Bong Hits 4 Jesus

[yukoncpa]

[ 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.

[CORed]

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.

[Brainwalter]

[ 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.

[Bobbo539]

[ 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.

[Bobbo539]

[ 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.

[natedogg]

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

[Bobbo539]

[ 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.

[Bobbo539]

[ 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.

[bobman0330]

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