No Bong Hits for Jesus....

If such a banner were regularly a part of life, such as wearing clothes is, then it wouldn't be an issue.

Ah, so he should have had a t shirt printed with it on, then 'advocating' illegal activities is ok? Or if he did it indirectly, for example it was a slogan for a film, it would be ok?

This is the same type of inane argument that those who think Ozzy promotes suicide have.

No more so than the notion that this banner will get kids smoking dope.

Truth is, FoS shouldn't be restricted unless the Harm Principle can be empirically demonstrated, else it becomes simply the opinion of the judges what is or isn't acceptable. That way totalitarianism lies....
 
And surely we should be encouraging kids to discuss drug use, rather than brushing it under the carpet and pretending it doesn't exist....
 
AnyOldIron II said:
If such a banner were regularly a part of life, such as wearing clothes is, then it wouldn't be an issue.

Ah, so he should have had a t shirt printed with it on, then 'advocating' illegal activities is ok? Or if he did it indirectly, for example it was a slogan for a film, it would be ok?

This is the same type of inane argument that those who think Ozzy promotes suicide have.

No more so than the notion that this banner will get kids smoking dope.

Truth is, FoS shouldn't be restricted unless the Harm Principle can be empirically demonstrated, else it becomes simply the opinion of the judges what is or isn't acceptable. That way totalitarianism lies....
Click to expand...
That t-shirt would likely be banned at all times during school, not just during such an event. Much like banning gang colors and other such items of clothing would be banned. Your example of the promotion of a legal product like a movie notwithstanding.

As to the banner "getting kids to smoke dope", would an advertisement "get people to" do anything at all if such promotion were not effective? Nobody would advertise at all on a billboard if such messages were totally ineffective. It definitely would serve to promote the popularity of the item. The school's position would have to be against illegal activity and could not have the school's message to be that it is okay.

Anyway, had the school done nothing they likely would have been sued for promoting illegal activity, or for allowing the school's message to be about "Jesus" which promotes a certain religion. I think that they were between a rock and a hard place with no place to go but to choose the action that they took.
 
That t-shirt would likely be banned at all times during school, not just during such an event. Much like banning gang colors and other such items of clothing would be banned. Your example of the promotion of a legal product like a movie notwithstanding.

Ah, so it is the type of illegal activity that matters?

A t shirt for the movie 'Bongs for Jesus' would be banned, but a t shirt promoting a movie about casino robbery would be ok?

As to the banner "getting kids to smoke dope", would an advertisement "get people to" do anything at all if such promotion were not effective? Nobody would advertise at all on a billboard if such messages were totally ineffective. It definitely would serve to promote the popularity of the item.

So what differentiates an advertisement from a simple statement?

If i graffitied a wall with 'I was here' is that me promoting my being at that place or simply making a statement? Is everything written publically a promotion of something?

Anyway, had the school done nothing they likely would have been sued for promoting illegal activity, or for allowing the school's message to be about "Jesus" which promotes a certain religion. I think that they were between a rock and a hard place with no place to go but to choose the action that they took.

If they were sued for promoting illegal activities they could argue that it wasn't them, but an individual who was 'promoting'...

The religious thing, they could have used the above defence, arguing that it wasn't validated or approved, and was thus the actions of an individual student.
 
AnyOldIron II said:
That t-shirt would likely be banned at all times during school, not just during such an event. Much like banning gang colors and other such items of clothing would be banned. Your example of the promotion of a legal product like a movie notwithstanding.

Ah, so it is the type of illegal activity that matters?

A t shirt for the movie 'Bongs for Jesus' would be banned, but a t shirt promoting a movie about casino robbery would be ok?

As to the banner "getting kids to smoke dope", would an advertisement "get people to" do anything at all if such promotion were not effective? Nobody would advertise at all on a billboard if such messages were totally ineffective. It definitely would serve to promote the popularity of the item.

So what differentiates an advertisement from a simple statement?

If i graffitied a wall with 'I was here' is that me promoting my being at that place or simply making a statement? Is everything written publically a promotion of something?

Anyway, had the school done nothing they likely would have been sued for promoting illegal activity, or for allowing the school's message to be about "Jesus" which promotes a certain religion. I think that they were between a rock and a hard place with no place to go but to choose the action that they took.

If they were sued for promoting illegal activities they could argue that it wasn't them, but an individual who was 'promoting'...

The religious thing, they could have used the above defence, arguing that it wasn't validated or approved, and was thus the actions of an individual student.
Click to expand...
No matter how many times you attempt to associate a promotion of a movie to be the promotion of some other activity it isn't going to stick. That is where your logical fallacy started. One promotes a legal activity, the other an illegal activity.

Watching a movie is legal.

Smoking pot is not legal.

The difference is fatal to your fallacy-filled argument.
 
AnyOldIron II said:
I'll expand....

If the judges are considering it not to be a breach of freedom of speech on the basis that it is encouraging illegal activities, to be consistent and not hypocritical, anything encouraging illegal activities should be prevented.

To that end, the 'glorification' of Robin Hood can be seen as encouraging theft, as can the film Ocean's 13, and thus should be banned.

This isn't a fallacy.

The judges are hamfistedly trying to apply the Harm Principle (see John Stuart Mill) as justification for this, to which end they would have to demonstrate empirically that this banner would encourage drug use, and that drug use falls under the Harm Principle...
Click to expand...
I disagree, these things weren't done as school projects. The banner was.
 
AnyOldIron II said:
It all comes down to the feeling by the Principle (and agreed to by the Judges,) that the kids were more or less advertising drug use. that should not be allowed at school functions. KUDOs to the judges.

Comes down to a feeling? How can the supreme court of a land judge according to feeling? They should provide rational explanation.

If it is on the basis that it encourages illegal activities, then to not be hypocrits, they should approve principals banning, for example, Oceans 13 t shirts, or Robin Hood.

They should demonstrate empirically that this banner encourages use of cannabis, and that children will take up smoking it on the basis of this banner, and also they must demonstrate that cannabis falls under the Harm Principle, which is hard to do,...

This is a shocking decision
Click to expand...
The judges didn't make the decision based on the feelings of the principal, but on the appearance of the issue.
 
The young man was not under the direction of the school at the time.

He had not gone to school that day and was NOT under their supervision.

He was an independent citizen at the momment he stood up and held up a perfectly legal sign.

He actually chose the message from what I understand as an attempt to TEST the freedom of speech in his town.

The event was NOT a school event the school just attended the event.

THIS WAS A BAD DECISION!

We have a court in which the majority is now dismantling the constitutional protections and is trying to make us a Christain state I think.
 
Desh said:
The young man was not under the direction of the school at the time.

He had not gone to school that day and was NOT under their supervision.

He was an independent citizen at the momment he stood up and held up a perfectly legal sign.

He actually chose the message from what I understand as an attempt to TEST the freedom of speech in his town.

The event was NOT a school event the school just attended the event.

THIS WAS A BAD DECISION!

We have a court in which the majority is now dismantling the constitutional protections and is trying to make us a Christain state I think.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to back up the assertions. All the stories I have found showed that the young men were at a school sponsored trip and under the supervision of the school.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1563423/20070626/index.jhtml

"When it comes to speech in school, even before yesterday's decision, schools had significantly more authority to curtail student speech than, say, the police or anybody else would have outside of school," he said. "While you may have the right to swear at a police officer, you certainly couldn't swear at a teacher and not suffer some kind of penalty. Schools have significant authority to regulate and control what you write in a student newspaper, or what you say in a student play, or any kind of expression during a school-sponsored activity. One of the things the 'Bong Hits' court focused on ... was that it was a school-sponsored activity, so they had significant latitude over what kids did during that activity."

Each case is different, he added, and has to be taken on its own merits. But generally speaking, "You need to distinguish between rights in school and out of school," Walczak explained. "The reason I say that is, there is actually a lot of litigation involving students' rights outside of school, specifically on the Internet. A kid sitting at his home computer puts something up on MySpace, making fun of his principal, and the principal sees it and gets pissed off. Can the principal then punish the student? We're in the middle of our fourth lawsuit on that, and we're hoping this one leads to some definitive law on that."
Click to expand...

In this story even the student didn't say that they were not part of the school sponsored event.
 
he was NOT on school grounds, he was NOT signed in that day , it was NOT a school created function, the sign was NOT profane.

He acted in a completely legal way.

If your child had an supoport your troops sign held up at a 4th of july parade and your local principle had ripped from his hands and suspended your child for 10 days how would you feel?

This would be the same thing.

The court made a bad decision.

The fact that he was near school, school was in session and the sign said something sillier than support the troops should have NO bearing on the decision.
 
Desh said:
he was NOT on school grounds, he was NOT signed in that day , it was NOT a school created function, the sign was NOT profane.

He acted in a completely legal way.

If your child had an supoport your troops sign held up at a 4th of july parade and your local principle had ripped from his hands and suspended your child for 10 days how would you feel?

This would be the same thing.

The court made a bad decision.

The fact that he was near school, school was in session and the sign said something sillier than support the troops should have NO bearing on the decision.
Click to expand...
How would I feel? It would depend. And being late for school does not excuse you from their control. He showed up at a school sponsored event. Even he wasn't making this argument, it is weak.

His lawyers didn't make this argument because it simply is a waste of time. Being late doesn't make you "not at school".
 
by not signing in for school he was not under their juristriction.

He was not on school grounds.

It was NOT a school event.

It just happened to pass by the school.

The principle had allowed kids to come out of the school and take part BUT it was NOT a school event.
 
I wonder Desh... had the sign (at a school function) stated that "Jesus Saves" or something of that nature... would you still hold the same position? Or would you be screaming about seperation of church and state?
 
Desh said:
by not signing in for school he was not under their juristriction.

He was not on school grounds.

It was NOT a school event.

It just happened to pass by the school.

The principle had allowed kids to come out of the school and take part BUT it was NOT a school event.
Click to expand...
One more time. Then his lawyers would have argued this, but they did not. You are being misled.
 
"The principle had allowed kids to come out of the school and take part BUT it was NOT a school event."

As already stated... if the principal allowed students to participate, then it was a school event. The school is still obligated in their responsibility for the students. It doesn't matter whether the school created the event or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top