Bong Hits 4 Jesus

[AlexM]

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

[MidGe]

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

[Nonfiction]

I support the message on that sign

[captZEEbo]

[ 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.

[elwoodblues]

[ 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.

[Bobbo539]

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.

[Roland32]

[ 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.

[jesusarenque]

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

[irunnotgood]

[ 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.

[govman6767]

[ 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