Bong Hits 4 Chief Justice Roberts

[Gentle Giant]

So basically speech is free if it's nice, polite speech. What a maroon.

Court limits student speech in "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case
By MARK SHERMAN, AP | June 25, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

Joseph Frederick 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 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."

[Gary Sisco]

Worse still, the kid did not show the banner at the school or even at a school event. So the court has upheld not only a limit on speech. It has also upheld the authority of a school to discipline kids for actions taken outside of school.

Brainless, and an example of just how little this court cares about either speech or the limits of authority.

[Noj]

I will continue to reserve the right to advocate drug use if I damn well please.

[Noj]

[Uli]

Jerusalem, in present day Israel, 3/30/07): Archeologists now claim to have discovered the cave in which Jesus was buried. Artifacts found in the cave give strong evidence it is the actual cave where Christ's body lay according to myth and folklore. Particularly telling was a so-called 'bong pipe' discovered in the cave. Very modern in design, experts say the implement would be immediately recognized by any present day smoker of marijuana.

"We believe it is Jesus' bong pipe." said one archeologist, "because inscribed on one side are the initials 'JHC' in the roman style alphabet, and on the other is the word "isa" in arabic script which is Jesus' name in arabic. Also found in the same cave was a second pipe with 'Simon, the Cyrene' inscribed on it. Simon was the man crucified with Jesus on the cross next to him. We think that either simon was buried with Jesus, or that Jesus' relatives may have grabbed his pipe too. Perhaps they planned a mourning ceremony of some sort which may have included a few tokes among friends and relatives."

"And, what really confirms it for us," he said. "is the death warrant signed by Pontius Pilate found in a sealed olive oil bottle. Translated, the warrant decrees the sentence of 'death by nailing to a cross of the hippy Nazarene calling himself Jesus'. That pretty much puts the icing on the cake for us."

There is no direct evidence of the use of marijuana or other conscious altering substances by Jesus or his followers. However, experts contend many otherwise miraculous and mystifying events recorded during Jesus' life time might easily be explained if that is taken into account. "For instance, raising people from the dead, creating wine from water, curing the halt and blind, walking on water, feeding a multitude with one loaf of bread and all sorts of things." said one.

Church leaders are outraged at the suggestion that Jesus was a 'hippy' or might have used marijuana or other drugs. "There's absolutely no truth to the vicious lies that Jesus was a hippy type person." angrily objected the Revered Jerry Falwell. "Or that he ever used any drugs at all. We're convinced that even the wine he is said to have drunk was probably just innocent grape juice like we have in our church communion services. It's just another fiendish liberal plot to slander his name, and all good Christians. Jesus was a good, solid conservative Christian Republican just like me."

"Those highly educated intellectual smarty-pants just make me so mad! They think and act like they're just so darned smart!"

The story above is a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious.

[Hudson Boy]

It's actually not so far from the truth. Our ancient ancestors used various herbs and psychedelic drugs such as magic mushrooms for tens of thousands of years, maybe longer. When the supplies dried-up due to environmental conditions, the evolution of man turned in a different, more self-centered, violent direction. Alcohol and narcotics replaced the sacred mushrooms and other consciousness-raising substances, the religions changed, and it's been getting worse ever since.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Worse still, the kid did not show the banner at the school or even at a school event. So the court has upheld not only a limit on speech. It has also upheld the authority of a school to discipline kids for actions taken outside of school.

Brainless, and an example of just how little this court cares about either speech or the limits of authority.

I haven't kept up with this story muh at all, but wasn't this kid on an actual school field trip when this happened? If so, he was indeed "in school" when this happened.

Kinda funny how you, of all people, would blast the school for making the decision they did. If I would have posted "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" here and Lois deleted the post for whatever reason, you would have been the first in here explaining to me in your patently sanctimonious manner that this is Lois' house and she makes the rules.

Seems rather hypocritical, don't you think?

[Gary Sisco]

Scott, you are so full of shit sometimes it's scarey.

The kid had attended an out of school activity that was merely "school approved" to use the principal's language. It wasn't a school field trip. It wasn't a school activity. On the other hand, courts have consistently through the years ruled that kids do not have the full constitutional rights that adults do. I was thrown out of school for publishing my own paper. The way law is in the US, the school did have the power to suspend me for having done so, regardless of the First Amendment. An equivalent in this case, however, would be more like if the school had suspended me for publishing a paper I was distributing on the street.

Second, it is citizens, not denizens, who have rights. While you may not think of JC as private space, it is. No one has rights in private space to behavior that the owner doesn't approve.

Every business, for example, reserves the right not to serve people they don't want to serve. Any bartender can put a customer out on the street if he doesn't like the behavior.

A citizen's free speech, on the other hand, no matter how distasteful, is a public right -- that's the derivation of the word "civil" in civil rights after all -- I defend all the way. In private, one doesn't have or need rights. What we have to say at home is not a constitutional matter. What we say once we've left the private sphere, is a constitutional matter.

You seem to have a profound confusion over the difference between civil life and private life, which I attribute to your own admitted lack of education. It is possible to read and educate oneself, however. There's never been a society where that's more easily done than this one.

Granted, private life is becoming daily more public in this sense, as government daily intrudes further into one's life and home.

That's an issue, however, for citizens to work out if they want to live in a democracy. Most people don't seem to. So there is less of one, all the time.

But this kid's right to public speech is not at all equatable with offending Lois's rules (or feelings) for her own space she *allows* you (and me, and all of us) to use for communication. She owns this site. It belongs to her. Not us. We are her guests in every sense and guests have no "rights" a host can't overrule. You know as well as I do that if you owned a place of business and someone was behaving there in ways you disapprove -- including talking in ways of which you do not approve -- you'd ask them to leave or have them removed. Ditto in your house.

This bbs is no more or less private. We are guests here, so Lois, being the host, is the one who decides. Which is at it should be.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Gary

The kid had attended an out of school activity that was merely "school approved" to use the principal's language. It wasn't a school field trip. It wasn't a school activity. On the other hand, courts have consistently through the years ruled that kids do not have the full constitutional rights that adults do. I was thrown out of school for publishing my own paper. The way law is in the US, the school did have the power to suspend me for having done so, regardless of the First Amendment. An equivalent in this case, however, would be more like if the school had suspended me for publishing a paper I was distributing on the street.

Is the principle of a school a government employee? I've always been kind of fuzzy on that one. Because if they are not, this isn't a first amendment case at all.

And from everything I've seen on this case, it was a school sanctioned event. Meaning the school was in charge of oversight, and this kid was on school time.

If you can prove me wrong on this, please do. As I've already said, this is a case I really haven't kept up with.

Oh, and hire yourself a fucking editor fer christs sake. Reading the same shit 35 fucking times makes your post an incredible slog to suffer through.

[tristano's ghost]

OTOH, if you're a right-to-life organization, the SCOTUS Gang of Five is your free-speech friend.

Talk about your "activist" judges! Roberts & Alito are turning this into a hotbed of religious-right conservative activism... not to mention corporate activism (every decision handed down this term, save one, was in favor of big business).

All the more reason we've got to elect a Democrat in '08 & hope that Kennedy (who's getting more rightwing with every decision) takes retirement soon. Otherwise we have about 30 years of being ruled by a religious-right politburo to look forward to. (And Roe vs. Wade is already history IMO.)

[tristano's ghost]

Oh, re: Roberts and his alleged "respect for precedent" (utter b.s., as he's already proved several times), I have just one thing to say re: the "bong hits" decision: Tinker vs. Des Moines. The Court ruled long ago (1969) that freedom of speech does not suddenly vanish at the schoolhouse door.

[tristano's ghost]

More religious-right judicial activism from the SCOTUS Gang of Five--taxpayers are now barred from suing the goverment over faith-based initiatives:

Court bars suit against faith-based plan
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that ordinary taxpayers cannot challenge a White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of federal money.

The 5-4 decision blocks a lawsuit by a group of atheists and agnostics against eight Bush administration officials including the head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

The taxpayers' group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants.

Taxpayers in the case "set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur" unless the court stopped the Bush administration initiative, wrote Justice Samuel Alito. "Of course, none of these things has happened."

"In the unlikely event that any of these executive actions did take place, Congress could quickly step in," Alito added.

The justices' decision revolved around a 1968 Supreme Court ruling that enabled taxpayers to challenge government programs that promote religion.

The 1968 decision involved the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which financed teaching and instructional materials in religious schools in low-income areas.

"This case falls outside" the narrow exception allowing such cases to proceed, Alito wrote.

In dissent, Justice David Souter said that the court should have allowed the taxpayer challenge to proceed.

The majority "closes the door on these taxpayers because the executive branch, and not the legislative branch, caused their injury," wrote Souter. "I see no basis for this distinction."

With the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, President Bush says he wants to level the playing field. Religious charities and secular charities should compete for government money on an equal footing.

White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore called the ruling "a substantial victory for efforts by Americans to more effectively aid our neighbors in need of help."

She said the faith-based and community initiative can remain focused on "strengthening America's armies of compassion."

The ruling won't block other legal action against the White House initiative, opponents said.

"Most church-state lawsuits, including those that challenge congressional appropriations for faith-based programs, will not be affected," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The outcome of the case before the Supreme Court was disappointing, Lynn said, because "taxpayers should be allowed to challenge public funding of religion, whether the money is allocated by Congress or the White House."

Lynn called Alito's statement that Congress could step in "quite incredible because the damage is done when the president acts. There is no way Congress could anticipate action by the president that would violate the First Amendment. We have the courts to do precisely this, rein in the president or the Congress."

Jim Tooey, formerly head of the White House office, said the ruling is "good news for addicts and the homeless and others seeking effective social services."

"It's also a repudiation of the kind of secular extremism that ruled the public square for decades," said Tooey, now president of Saint Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa.

"It's a bad day for the First Amendment. The Supreme Court just put a big dent in the wall of separation between church and state," said Ralph G. Neas, president of People For the American Way Foundation, a liberal-oriented group.

The White House program appears to have had a substantial impact.

In fiscal 2005, seven federal agencies awarded $2.1 billion to religious charities, according to a White House report. That was up 7 percent from the year before and represented 10.9 percent of the grants from the seven federal agencies providing money to faith-based groups.

Among the programs: Substance abuse treatment, housing for AIDS patients, community re-entry for inmates, housing for homeless veterans and emergency food assistance.

The Bush administration says taxpayers should not be allowed to challenge the government's conferences because Congress did not earmark funds for a specific program and no funds were distributed outside the government. The White House pulled money for the conferences out of general appropriations.

Yep, another 5-4 one there--Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by tristano's ghost

Otherwise we have about 30 years of being ruled by a religious-right politburo to look forward to. (And Roe vs. Wade is already history IMO.)

I just read where the American Center For Law And Justice, as well as the Rutherford Institute filed court briefs in Freddericks defense. That kinda nullifies your statement.

Which were the activists? The District and Supreme Courts that upheld the ruling, or the Appeals Court that overturned it?

[Gordon B]

Did anybody here read the case or just the headline? The dissenting opinion, signed by Stevens and joined by Ginsburg and Souter made clear that they would have joined the majority if they thought the banner encouraged illegal drug use but that the banner was nonsensical and did nothing of the sort.


As to the first, I take the Court’s point that the message on Frederick's banner is not necessarily protected speech, even though it unquestionably would have been had the banner been unfurled elsewhere. As to the second, I am willing to assume that the Court is correct that the pressing need to deter drug use supports JDHS's rule prohibiting willful conduct that expressly 'advocates the use of substances that are illegal to minors.' App. to Pet. for Cert. 53a. But it is a gross non sequitur to draw from these two unremarkable propositions the remarkable conclusion that the school may suppress student speech that was never meant to persuade anyone to do anything.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by tristano's ghost

Oh, re: Roberts and his alleged "respect for precedent" (utter b.s., as he's already proved several times), I have just one thing to say re: the "bong hits" decision: Tinker vs. Des Moines. The Court ruled long ago (1969) that freedom of speech does not suddenly vanish at the schoolhouse door.

So you have a bigger beef with the liberals because you think they think like you yet if the banner had said, "Don't Study, Get High" instead of "Bong Hits 4 Jesus", the opinion would have been 8-0.

Why did you mention Tinker but not Bethel School District v. Fraser?

I don't know how I would have voted on this case but there are a lot of things to get outraged about and this isn't one of them.

[Gary Sisco]

Shoulda just smoked some bong hits. There'd have been a lot less controversy.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

So you have a bigger beef with the liberals because you think they think like you yet if the banner had said, "Don't Study, Get High" instead of "Bong Hits 4 Jesus", the opinion would have been 8-0.

Why did you mention Tinker but not Bethel School District v. Fraser?

I don't know how I would have voted on this case but there are a lot of things to get outraged about and this isn't one of them.

I agree.

This kid intentionally pushed the limits and tried to rub peoples noses in shit. Hell, he admitted it was a stunt to get on tv. It ended up biting him in the ass and he and his parents decided to sue for money and lost.

Boohoo.

[Gary Sisco]

Hell, the whole of American politics is a stunt to get on tv, if you want to go there.

I'm not concerned with the banner or the speech ruling so much (it's long been maintained that kids do not have full constitutional rights in the US, so that part is not surprising). The part that bothers me is that there is now a precedent for schools governing student behavior when not on school time or at a school event. That part is scarey.

A good thing Bronwyn's never made the bumpersticker she imagined one time, trying to think of one that would offend every goddamned body. People'd probably not object to her being hanged for it.

And, no, I won't post it here. It does, however, manage to offend about any type person I can think of.

[Scott Dolan]

As far as I've been able to tell, the students were indeed on school time, and under teacher supervision. They had simply been let out of class so that they could watch the torchbearer pass by that afternoon.

This kid tried to muddy the waters intentionally, IMO, by not showing up for school that day.

As I said, if you can show me where there is evidence that they were not on school time, I'd be happy to see it. Everything I've found so far states otherwise.

[Gary Sisco]

So he's on school time if he doesn't show up for school?

I got my information from news articles, same as yourself (and no I'm not doing research for you) and the closest description the principalherself came up with was a "school approved event." Whatever that means.

What kind of power would she have if he'd have done it a school DISapproved event?

[Gary Sisco]

Here's a scenario for you: If anyone who wasn't around at the time thinks attending antiwar demos during VN was an encouraged thing, think again. When the moratorium demonstrations came around, fall of '69, one in September and another in October, the primary point of them was the call for a student strike on those days. Needless to say, this was far from a "school approved" activity. Should students who did strike and did attend -- myself included -- have been disciplined by schools over it?

(In my case, school didn't have to. My father did, over the October demo, by tossing my ass out of his house in October in Vermont. I've never made an argument that he shouldn't have, by the way. Never made one that he should've, either. It was his house, though, so, yes, his rules. On the September day, quite a number of kids wore black armbands to school, myself included, instead of striking. We did receive quite a load of shit about that, from teachers and principals, but there were no rules broken, so all they could was try to intimidate us about it. Good luck.)

[Scott Dolan]

He intentionally skipped school that day so that, in his estimation, he wouldn't legally be under school supervision. He then joined his classmates to have his little fun.

It's a pretty blatant flouting of written rules. And he got called on it. Tough shit. The only people who didn't agree with the punishment were the 9th Circuit. Everyone else upheld it, from the school board to the SC. I don't even see this as a decent test case. Certainly not on the level of those that Gordo posted earlier.

And I've done lots of research on this. I have found nothing to back your claim. The students were let out of class during the middle of the school day, and were under teacher supervision. Just because they were not sitting at a desk doing work, that doesn't mean they were not "in school".

If one of those kids had been hit by a bus that day, who would have been sued?

[Gary Sisco]

He wasn't in front of the court for having flouted school rules, Scott.

"If, if, if. If the oceans boiled there'd be a lot of cooked fish."

If isn't an argument, though it's clearly a favorite gambit with you.

I had a vice principal in high school who had one response to every issue: "What if everybody......?"

[Gary Sisco]

And, nevertheless, the moratorium strike would have been an intentional flouting of rules. Hard to strike with permission. It wouldn't be a strike.

I can't believe a lot of remarks people make these days. I went to school my own self and I seem to recall all kinds of skipping of school and of skipping classes. You hear people talk today, it makes it sound like every damn body showed up on time, prepared with number two pencil and notebook, having not just read but understood the assignment, just rearing to go on that quiz, babies, let 'er rip.

[guy]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I'm not concerned with the banner or the speech ruling so much (it's long been maintained that kids do not have full constitutional rights in the US, so that part is not surprising). The part that bothers me is that there is now a precedent for schools governing student behavior when not on school time or at a school event. That part is scarey.

I agree with Gary 100%.

Guy

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

He wasn't in front of the court for having flouted school rules, Scott.

He was suspended for just that, Gary. Spin it how you like. He may have ended up in court because he's a fucking crybaby, but he wouldn't have been there at all if not for the initial violation and suspension.

And since my good friend Guy has chimed in, I'll ask both of you to present proof that this wasn't a school supervised event. If you fuck off on a field trip to the zoo, you'll get your ass kicked out for a few days. This case was absolutely NO different.

But, speaking of gambits, I will eternally appreaciate yours where you can't prove me wrong and it's somehow my fault. "I'm not going to do your research for you". That's good, because you can barely manage to do your own.

[Gary Sisco]

Scott's MO is to challenge whatever's said. He's as one-tracked as the vice-principal I had.

But, it's not worth arguing about any further, so have it your way, again, Helen. Whatever you say, dear.

[Scott Dolan]

My MO is to challenge your fucking horseshit when you can't back it up with anything other than a because I told you so. All I'm asking for is one simple thing which you cannot provide. And again, it's my fault.

Brilliant.

You sir, are a fucking fraud.

[Gary Sisco]

Yes, dear.

[Scott Dolan]

Head over to Sullivans site. I'm sure he can sooth your sorrows.

Amazing how you never have a problems posting endless lines of crap from that assholes site yet can't provide one simple shred of evidence to back up your fucking lie.