No Bong Hits for Jesus....

C

Cypress

Well-known member
SCOTUS strikes down the "Bong Hits for Jesus" kids:


Court limits student free-speech rights
Associated Press
Mon Jun 25, 7:34 PM ET


WASHINGTON - A high school student's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner got slapped down by the Supreme Court in a decision Monday that restricts student speech rights when the message seems to advocate illegal drug use.

The court ruled 5-4 in the case of Joseph Frederick, who unfurled his handiwork at a school-sanctioned event in 2002, triggering his suspension and leading to a lengthy court battle.

"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Chief Justice John Roberts said. But the school principal who suspended him "thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one," Roberts said in the majority opinion.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625...s_bong_hits;_ylt=Ai7hOxW3w8p1Hi4xTYqWgJUXr7sF
Click to expand...
 
This is shocking! The Supreme Court should hang their heads in totalitarian shame.

What next, banning Oceans 13 because it 'advocates' robbing casinos?

Ban Robin Hood films cos they advocate robbing from the rich?

The SCOTUS is a bitch. Is there an appeal higher than these reactionary dinosaurs?
 
SCOTUS is the final word I'm afraid, AOI.

I think these kids were on private property, and it was outside school hours. I don't know why they should have been suspended. But, I'm not an expert on all the facts of the case.
 
Cypress said:
SCOTUS is the final word I'm afraid, AOI.

I think these kids were on private property, and it was outside school hours. I don't know why they should have been suspended. But, I'm not an expert on all the facts of the case.
Click to expand...
It was part of a school outing. So, they were allowed by the school to take part in it, but within the school's limits. They brought their sign...
 
What would the J-man himself have done?

Who knows? But Jesus seemed like a mellow and tolerant dude. He probably would have just walked over to the kids with the banner and talked to them. I don't think he would have punished them, just for a stupid banner.


;)
 
All of these recent 5-4 decisions make me furious because I disagree with them ALL and they are a DIRECT result of the fucking morons who voted Bush a second term.
 
ib1yysguy said:
All of these recent 5-4 decisions make me furious because I disagree with them ALL and they are a DIRECT result of the fucking morons who voted Bush a second term.
Click to expand...
Imagine, a whole group of people thought the opposite just about 4 years ago.
 
doniston said:
OK, just what was wrong with this decision, and Why???
Click to expand...

Alito wrote that he does not reconize any student as having ANY free speech rights.

Though Roberts' opinion was more narrow, it's not a stretch to think he believes the same thing.

And I believe that students are covered under the 1st amendment. Do you know of anything in the Bill of Rights claiming that they do not apply to students?
 
Precedent by SCOTUS is that students do NOT check their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door. This fucking court has no respect for free speech. Everyone who elected Bush should be put on a boat and blown out of the fucking water. They've destroyed America in ways they can't understand.
 
Darla said:
Alito wrote that he does not reconize any student as having ANY free speech rights.

Though Roberts' opinion was more narrow, it's not a stretch to think he believes the same thing.

And I believe that students are covered under the 1st amendment. Do you know of anything in the Bill of Rights claiming that they do not apply to students?
Click to expand...

No, that was Thomas that wrote that he would like to overturn the Tinker ruling...

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=6708201

In a case arising from a Juneau, Alaska high school student's unfurling of a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner at a school-supervised event, Roberts wrote the majority opinion which held that the school principal's disciplining of the student did not violate his First Amendment rights.

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

.......

Taking a more cautious line, Alito wrote a concurring opinion which explained that it was only because "speech advocating illegal drug use poses a threat to student safety" that he was willing to vote on Morse's side, and against the student, Joseph Frederick.

"The public schools may ban speech advocating illegal drug use. But I regard such regulation as standing at the far reaches of what the First Amendment permits," he wrote.
Click to expand...

Don't make assumptions.

Thomas seeks to overturn 1969 precedent
But the incrementalism of Roberts and the caution of Alito didn't set well with the outlier on the court, Justice Clarence Thomas.

In his concurrence to the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" ruling, Thomas said the court should simply overturn the Tinker ruling.

As he often does, Thomas argued for a return to the original understanding of what the First Amendment meant. "As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools," he said.

"Early public schools gave total control to teachers, who expected obedience and respect from students," he noted.
Click to expand...
 
I think the Goose-steppers (aka, Alito, Roberts, Thomas) may have been wrong on this.

Justice John Paul Stevens probably has it right:

"The court's ham-handed, categorical approach is deaf to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high school students, about the wisdom of the war on drugs,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote. "In my judgment, the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students. This nonsense banner does neither, and the Court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding--indeed, lauding--a school's decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed”.
 
Cypress said:
I think the Goose-steppers (aka, Alito, Roberts, Thomas) may have been wrong on this.

Justice John Paul Stevens probably has it right:

"The court's ham-handed, categorical approach is deaf to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high school students, about the wisdom of the war on drugs,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote. "In my judgment, the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students. This nonsense banner does neither, and the Court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding--indeed, lauding--a school's decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed”.
Click to expand...


I think that Stevens does have it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top