Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/fr...ech/index.html


Thoughts?

SCOTUS rules that school may suspend student for displaying banner near school/

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

What a doctrinally incoherent decision. I weep for the Court.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

of course it was correct, freedom of speech doesn't mean anything anywhere anytime.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

I don't see the problem. The courts have often held that student free speech is limited while in school.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

Do students have the right to disrupt class/school functions?

What if he was holding this sign instead...
http://www.airamerica.com/stateofbel...dHatesFags.jpg

What rights do the administrators have to stop disruptive behaivior?

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the problem. The courts have often held that student free speech is limited while in school.

[/ QUOTE ]

He wasn't in school, he didn't go to school that day. He was an 18 year-old student who showed up at a public event on public property among other students. If the sign he held up didn't involve a supposed drug message, I can easily see the ruling going the other way, but since the drug war boogie man trumps all, free speech loses.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

That's not in the linked article. Do you have a reference?

[ QUOTE ]
The incident occurred in January 2002 just outside school grounds when the Olympic torch relay was moving through the Alaska capital on its way to the Salt Lake City, Utah, Winter Games.

Though he was standing on a public sidewalk, the school argued Frederick was part of a school-sanctioned event, because students were let out of classes and accompanied by their teachers.

Morse ordered the senior to take down the sign, but he refused. That led to a 10-day suspension for violating a school policy on promoting illegal drug use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

Not off the top of my head. I know the Anchorage Daily News ran an extensive article about it when the case was heard before the court that had all the details, but it now appears you have to pay to get the article. That article showed how the kid and his dad got really reamed by the powers that be in Anchorage, basically ruining the kid and his father by abusing police power and the awarding of public contracts. If I can pull up a free copy, I'll post it, or if anyone can find those details, please link them in.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

Okay, some of the details are here, but it's much more extensive than this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031201699.html

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do students have the right to disrupt class/school functions?

What if he was holding this sign instead...
http://www.airamerica.com/stateofbel...dHatesFags.jpg

What rights do the administrators have to stop disruptive behaivior?

[/ QUOTE ]

This would not be a problem in a Tacoma School district as none of the students would be able to read the signs.

Seriously though Bong hits is funny for the twits here who show up at funerals and schools I advocate bad things. It's a shame only good people are the victims of violent crimes.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

*shrug* The First Amendment restricts Congress, not local schools.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

If the student had carried a sign saying "Bongs should be legal" or "marijuana law are not correct/unlawful/constitutional/whatever" would this current travesty of a supreme court have come to the same conclusion?
It seems that the whole of society as represented by the supreme court comes down on a poor single individual student because he doesn't phrase things correctly... Ah Freedom!

PS I love the USA

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

I support the message on that sign

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the problem. The courts have often held that student free speech is limited while in school.

[/ QUOTE ]

He wasn't in school, he didn't go to school that day. He was an 18 year-old student who showed up at a public event on public property among other students. If the sign he held up didn't involve a supposed drug message, I can easily see the ruling going the other way, but since the drug war boogie man trumps all, free speech loses.

[/ QUOTE ]it seems as though he was on a school field trip.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
*shrug* The First Amendment restricts Congress, not local schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

*sigh* When people refer to the First Amendment, it is a short-hand way of saying the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which incorporates the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and applies them to state governments.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

This was the right decision in my opinion; the court established that Time, Place, and Manner restrictions can be used to curtail speech should there be a "legitament governmental interest" to do so. There is no question that a kid holding a sign that could easily be viewed as advocation of illegal drugs, right outside of a public school, should violate the Time, Place, and Manner restrictions.

Most of the opposition to this ruling is knee jerk and intelectually shallow in my opinion, I think this is a fine decision.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*shrug* The First Amendment restricts Congress, not local schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

*sigh* When people refer to the First Amendment, it is a short-hand way of saying the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which incorporates the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and applies them to state governments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate that people misunderstand their own constitution. Believe it or not but even without due process clause even a Public University would be under the restrictions as well. (Recieve money from Federal Gov) SO it is not just congress.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

Just another example of activist liberal judges making up law. Why can't these liberal justices adhere to the text of the Constitution?

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just another example of activist liberal judges making up law. Why can't these liberal justices adhere to the text of the Constitution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thomas and Scalia etc. were the ones on the school administrations side but they are the same as the "liberal activist judges" just on different issues.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
This was the right decision in my opinion; the court established that Time, Place, and Manner restrictions can be used to curtail speech should there be a "legitament governmental interest" to do so. There is no question that a kid holding a sign that could easily be viewed as advocation of illegal drugs, right outside of a public school, should violate the Time, Place, and Manner restrictions.

Most of the opposition to this ruling is knee jerk and intelectually shallow in my opinion, I think this is a fine decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it were up to you would we have any freedoms to do anything but what you like ??? Stop for a min and seriously think about it.

put 100 people in a room and tell them that anything that ANY of them don't like is illegal. Would there be ANYTHING to do.

Now do it with 100 million people !!!!

People that are shortsighted and advocate the removal of freedoms because they dont' like something are destroying america

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
This was the right decision in my opinion; the court established that Time, Place, and Manner restrictions can be used to curtail speech should there be a "legitament governmental interest" to do so. There is no question that a kid holding a sign that could easily be viewed as advocation of illegal drugs, right outside of a public school, should violate the Time, Place, and Manner restrictions.

Most of the opposition to this ruling is knee jerk and intelectually shallow in my opinion, I think this is a fine decision.



[/ QUOTE ]

If the kid had been advocating a change in the law, his speech would be protected. It would have been ok for him to unfurl a banner saying, “legalize drugs”.

Somehow, with this goofy new ruling, a distinction is made between advocating a change in the law and advocating illegal drug use. This new ruling applies to very limited forms of speech, i.e. speech about drugs.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

This does not bode well, in light of efforts to revive the "fairness doctrine", and proposals to extend FCC control over programming content to cable TV. It looks to me like all those alleged "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court may be about to seriously erode the 1st amendment.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
and proposals to extend FCC control over programming content to cable TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? Link? I can't wait to hear the rationale behind this one.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This was the right decision in my opinion; the court established that Time, Place, and Manner restrictions can be used to curtail speech should there be a "legitament governmental interest" to do so. There is no question that a kid holding a sign that could easily be viewed as advocation of illegal drugs, right outside of a public school, should violate the Time, Place, and Manner restrictions.

Most of the opposition to this ruling is knee jerk and intelectually shallow in my opinion, I think this is a fine decision.



[/ QUOTE ]

If the kid had been advocating a change in the law, his speech would be protected. It would have been ok for him to unfurl a banner saying, “legalize drugs”.

Somehow, with this goofy new ruling, a distinction is made between advocating a change in the law and advocating illegal drug use. This new ruling applies to very limited forms of speech, i.e. speech about drugs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure, but that is irrelevent under the Time, Place, and Manner restrictions. Basically, anything that could disrupt the normal functions of the school can be punished by the school. A school has the right to stop a drug legalization rally on their campus if it feels like it is disrupting the school environment. The 'Bong Hits for Jesus' is not appropriate on a school campus or in close proximity during class hours, and the school has every right to interfere with this so called "free speech".

Its the same rationale that disallows protesting within x amount of feet of abortion clinics or within x amount of feet of a Nazi headquarters.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This was the right decision in my opinion; the court established that Time, Place, and Manner restrictions can be used to curtail speech should there be a "legitament governmental interest" to do so. There is no question that a kid holding a sign that could easily be viewed as advocation of illegal drugs, right outside of a public school, should violate the Time, Place, and Manner restrictions.

Most of the opposition to this ruling is knee jerk and intelectually shallow in my opinion, I think this is a fine decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it were up to you would we have any freedoms to do anything but what you like ??? Stop for a min and seriously think about it.

put 100 people in a room and tell them that anything that ANY of them don't like is illegal. Would there be ANYTHING to do.

Now do it with 100 million people !!!!

People that are shortsighted and advocate the removal of freedoms because they dont' like something are destroying america

[/ QUOTE ]

no, just a society with more orderly schools. Take that sign to the town plaza, and this is not an issue.

Think with your mind, not your heart.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

Hopefully people will begin to see how ridiculous it is to have public schools in the first place, and putting your children under the care of a monolithic, centrally controlled indoctrination system run by the state is perhaps a mistake....

natedogg

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully people will begin to see how ridiculous it is to have public schools in the first place, and putting your children under the care of a monolithic, centrally controlled indoctrination system run by the state is perhaps a mistake....

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

the first post in this entire thread I agree with.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
This does not bode well, in light of efforts to revive the "fairness doctrine", and proposals to extend FCC control over programming content to cable TV. It looks to me like all those alleged "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court may be about to seriously erode the 1st amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are completely wrong. The court just upheld our first amendment rights by striking down the McCain-Feingold act. They didn't in this case on the precident of 'Time, Place, and Manner' restrictions which have historically allowed administrators to curb any disturbance in school property or near proximity if it is disrputing the function of the school.

There is no logical link from this ruling to the 'fairness doctrine', and I have every reason to believe that they will rule in favor of freedom of the press, as they did in McCain-Feingold.

Re: Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 

Bump to post an interesting linguistic analysis: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langu...4696.html#more