Bong Hits 4 Jesus
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.
Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.
Joseph Frederick was standing on a public sidewalk across the street from the school when he unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.
His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use.
"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts said. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."
Morse suspended the student, prompting a federal civil rights lawsuit.
Students in public schools don't have the same rights as adults, but neither do they leave their constitutional protections at the schoolhouse gate, as the court said in a landmark speech-rights ruling from Vietnam era.
The court has limited what students can do in subsequent cases, saying they may not be disruptive or lewd or interfere with a school's basic educational mission.
I really don't agree with this one. He was across the street not standing on school property. A little too much, in my opinion. Any other thoughts?
Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.
Joseph Frederick was standing on a public sidewalk across the street from the school when he unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.
His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use.
"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts said. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."
Morse suspended the student, prompting a federal civil rights lawsuit.
Students in public schools don't have the same rights as adults, but neither do they leave their constitutional protections at the schoolhouse gate, as the court said in a landmark speech-rights ruling from Vietnam era.
The court has limited what students can do in subsequent cases, saying they may not be disruptive or lewd or interfere with a school's basic educational mission.
I really don't agree with this one. He was across the street not standing on school property. A little too much, in my opinion. Any other thoughts?
0
-
Blatant violation of his first amendment rights IMHO 0 -
I'm agreeing with Mateo. Also, I'd like a couple of hits on that bong which is not about drugs. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by mateomasfeo
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.
Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.
Joseph Frederick was standing on a public sidewalk across the street from the school when he unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.
His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use.
"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts said. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."
Morse suspended the student, prompting a federal civil rights lawsuit.
Students in public schools don't have the same rights as adults, but neither do they leave their constitutional protections at the schoolhouse gate, as the court said in a landmark speech-rights ruling from Vietnam era.
The court has limited what students can do in subsequent cases, saying they may not be disruptive or lewd or interfere with a school's basic educational mission.
I really don't agree with this one. He was across the street not standing on school property. A little too much, in my opinion. Any other thoughts?
I think the same would apply to sporting events, or field trips, you get rowdy at a away game or field trip you can still be suspended / punished since you were under school supervision.
Don0 -
Should have thought ahead and used an airplane with a larger banner.
GW.. the old fox0 -
He was not on school property and the olympic torch is not a school sponsored event. However, I assume he was on a "feild trip" right outside the school to watch the torch go by. Since he was "on school time" and under the supervision of school authorities I can see why they made this decision.
He should have skipped school and he would have been OK.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bigtire
He was not on school property and the olympic torch is not a school sponsored event.
His freedom of speech was violated.
If the school allowed the students to assemble along the torch route during school hours it does not matter, what if the school had a field trip to the state capitol? or a museum? he was under the schools supervision.
Now if he was doing it after school, then that would be different.
Don0 -
Overdoing it. It is indeed a violation of 1A rights. School time doesn't suspend it. And this whole nonsense about "advocating drug use" is just BS. And that's my NSHO and I am sticking to it. 0 -
Seems like a stupid thing to do, but teenagers are known to do all kinds of dumb things. I whole heartedly believe in the 1st, but at a school function that may have been too much. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by sav99
Seems like a stupid thing to do, but teenagers are known to do all kinds of dumb things. I whole heartedly believe in the 1st, but at a school function that may have been too much.
so you're saying your and your children constitutional rights don't apply on school time and property, correct?0 -
quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
quote:Originally posted by sav99
Seems like a stupid thing to do, but teenagers are known to do all kinds of dumb things. I whole heartedly believe in the 1st, but at a school function that may have been too much.
so you're saying your and your children constitutional rights don't apply on school time and property, correct?
Thats not at all what I'm saying. As a Christian, school and 1st ammendment rights is very important to me. What I'm saying is that the illegal drug aspect of the banner may not be appropriate for a school function. Sorta like profanity or lude speech is not appropriate in certain settings, like when dealing with the public at large. Free speech does not mean anything, anywhere, anytime. There is still such a thing as proper decorum.0 -
Actually you are saying they don't apply across the street from a school. With all the kids toking up at school, I don't see the sign as much of a threat. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
Actually you are saying they don't apply across the street from a school. With all the kids toking up at school, I don't see the sign as much of a threat.
I missed the across the street part. He is protected under the first ammendment then if not on school property I would assume.0 -
I pay enough real estate taxes to send a whole bunch of children to school at $6,000 per pop. You probably don't care to hear my solution, eliminate public schools, the Supreme Court can find something else to waste time with, like making illegals go home due to overcrowding. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
quote:Originally posted by sav99
Seems like a stupid thing to do, but teenagers are known to do all kinds of dumb things. I whole heartedly believe in the 1st, but at a school function that may have been too much.
so you're saying your and your children constitutional rights don't apply on school time and property, correct?
No, students being educated with my tax dollars should be able to say and do anything they want, no matter how disruptive and derogatory it is, heck, why were fire alarms put on the walls but for the students to pull? if they were just for the teachers to pull then they would be at the teachers desks right? heck, bomb threats should also be protected speech also right? after all there just trying to make a statement.
No wonder it is hard to find good teachers. Imagine what a classroom would be like if students were able to express their 1st amendment rights whenever they wished.0 -
quote:Originally posted by sav99
quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
quote:Originally posted by sav99
Seems like a stupid thing to do, but teenagers are known to do all kinds of dumb things. I whole heartedly believe in the 1st, but at a school function that may have been too much.
so you're saying your and your children constitutional rights don't apply on school time and property, correct?
Thats not at all what I'm saying. As a Christian, school and 1st ammendment rights is very important to me. What I'm saying is that the illegal drug aspect of the banner may not be appropriate for a school function.
who says it's illegal? can you please show me federal or state law that says it's illegal to say "bong hits 4 jesus".
quote: Sorta like profanity or lude speech is not appropriate in certain settings, like when dealing with the public at large. Free speech does not mean anything, anywhere, anytime. There is still such a thing as proper decorum.
that's exactly what free speech means. you not liking it, thinking it's lewd or in poor taste doesn't mean it can't be said or shown. if you start applying too much "properness" soon enough women will wear burqas and you'd be stoned to death for watching tv.0 -
Used to be we raised our kids.
Clouder..0 -
quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
quote: Sorta like profanity or lude speech is not appropriate in certain settings, like when dealing with the public at large. Free speech does not mean anything, anywhere, anytime. There is still such a thing as proper decorum.
that's exactly what free speech means. you not liking it, thinking it's lewd or in poor taste doesn't mean it can't be said or shown. if you start applying too much "properness" soon enough women will wear burqas and you'd be stoned to death for watching tv.
I said illegal drugs. You're right though, in that it's a fine line. But just try using some choice profanity in a courtroom addressing a judge. There are limits in place where free speech is concerned, although disputable in many cases.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bigtire
He was not on school property and the olympic torch is not a school sponsored event. However, I assume he was on a "feild trip" right outside the school to watch the torch go by. Since he was "on school time" and under the supervision of school authorities I can see why they made this decision.
He should have skipped school and he would have been OK.
I researched this some the last time it was in the "news" here at the forum.
#1 - the kid has had a couple of arrests for drugs so "it was a nonsensical message" doesn't really cut it.
#2 - he did not attend school on the day of the incident. I thought the argument was that the school should not have had the authority to take action over something he did on a day when he was not in attendance.0 -
I'm surprised the school didn't nail him for making a religious statement. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
Used to be we raised our kids.
not that i would know(a little young), but i like what he said. schools are too worried about everything beside the education we send our children there for in the first place.
~~this brought back thoughts of the "no touch" policy that was posted about a couple of weeks ago.
rediculous!!!!!0 -
1st the kid was nowhere near the school...He was on a school sanctioned field trip! Secondly he was shall we say Symbolicly in the the class room when this occurred! 3rdly this case should have been thrown out from the get go!!
Kid violated school rules.... nuf said!!!0 -
Drugs?
According to the head shops in Texas bongs are manufactured for use with tobacco products only.
I do not see the word marijuana either...
What about a beer bong 4 Jesus? Perhaps the reference was to a legal substance? Would that be illegal?
What a crock. I agree with HBBG (because I like agreeing with her![:D]) when she mentioned that the schools should be worried a little more about providing a quality education rather than running up and down the street policing moral issues.0 -
quote:Originally posted by hisbigbootygirl
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
Used to be we raised our kids.
not that i would know(a little young), but i like what he said. schools are too worried about everything beside the education we send our children there for in the first place.
~~this brought back thoughts of the "no touch" policy that was posted about a couple of weeks ago.
rediculous!!!!!
There is a no-touch policy?
My bad.0 -
Yep, "free speach" can only go so far. This kid was clearly pushing the envelope, so to speak. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by mateomasfeo
Drugs?
According to the head shops in Texas bongs are manufactured for use with tobacco products only.
I do not see the word marijuana either...
What about a beer bong 4 Jesus? Perhaps the reference was to a legal substance? Would that be illegal?
What a crock. I agree with HBBG (because I like agreeing with her![:D]) when she mentioned that the schools should be worried a little more about providing a quality education rather than running up and down the street policing moral issues.
Kinda hard to do when everybody is taking bong hits for jesus, don't ya think?[:D]
What he did was disruptive to the rest of the school, and like it or not, schools need to keep order among the students, weather they are in the classroom, or on a school sponsored outing, to allow every student to express their 1st would no doubt degrade the quality of education.0 -
They weren't IN a classroom........
Yet more "gun owners" supporting Big Brother. Good job guys! With "friends" like you, it won't be hard for them to restrict our first and second amendment rights!
Merc (who wonders why people just don't think.....)0 -
I don't think children should have full Constitutional rights. Freedom of speech is the number one Constitutional right, and the first one I don't think children should have. Since I am evidently the only person in the Western hemisphere who believes this, I'll set that argument aside.
Assuming this child has full Constitutional rights, he got shafted by the Supremes. The legality of what he was advocating is irrelevant. He may not have a right to deal or consume drugs (another argument), but he does have the right to advocate it.
If this had been an adult doing the same thing across the street from his work place, his employer should have the right to fire him for it, but the government should have no standing to prosecute him for it.
The only limit on free speech should be when the speech is a "clear and present danger" to persons or property. To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic ? ? ? ".0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mercury
They weren't IN a classroom........
Yet more "gun owners" supporting Big Brother. Good job guys! With "friends" like you, it won't be hard for them to restrict our first and second amendment rights!
Merc (who wonders why people just don't think.....)
Oh Your right, they were on a school sponsored outing, so let them do as they please.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mercury
They weren't IN a classroom........
He was attending a school field trip and was at the actual event at the time!!!
Therefore IMO since the school was responsible for him then it is the same as if he was in a classroom!!!
The kid was wrong!!0 -
rights rights rights. bla bla bla.
lets use the word....
responsible responsible responsible.
he was provoking trouble.
he was grandstanding and trying to draw attention to himself and his banner.
he was stupid.
he was a stupid american.
this is one of the reasons why they bombed us.
a real american would have flung out a banner saying 'go team go' or 'God bless america!'
but no....
he was stupid and it backfired. now he's desperatley looking for law to protect his stupidness.
i hope they find a law to supersede his rights law and they fry him.[:(!][8]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
37 comments