.
Which is totally irrelevant since the SCOTUS was looking at the 1st Amendment implication of the school's actions which has nothing to do with Alaska's marijuana laws.

I would agree with you were it not for the fact that:

"It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority.

If that is what the Court is hanging its hat on, then Alaska's marijuana laws are completely relevant.

I believe a sign reading "Tequila Shots for Jesus" would be equally inappropriate at a school sponsored event and the school's action would have been upheld by the court in that circumstance as well.

Only if underage drinking is considered to fall under the aegis of "illegal drug use," for which the argument could reasonably be made. But in this case, the distinction would need to be made that the argument is geared toward illegal use of a legal drug, as opposed to any use of an illegal drug.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:30 pm

mvscal wrote:
If that is what the Court is hanging its hat on,
It isn't.

Oh, OK then.

I see we agree.

We both realize that Roberts' stupid fucking tatements had nothing to do with thr ruling, and he should have kept his yap shut about completely irrelevant issues that had no bearing on the matter at hand.

We agree on that...you just had to whine about it.

One word, buddy -- Vagisil.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:45 pm

mvscal wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:I would agree with you were it not for the fact that:

"It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority.
If that is what the Court is hanging its hat on,
It isn't.

Then why is Roberts making such a big deal of it?

"Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."

This is what the court is hanging its hat on:

The court has limited what students can do in subsequent cases, saying they may not be disruptive or lewd or interfere with a school's basic educational mission.
Is one free to do bong hits at a school sponsored activity? The answer is clearly, no, but since the issue isn't criminal conspiracy, it is irrelevant save for the fact that illegal activity does not promote a "basic educational mission."

Now you've really driven into the deep rough. Was little Joey's case about doing bong hits at school or at a school-sponsored activity? Nope. Did his banner promote such activity? Negative. Was it lewd? Hardly. Was it disruptive or did it interfere with the school's basic educational mission? I don't see how, given that it occurred while the students were attending an off-campus Olympic torch run. Now, if Joey had unfurled the banner in class while Mrs. Krabappel was lecturing on the Pythagorean Theorem, then I'd be inclined to agree that it was disruptive. However, if the lecture was on the First Amendment, I'd have to give him extra credit.

And just to split hairs, students aren't obligated to promote a basic educational mission. They're forbidden to interfere with that mission. A subtle yet significant difference.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:45 pm

One more reason why the whole Commie idea of public education should be shitcanned.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:52 pm

Moving Sale wrote:One more reason why the whole Commie idea of public education should be shitcanned.

I'm with ya, bro.

'Bout as Populist as it gets, right there.

Same goes for welfare. The track record of Americans' dedication to charitable causes speaks for itself. If the taxpayers were directly responsible for helping out the "less-fortunate," rather than being taxed for it, they wouldn't be inclined to let people starve in the streets. There was less of a problem with this before the welfare system was in place.

Just goes to show that if the government is involved in something, they'll find a way to make it worse.

RumpleForeskin · Post by **RumpleForeskin** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:01 pm

So what if I told a teacher to fuck off at a school sanctioned event that wasn't necessarily on school grounds? You think I could just waltz into class the next day without facing any disciplinary action? Hell no. I'd be "serving time" for my actions.

Its unbelievable what our society has become. People just won't let things go because our Judicial system has allowed cases like this one to be won by the idiots who filed the lawsuits. Its pathetic.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:15 pm

mvscal wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote: Did his banner promote such activity? Negative.
Obviously you've smoked enough of it to make you stupid.

Obviously, you've needed no help getting there. (Yeah, I know ... IKYABWAI)

Of course it promotes the activity.

Other than stupidity, what else was that dumbshit promoting?

Dude was promoting dope-smoking, which is not the same as promoting the activity at school or at school-sponsored events. What if the banner had read, "Say your prayers"? Does this promote organized and sanctioned praying at school? To you, I guess it does. To me, it's a generic, non-specific piece of unsolicited advice which Joey should be allowed to offer, and I should be allowed to ignore. If Joey's banner had read, "Blaze one here and now for Jesus," there'd be no argument. But that's not what his banner read or promoted. Not that you won't continue to read into it that which promotes your position.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:17 pm

mvscal wrote:
Other than stupidity, what else was that dumbshit promoting?

According to Justice Roberts, any message was "cryptic." So according to the SCOTUS, there was no clear message, and he was promoting nothing. The justices deferred to the judgement of the school administrator.

His behavior at a school-sponsored event was inappropriate. The language used to justify the (correct) ruling was also inappropriate.

GrizBearStare · Post by **GrizBearStare** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:35 pm

The marijuana question is overreaching and is not germaine to the facts of the case. Bongs are advertised and sold as tobacco pipes. Certainly people use them to smoke pot, but that is a seperate issue. People use lightbulbs to smoke meth, but that's not a lightbulb issue - that's a meth issue. As long as there was no marijauna reference on the sign and as long as the kid was of legal age to purchase tobacco, the majority opinion is flawed. If the kid was not old enough purchase and use tobacco OR if the reasoning of the school was that his message was in violation of a no-tobacco use policy on school grounds then the opinion is correct.

RumpleForeskin · Post by **RumpleForeskin** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:47 pm

GrizBearStare wrote:... and is not germaine to the facts of the case.

THE GOD DAMN GERMANS GOT NOTHIN' TO DO WITH IT!!!

Sin,

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:19 pm

RumpleForeskin wrote: Its unbelievable what our society has become. People just won't let things go because our Judicial system has allowed cases like this one to be won by the idiots who filed the lawsuits. Its pathetic.

Do you know how to read?

The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.

Please quit posting, you fucking suck mtools dick

RumpleForeskin · Post by **RumpleForeskin** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:29 pm

Mr T wrote:Do you know how to read?

I know this kid lost the case, but it wouldn't have been filed in the first place if our justice system implemented a little common sense when suits like this are filed. Dismiss this trivial bullshit and move on to more important matters.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:07 am

Dinsdale wrote:... Minors don't enjoy the same Constitutional rights as adults, and schools should be allowed to limit what the students that represent them at events say/do.

mvscal wrote:... I believe a sign reading "Tequila Shots for Jesus" would be equally inappropriate at a school sponsored event and the school's action would have been upheld by the court in that circumstance as well.

Dins, I’ve read you enough to know that you are far too busy to be distracted by anything so mundane as the institution of parenthood. Er, well, that you know of, that is…

…And I get the impression that mvscal, as a recent vet in service of our country, just might be a bit too young to have progeny (if any at all) approaching Middle-to-High School age…

Which raises the question:

Who in the hell brought the hens to a cockfight?! If you girls could resist trying to peck the eyes out of each other for one minute and re-read the other’s posts, you just might discover common ground. But I’ll spare you the tedium:

You’re both right

Long gone are the days of wearing a Grateful Dead tee to school adorned with pot leaves.

There is NO “Free Speech” in public school, or any event even remotely connected to it. Be sure to keep that in mind should you ever have the fortune of sending a little Tommy off to school in a Dale Jr. Bud tee-shirt. You will be amazed at how fast they spin his little ass around to change his gear – if not suspend him outright.

Still need convincing?

“Dubya” made a speech on the football field of our local high school several years ago. Now, keep in mind, the fury of 9-11 was still fresh in everyone’s minds and Iraq still “had what it had coming to it – and good.” The school’s freaks, goths, stoners, dems, Bush-haters, and all nine dyed-in-the-wool liberals that reside in this town were invited to protest this occurrence – by carrying their placards exactly 500 yards away from the stage and across a busy highway.

Free Speech, indeed.

Hell, if kids can no longer boo the opposition at Seattle-area high school basketball games, why in the hell is anyone surprised that Eskimo boy didn’t get over with his Pot-fer-Jesus banner? Welcome to Politically Correct America, folks….

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:12 am

Rack Truman. Good to see you around, bro.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:47 am

RumpleForeskin wrote: I know this kid lost the case,

Oh really....

RumpleForeskin wrote: Its unbelievable what our society has become. People just won't let things go because our Judicial system has allowed cases like this one to be won by the idiots who filed the lawsuits. Its pathetic.

*Edit*
Rack Truman

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:25 pm

In summer 1992, Poppa Bush made a campaign speech on Old Main lawn on the PSU campus. Joe Paterno announced him.

Now, I was not a Bush fan then any more than I am now. In fact, my regard for him was pretty much as low as it could be. Yet still, I was not really down with going to the Lawn to shout invective at the guy. I certainly wanted to hear and witness the speech, and form my own opinions in a reactive sense.

So, during the morning, the immediate environs started to swell with hippie types, carrying signs, exuding pachouli, etc. As "liberal" as my opinions have been in the past, I've never really respected that crowd - I've certainly heard what they have to say, and I haven't rejected them based solely on their appearance.

The event organizers, along with local and university police, began setting things up. They put up a quick fence around the entire lawn. They fenced off the immediate area around Old Main steps and slapped together some tall bleachers. They lined the approaching walks with wire, and they created a corridor for the unwashed masses to approach - but they shunted them off into a little pen about 300 yards back from the hind end of the bleachers, which themselves obscured any chance at a view of the steps and the goings-on.

About a half hour before the thing was supposed to start, some buses started arriving. It turns out, they were Bush supporters from...well, who knows where. They were bringing in folks from young republican groups to fill the bleachers and the grass directly in front of the steps. So, the speech took place for and in front of people who were probably on the tour with Bush...certainly most of them were not PSU students, or even State College residents.

So some of these folks started moving around. The police were letting the freaks - and just interested local observers like me - start to come up the path through the wire gauntlet to flow into the pen behind the bleachers. Some of the hippies had signs and placards. As they passed up near the entrance to the pen, some of the Bush crowd - not local or campus police - were telling them that signs weren't allowed. Some folks yelled back at them that they were full of shit. A few of the Bush folks responded by trying to yank the signs out of their hands, while the police looked on with no reaction. The Bush folks had the run of the lawn, behind the wire, everywhere. The general attendees had no such access.

I thought it was bullshit that these folks were allowed to stand behind the wire and try to fuck with the general attendees. The police had already gone to great lengths to keep them at a distance. For some reason, the thug types got to do whatever they wanted.

A year or so later, Hillary Clinton gave a big speech on the same lawn. She has some family connection to PSU - a brother is a trustee or something. At the time she was the First Lady. None of the same crowd-handling techniques were employed for her visit. If you wanted to, you could push your way up and yell at her. The fact is, though - the general attendees for the Clinton speech didn't seem to include the kind of folks who would do that. I guess those folks have to be bused in when needed.

So comparing Hillary Clinton with GHW Bush. a president and a first lady, it was abundantly clear who was more encouraging of a free speech response in that particular venue. The Bush crowd did everything they could do to prevent free speech, while Clinton did nothing whatsoever to prevent it.

Look - I don't want kids unfurling pro-pot signs at my kids' school. I think that there are some themes that shouldn't be encouraged on school property. Now - if some kids become Hemp advocates, and they seek to educate folks about something worthwhile beyond bong hits, that's a different story. As with most things, there is a level of common sense that can be applied.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:35 pm

Now hey there mister can't you read, you've got to have a shit and a tie to get a seat. You can't watch no you can't eat. You're not supposed to be here.

And the sign said you got to have a membership card to get inside.

Mr. Belvedere · Post by **Mr. Belvedere** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:50 am

RadioFan wrote:Good job, idiots.

On the positive side of this, they just made it harder for the bible thumpers to try and force their bullshit into public school.

T1B

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" free speech? Nope.

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" free speech? Nope.

Re: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" free speech? Nope.