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
-
HAHAHA, "rights, rights rights, bla, bla bla....[xx(] 0 -
Isn't there case law on the books that has determined that basic constitutional rights [as defined] don't apply directly to a minor? They must be filtered through a parent/guardian?? Children don't have the three basic rights. Parents decide for them. Some children are denied:
1. Life (No guarantee to life if very young-re: abortion)
2. Liberty (Grounded..can't go to the big dance)
3. Pursuit of happiness (see item #2)
Joe0 -
I agree that he is a smart-ass, snot-nose punk who is irresponsible even for his years, and probably needs to be jerked up to short-stay. That's one of the reasons I don't think children should have full Constitutional rights. BUT ? ? ? the decision of the Supreme Court could affect my right to be an idiot. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by mateomasfeo
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. I agree with the SC on this one. Our kids don't need to be exposed to a pro-drug message, especially a 14 ft. banner, displayed by a pot head who should've been in school...not skipping class, getting high as a kite and displaying the banner.
I got 3 kids in school and I'm trying very hard to instill in them the "say no to drugs" message. Seems like I'm fighting society due to the glorification of drug use in music and movies.
Just like you can't yell "fire" in a theater, now you can't advocate the use of drugs on school property or sanctioned events. I have no problem with that.0 -
Let's think about something: Imagine if during a course of a class discussion about freedom and liberty this young man had raised his hand and when called on said, "I think America's drug policy is all wrong. I think it costs a tremendous amount of money and is ineffective, and I think it greatly limits reasonable personal liberties. I think people should have a right to smoke a joint, and that the federal government should not try to infringe upon that right."
The teacher probably would have asked about the social costs of unrestricted drug use, another student would have pointed out an uncle who has struggled with drugs, and another student would have stated that liberty can be a bit scary and that some will be hurt, but not to have liberty is far worse.
It would have been an interesting discussion with students learning and this young man could have made his points and fully enjoyed his right to free speech. However, that's not what this fellow wanted. He wanted to cause a disruption, to derail the educational process, to make a scene, and to draw some attention to himself. Fine and dandy on his own time, but not at school. A person's right to swing his fist ends where another person's nose begins.0 -
quote:He wanted to cause a disruption, to derail the educational process, to make a scene, and to draw some attention to himself. Fine and dandy on his own time, but not at school. A person's right to swing his fist ends where another person's nose begins.
YES! Totally agree! We had a case here in my town a couple of years ago. At the local annual "festival", 19-year old girl was walking around wearing a shirt, and in huge letters on the front of the shirt was printed "F#CK YOU!" (without the # though...the actual word) Police asked her to either change the shirt, cover it up, or leave. She raised all kinds of cain claiming her right to free speech was being infringed, sued the town, etc. Finally, the state SC ruled that she, free speech aside, she was dead wrong. Just like this punk with his "bong hits 4 Jesus" banner, she was just looking to draw attention to herself and then plead that her civil rights had been violated.0 -
...The school had a policy in place that prohibited students from promoting drugs...on campus or off.
...If they (attorneys) had been smart, they should have attacked the "off campus" part of the policy. The SC ruled correctly...[;)]
0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
37 comments