“Bong hits 4 Jesus”?
Somehow, you don’t think stuff like this rises to the level of U.S. Supreme Court controversy.
But the message — displayed on a banner by an Alaska high school student — is at the center of what experts say could be the most important student free-speech case since Vietnam.
The student, Joseph Frederick, insists it’s all about free expression: “I wanted to use my right to free speech, and I did.” High school authorities counter that it’s all about their right to stop pro-drug messages during a school-sponsored event.
It’s an interesting case (read one take on the legal arguments here), but you wonder if school officials didn’t overreact just a bit to a student prank. Still, it will be fun just to hear Supreme Court justices debating this one. What a trip.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
36 Comments
Bong, of course, is part of the drug language used by hard core adults and young people immitating them. If students are allowed to use any word they wish in a school setting, the “F” word, the “S” word, the “M” word, the “R” word (I made that one up) will also be used with impunity.
The question is, who’s in charge in public schools, teachers or students? And the people who pay the bills, the taxpayers?
Government has traditionally held that minors do not have the full rights and privleges of adults. This applies in such things as signing contracts, arrests, property ownership, etc.
So, my 2 cents is that they also do not have unlimited freedom of speech–especially when it comes to promoting/encouraging an illegal act.
Less troubling than the mention of bongs is the intrusion of religious terminology is a state school.
Either way, either we are teaching kids to be educated and active in free speech or we are not.
I for one do not think they should be restricted from putting thoughts to word until the magical age of 18 or 21 or whatever arbitrary standard might be set. Democracy and free speech are an ongoing process of natural born rights, not an end goal.
I think each school should set its own standards of so-called ‘decency.’
In the heart of Bible-Belt KS – that thing wont fly – in urban Bronx no one would give it a second glance.
Certain things are protected by free speech, but not everything. A child can’t decide it’s okay to start encouraging other students to assassinate teachers he doesn’t like, although in a true ‘free speech’ setting it would be allowed. He probably can’t articulate his desire to have sex with another student – at least not during his oral report….
I, personally, don’t like hearing children using curse words.
I guess that if we allow all forms of free speech, we’ll have to allow the religious to pander to the other kids in school also.
Instead, let’s just protect a modicum of free speech and allow different School Boards to either tighten or loosen those standards, depending upon the majority of the parental desire in that community.
We DO have to have SOME respect, after all…..
This case is not about a principal’s right to discipline students for conduct that occurs on campus. This incident occurred off school property. Also, this student was not in fact advocating marijuana use. He was only trying to aggravate his principal. While many principals undoubtedly have”had it up to the gills” with students who stretch the limits of decent conduct, principals need to know when it is time to take action and when it is time to say nothing. When the conduct occurs at an event that is only tangentially related to school business, and the “speech” is not advocating violence, it seems to me that the school’s legitimate right to control student’s behavior becomes tenuous. At some point, it becomes the job of the parents to regulate the legal but strange behavior and speech of their children.
If the message had been Witches for Jesus, would the principal have had the same reaction? Do students enjoy the right to use sarcasm in free speech?
This wouldnt even be an issue if the gov would just legalize pot!
GS,Respect, in my opinion, is something that has to be earned, just like loyalty, love and authority. When it’s demanded by people who simply have power, it loses all meaning.
Even worse Kelly, if the message had been “Bong hits for Mohammed” half the world would be ablaze, hostages taken and Imans on every street corner in the Mid East railing against the Great Satan in the U.S.
I say these kids need a serious swatting on the behind.
That worked back in my days. Ouch.
SOB,Well, now we know why you’re an SOB!
It’s called punishment…and it works. Simple.
THIS is deserving of Supreme Court review? Does the SCOTUS not have anything better to do? Please.
Basic principles: 1) Yes, students do have 1st amendment rights. The constitution does not stop “at the schoolhouse gate.” 2) the exercise of those rights is balanced against the unique environment of a school and its educational mission. See Tinker v. Des Moines S.D.
In light of that, the crucial question seems (to me) to be: does the nature of schools and the ability of schools to perform their function require a restriction of this speech? In other words, can the school effectively carry out its functions in the face of this speech? Close calls go to the schools here, not the students, as the ability to maintain basic discipline and order is necessary to operate effective schools. Given the frivilous nature of the speech and the pointed and direct challenge to discipline intentionally posed by the “speaker” (and I use that word loosely), it seems to me the school wins this round. Had the student been expressing some deeply held social/political/religious belief, it might be different.
It does seem to be a massive over-reaction on the part of school officials to a student who is simply going out of his way to be a pain in the ass – not out of principle, mind you (he is expressing no deeply held social or political viewpoint), but out of simply youthful rebellion. Just because it gets under the principal’s skin.
And JR, the reference to “Jesus” is entirely irrelevent. The constitution does NOT bar students from expressing their religious beliefs in schools. It prevents the schools from endorsing or promoting religious beliefs. Remember, the constitution is a limitation on gov’t power, not on private or church action. The religion clauses are there to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion.
It wasnt on school grounds. His parent’s are the only ones who have the authority to stifle his first amendment rights. The principal overstepped her authority.
Everyone who thinks he was stupid, and should be punished, thats fine, but who should do the punishing? His parents, or a school representive off of school grounds?
GMC, it is my opinion that under the teachings of Tinker, the young man’s position should be upheld. As I understand from what “facts” which have been reported, the sign was unfurled for television cameras during a parade for the Olympic torch. The school had been dismissed for the event; the band and cheerleaders were present; but, in essence, the event was a public one, not occurring on school property, with the offending sign located across the street from the school, on public property from at least one source I have read.
There is, however, something else at play in this case; it is the civil rights suit brought against the school district and the principal individually in which the young man involved is seeking damages. Thus, if the Plaintiff’s position (the student, who was a legal adult, being age 18) of a First Amendment rights violation occurred, the district and principal face a trial on the issue of damages, as I understand the matter.
The above “quick analysis” is taken from media reports and some blog entries I’ve read about the case, and is, as always, subject to revision, retraction, in whole or in part at a later time as I learn a bit more about the case.
However this case plays out in the courts we have a very real demonstration of the disrespect students show everyday in school for the teachers and administrators.
This is the major problem with education. Kids are out of control in large numbers and the parents are their are waiting with open hands for the damages to be rewarded instead of doing what SOB’s parents did.
What has happened to parental responsiblity today? Is the result of this the disorder we see everyday in our schools?
This goes much deeper that this story and doesn’t do much for our expectations for tomorrows leaders.
There is case authority, VT, that schools may discipline students for activities off of school grounds, if it effects the ability of the school to impose necessary discipline or disrupts the educational mission.
Please don’t make me go hunt the cites up; it’s been a while ago.
That said, however, the fact that the indicent took place at a function only tangentially related to the school and it’s educational mission is a factor, and one that I’ll agree cuts against the school.
GMC, not going to request citation; I’m aware of at least some of the authority.
Your final paragraph encapsulates the point I, in my overly verbose fashion, was attempting to make.
Sidenote: apparently the Plaintiff had a history with the Principal, according to one of the resources I’ve read (don’t recall right now, and am taking a short break so don’t feel like finding it), including a confrontation where he was in a common area reading an Albert Camus work, and she ordered him to leave. From memory, he wasn’t skipping class, and had been in the area reading for about 10 minutes; as I read this, I inferred there was no class period then in session. It seems to me that if my recollection as to no class being skipped, etc., is correct, he was doing something constructive. Of course, if there was a policy prohibiting him from being in the area at the time he was, different story to be sure. Again, from memory, there was no indication that this was true; just that his presence there was disturbing to the principal.
The high school authorities are going to be the winners of this case, why?We already have hate crime laws in place that if you call a dark skinned person the “n” word, even if you are dark skinned yourself, you can be fined and put in jail.So why should we give special privilege to this Alaska student to exercise his freedom of expression or his freedom of speech?
Free speech means free speech. I understand this case is a bit more complicated than that but when are people going to realize that having free speech means that from time to time you will be offended? Should the government protect your right not to be offended?
We should give the kid a medal for acting more American than most Americans. If rights aren’t exercised they’ll be lost.
He has the right to free speech as much as anybody else does. Public schools may either choose to ban ALL speech or they may have TMP restrictions on ALL speech (Time Manner and Place) but they may not ban speech that they don’t like simply because it “offends” somebody. If it is OK to hold up a banner that says “Support Our Troops”, it is also OK to hold up a banner that says “Bongs for Jesus”. And the sign could have meant Bongs for Jesus pronounced “hey-sus” and not “gees us” anyway.
Wow Ken, you sure do hate our troops don’t you.
I’ve seen this more than once from you.
“If it is OK to hold up a banner that says “Support Our Troops”, it is also OK to hold up a banner that says “Bongs for Jesus”.”Posted by: Kev | March 15, 2007 at 06:22 PM
Vaughn,
My understanding (often wrong so don’t take it with a grain of salt, but as a laywer, you can dissect the petitioner’s writ of cert posted at http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/JuneauSchoolBoardCertPetitionFINAL20060828.pdf) was that this Olympic torch parade passed by mid-day, so Juneau-Douglas High School did not release the students, but instead treated the parade-watching on its grounds, and across the street from the Juneau-Douglas High School as a “school activity”. This is the central point made by petitioner Deborah Morris, the school principal.
However, respondent Joseph Frederickson was 18 years old at the time. Under Alaska law, students over the age of 16 take classes voluntarily. Frederickson was not required to attend school that day (and actually did not go to any class).
There is zero evidence that his “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner was in any way controllable under “school authority”. The Olympic Torch-bearing ceremony was not sponsored by the school, in manpower, financing or materiel. Juneau-Douglas High School only provided “observers”. The only “observers” the school was legally authorized to supply were 16-year olds and younger who were, by Alaska statute, required to be in school at the time. But Frederick was not a reasonably definable school activity participant.This is a lovely example of America’s ironies, and sometimes fact-is-stranger-than-fiction parodies.
“Bong Hits 4 Jesus”? Totally irreverent satire. It makes no sense on its face, i.e. pot smoking being advocated to advance Christianity. But of course it was poking fun at straight-laced anti-drug fundamentalist Christians. That’s allowed under the First Amendment.
Another ironic/parodic element: In Tinker the issue was whether a black armband might cause STUDENT disruption. The SC ruled not. In Frederickson THE PRINCIPAL WAS THE ONLY DISRUPTIVE PARTY, in instigating a ruckus with student Frederick, grabbing his banner, and confiscating it as he tried to hold onto it (he only exercised passive, not active, resistance because a middle-aged female could hardly overpower a male 18 year old). Several other students co-holding Frederickson’s banner reportedly dropped it immediately at the principal’s order to do so.
The parade was otherwise passing peaceably. The torch-bearer was a “First American”, who may or may not have sympathized with the banner.
Parody three: The main argument in the cert petition is that the state was trying valiantly to reduce illegal drug use, and Frederickson was undermining the state schools’ program by sending a counter message. Given that a reported 60% of Alaska High students admitted to smoking pot, the program was an abject failure. Taking down Frederick’s banner wasn’t going to change this.
This kid was way smarter than the local school principal. He’s a hero (anti-hero) to his peers, standing up to authority and its punishments. He’ll become a successful adult, perhaps in business, almost certainly in politics. If he goes to college and applies himself, he’ll get into Harvard, Yale and Stanford law schools. Why? Because how many law school applicants can cite that they won a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling, and then took their case to the Supreme Court?
If the SC rules against Frederick, it will only add to Chief Justice Roberts’ concern about the SC’s erosion of “legitimacy” [sic, recent comments in The Atlantic monthly]. If the SC rules for Frederick, its “legitimacy” may be enhanced. But why didn’t it simply decline to hear the case? An 18 year old, who was under no legal compunction to attend school, did not attend school that day, and acted outside the school’s property on his own initiative, should be a “no brainer” First Amendment case. Strange that the SC feels that it must examine the case.
Mr. Frederick ran circles around the so-called state-employee “adult authority”. Did he bait her? Did he goad her to act in an emotional, non-level-headed, puerile, acting beyond her legally-authorized power? Perhaps he did. When she suspended him, for First Amendment-protected activity, she wanted to adversely affect this student’s grades, and perhaps prevent graduation in a timely manner.
Frederick’s frequent school absences raise an interesting matter. In the top-ranked colleges and universities, attendence is not taken. Completing the assignments and passing the tests is the grading standard. In K-12, and most community colleges, attendance is taken. That’s a financial issue for them: headcounts determine funding.
Almost no public high school teacher flunks a student for sitting in the back of the class and not participating in discussion per se. If he or she is “disconnected” but not being disruptive, and if he or she passes homework assignments and tests, no punitive action is taken.
This being said, if the principal had expelled Frederick for absenteesm, which didn’t happen, that would be an interesting case, in its own right.If an 18 year old attends at-will and completes the assignments and passes the tests, what’s improper about this, unless teachers issue team-participation assignments that are not completed by a frequently absent student?
ButFrederick was not expelled for absenteeism, rather he was suspended for exercising his First Amendment right, as a legal adult, doing something off school grounds on his own initiative, in a condition in which he was not definable to be participating in a school event.
The principal essentially violated Mr. Frederickson’s First Amendment right in confiscating his banner without lawful cause. She pretended to act under the color of authority. That was a blatant violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. The principal had no more legal power than the mayor to confiscate an adult’s free-speech banner.
With respect to the 10-day suspension, that’s bogus on its face, BECAUSE the principal didn’t act previously, “You’re expelled because you have the free right to attend or not attend high school, as a legal 18 year old adult, but your on-again-off-again attendance has been found by your teachers to constitute failure-to-participate in every daily class, as all other students do.” This would have been lawful, assuming that class participation actually determined students’ receiving passing or failing grades. (Which is unlikely, but possible.)
The principal and teachers didn’t mind Frederick’s being absent, at least not enough to give this young adult the boot for missing class. The principal alone, objected to Frederick’s lawful First Amendment exercise, acting as an adult, on his own time and in a non-school place, at a non-school-sponsored event.
The Ninth Circuit “got it right”.
Sorry, respondent is Joseph Frederick, not “Frederickson”
The principal alone, objected to Frederick’s lawful First Amendment exercise, acting as an adult, on his own time and in a non-school place, at a non-school-sponsored event. The Ninth Circuit “got it right”. Posted by: heartlander | March 15, 2007 at 07:11 PM
Then heartlander there is such thing as common sense, good order and discipline?
It’s sad that teachers can’t even maintain order at a school event without lawyers getting involved.
This is very, very sad.
Further, it makes the Principal a laughing stock. I’m sure she is humiliated by the decision. A victory for potheads… yay?
I would suggest the 9th Circuit go as acting Principals for six months at that school and see if they rule the same on their opinion when the potheads run rampant over them with their “free speech.”
Repub:
The thing is, the SCOTUS/9th Circuit/ad nauseum Federal courts of appeals have but one duty: To interpret the constitution as objectively as possible, and to view each individual case through that lens. Having them be high school administrators and then view the case through THAT lens would simply create a conflict of interest. The point here isn’t that there isn’t some merit to the objections of the school; it’s that despite their objections, it’s still an infringement of free speech as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. Applying your reactionary, emotional interpretations of the constitution only corrodes the armor that is our constitutional freedom. Just because you don’t like someone’s speech doesn’t mean it’s not protected. A man was once tried for having a bumper sticker that said “F*ck the Army.” The government considered it a seditious threat, but a Federal appeals court (not sure it went to SCOTUS) determined that since it was a practical impossibility to actually carry out the primary verb tense definition of the phrase, that it must be viewed to be a dismissal of the Army, and as such was protected free speech.
As it should be. Regardless of whether or not you agree.
Postal okay.
Doesn’t mean I have to like it. And it is my free speech right to say I don’t like the decision.
It is also my right for the freedom of association to not associate with potheads who make ridiculous signs that are intended to provoke or mock me.
And if my memory is long enough and if I’m in the position of ever hiring someone who has painted such a ridiculous sign is to never hire them at my place of appointment.
It is also my right if they come into a place of business I own to not serve them.(no nothing to do with race or ethnicity)
It is also my right not to give them a second chance out the kindness of my heart if they are standing before me in a court room.
It is also my right to report illegal use and distribution of drugs.
Ridiculous you say?
I agree.
Rights can be abused, can’t they?
Isn’t placing “maintaining order” over freedom a tenet of fascism?
Interesting situation, interesting comments.
A little off topic, I have to wonder what provoked this young man to post this banner at this particular place?
Was it:Previously planned or spontaneous?The result of previous conflicts with the Principal?The result of differences in attitudes or ideals between home and school?Rebellion against totalitarian rules at school?Rebellion in general?Showing off? To stand out in a croud?Displaying different attitudes toward drugs, religion, or both from those in power?Or just a smart kid that saw an opportunity to rail against the system?
Whatever prompted the banner, the subject matter is almost irrevelent. The only thing that really matters is if it was part of the duty of the principle to respond to the action. If it was not in their job duty, they clearly overstepped their bounds.
In December, USA Today reported that Frederick, then age 23, had been attending the University of Idaho, but was “teaching abroad this semester.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-01-court_x.htm
Another delicious irony in this case: the protester becomes a teacher.
Assuming this quote is correct, i.e. Frederick wasn’t STUDYING abroad, he was very likely in a Third World country. Another piece of evidence that this young man knows how to build a great resume for law school applications.
Frederick’s stated reason for making and raising the banner was to try to get on local TV, as stations were covering the relay. This sounds plausible for a creative and ambitious 18 year old. It may or may not be the true reason, but you can’t disprove it, as it is credible on its face, and the oppositing party did not present evidence to undermine it. If we think about it, Frederick, whatever his personal intention, may very well have cajoled the other students to participate on this point” “Hey, let’s get on TV!”
On “bong hits”, I have seen college students smoking legal store-bought substances with bongs, such as mint leaves. The Ninth Court of Appeals was right to find that the message was “nonsensical” in that no specific single inference as to Joseph’s intended message can be drawn with reasonable certainty.
The principal has been “kicked upstairs” to the less stressful role of “facilities planning coordinator”. This would suggest that supervising high school students, including young legal adults, was perhaps not her strongest suit.
Frederick, perhaps aided by his parents’ advisement, was shrewd. Most kids of his age who pulled an adolescent stunt of this nature would think that the school had the authority to confiscate the material and apply disciplinary action. They’d just be angry and disaffected. But not this kid. He went to the ACLU, and got an experienced and savvy trial and appelate team to represent him for free.
BTW, the principal and district are represented by Ken Starr for the SCOTUS appeal, Starr being the Whitewater prosecutor who harassed the Clintons, but couldn’t find sufficient evidence to convict them of criminal misuse of federally-insured S&L loan monies, despite spending several million dollars of taxpayers’ money to nail them. He’s doing this case pro bono.
SCOTUS could finesse this case, by narrowly holding that Frederick’s First Amendment right was violated in the banner confiscation, through error, not a deliberate intent by principal Morse to violate Frederick’s First Amendment (adult) rights. It could rule that the injury to Frederick was minor, so that no monetary damages are due, except perhaps for the material and work-time value of the banner that the principal destroyed.
The principal’s contention is that she perceived the students’ Olympic torch relay-attendance to be a school activity. Undermining this contention is the allegation made by ACLU, not contested by the district, that many students (we presume 17-18 year olds only) were allowed to leave the proceedings entirely–some went to grab a meal at nearby restaurants for example, without any faculty supervising them: they were not punished for “ditching” a putative school-sponsored event during the regular school day. It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS addresses this salient fact, or ignores it.
The district can only establish that 16 year old and younger students were required to watch the relay, under faculty supervision, but that older students were simply released for the period in question to do whatever they wanted to do–except express themselves freely in view of the younger students.
SCOTUS could find that given Frederick’s frequent voluntary absences, a 10-day suspension (reduced to 8 by the Superintendent) did not materially harm him, and given his current university attendance, this would indeed appear to be the case.
Chief Justice Roberts considers himself to be a non-ideologic pragmatist. There is no case law on point. apparently. Roberts and colleagues have room to maneuver fairly freely.
So SCOTUS could make a technical ruling for Frederick, but deny him the substantial monetary damages ordered by the Ninth Circuit. This would be a pragmatic ruling. Then, if the offense were repeated in the future, the school district should be subject to substantial damages for willfully violating a student’s off-campus, on-his-own-free-time First Amendment rights, and for committing vandalism in destroying an adult’s private, off-campus property.
Republican,
On sending judges to schools, Postal makes a compelling point.
But, also let’s consider the location of this school.
Juneau is the state capital of Alaska. If you leave Topeka, or any of the other lower-48 state capitals, you can drive to anywhere else in the lower 48. In Juneau, you can drive 5 miles north, or 10 miles south, and the road ends. You can’t get to Juneau except by air or sea. You can’t even get to the nearest town, such as Skagway or Sitka, except by air or sea. On the west you have the sea, on the east perpetually ice-covered mountains. Alaska is unique.
People move to Alaska to be free of the constraints of “civilization”. It’s an awesomely beautiful place, but an extremely hard place to live. Juneau is not as cold as interior Alaska. But it is covered by dense, dark cloud cover, with drizzle and rain for 300 days a year. It is rarely bitterly frigid, but it is COLD. Seattle is “balmy” in comparison.
Think about Kansas hunters who score a couple bucks and a dozen geese to eat every year. Now think about 90% of a populace that kills moose, bear and salmon to feed itself through the winter. If you can’t hack this, you move back to the lower 48.
Sunlight Affective Disorder (SAD) is endemic there. This is a form of light-deprivation depression. Some people try to use “broad spectrum” high-intensity lamps to treat it. Others get physician-prescribed antidepressants. “Legal druggies.” Others drink heavily. On Juneau’s main street, there are two or three bars on every block. I saw them. Others smoke pot. Self-medication. Is this acceptable behavior? It depends: do you live there?
In British Columbia, the government takes zero action against home-growers. What is legal, and what is tolerated by law-enforcement officers are two very different things. Up in the Far Northwest, there is a libertarian, live and let live ethos. “What you do on your own property isn’t my business, unless you encroach on me.”
I don’t know what current pot laws are, because I don’t smoke pot. But I remember in the 1970’s California enacted a law making small-amount pot possession equivalent to a traffic violation: a citation was issued. A fine had to be paid. Meanwhile, in Texas, it was a 99-year imprisonable offense. So if you hated pot, and considered its use a major crime, you could move to Texas, where the law, and majority sentiment, aligned with your views. Of course, you wouldn’t allow your kids to attend UT-Austin, because campus police there didn’t enforce the law, and as a result, pot use was locally rampant.
As opposed to crackheads, potheads don’t rob convenience stores to feed their habit.
In Alaska in 1975, the state supreme court held that possession of small amounts of marijuana in one’s home was not a prosecutable crime. The ruling was that up to 4 ounces possession was consistent with personal use, with no-ntent-to-distribute. Local police were prohibited from harassing people who used pot, but didn’t sell it.
A new law passed last year in Alaska making less than 4 ounce posession a crime–a misdemeanor–was held to be unconstitutional by an Alaska judge who cited the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling, and granted privilege for the possession of 1 ounce or less (accepting the argument that pot today is a lot more potent than in 1975, due to scientific cultivation practices).
Alaskans who abhore this can either: A. lobby the federal government to bring in more ATF and FBI agents enforce federal law, B. move to the mid-section of America, or C. mind their own business and live and let live.
I think we also have to keep in mind that this poster was what we would call ABSURDIST… it seeks simply to convey a point that is not sympomatic of any underlying movement, but rather a way to get under someone’s skin by putting two opposed concepts together to create controversy. It’s about the same as a poster that says “Pro-Lifers for Tiller.” Or, “Armalite proudly supports the Brady Campaign.”
Heart, as I have often said, I don’t make a living from predicting what Appllate Courts’ decisions will be; that applies in triple with SCOTUS.
However, your thoughts on the “narrow” ruling are in concert, for the most part, with mine. I would point out that the Tinker case is, IMO, precedential and should be followed. And, yes, I believe the fact that students over the age of 16 were free to not attend is a fact which some of the justices may well find material to the case.
Heartlander,
Using locality as a standard in a case where the case doesn’t involve an issue on locality is irrelevant.
“The Ninth Court of Appeals was right to find that the message was “nonsensical” in that no specific single inference as to Joseph’s intended message can be drawn with reasonable certainty.”
Clearly and by your own description, the sign was meant to incite a response. Using freedom of expression for provocation purposes is nothing new, but to use it to draw someone into a trap is not only abhorrent to what our ForeFathers meant by the phrase freedom of expression, it is a slap in face of what being a good citizen is.
Standards of toleration for free expression and speech have taken a turn for the more twisted forms of speech. The Ten Commandments, certainly not vulgar have been removed from Public places. People are being sued for flying an oversized US Flag. Protesters mocking the funerals of dead military people had to be first diverted by Patriotic motorcycle riders before courts would take action.
Like it or not, despicable cannot seem to be taken in and evaluated in the same frame of mind as our Constitutional Framers envisioned it.
They are surely rolling in their graves.
Republican
If you were cooped up in Juneau, unable to travel more than 10 miles for nine months a year, for many years (perhaps traveling a bit farther with a snowmobile), and generally not able to see more than a half mile 9 months of the year, your perspectives would be different from those of a plainsman.
A doctor offered me a 1-month practice coverage opportunity one time. This was in January. He wanted to get some sunshine in Hawaii. If he’d offered me a July slot, I’d have jumped at the offer. But he loved Juneau in July. He basically wanted somebody to aid him in improving his own mental health. (I later learned that he moved south after spending 2 years in Juneau.)
I declined his offer. I was living in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. It was mainly cloudy, but the coastal mountains west of us took most of the heavy rain. My family was able to take winter getaways to the brilliantly sunny backside of the Cascades two weekends a month, which I needed to recharge my batteries. I just wasn’t up to spending a month of 18 hour nights, as well as darker cloud cover and more fog and rain than I already was experiencing.
Living in Oregon, I met a lot of former Alaskans, most of them hale and hearty personalities. They loved Alaska, but found the winters just too hard to get through to live there permanently.
So, if you’re a kid who’s “locked up” there for many years, it might be really, really tough.
Would Frederick have done what he did were he living in a small town in Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma or Arkansas? Almost certainly not. He was not an “extremist”–quite the contrary. He was in an environment in which 60% of high schoolers smoked pot. His state’s Supreme Court legalized small-amount/personal use pot. As hard as it is for a Kansan to grasp, Frederick’s pro-pot position was mainstream for his locality.
Locality DOES matter. The late Speaker of the House of Representatives coined the phrase: “All politics is local.” Do you think Todd Tiahrt could get elected to Congress if he lived in Johnson County? Could Nancy Boyda have gotten elected in Wichita?
The Oklahoma Senate has 50% Republicans and 50% Democrats. Missouri has 61% Republicans. Kansas has 75% Republicans. Colorado’s Senate has 57% Democrats. In Nebraska, the legislature is unicameral, and non-partisan. The citizens get to vote for whomever they want in the primary election, and the top two vote-getters face off in the fall.
Do you think Kansas Republicans would allow Kansans to enjoy open primaries?
Missouri has one Democratic U.S. Senator and one Republican; Colorado has one of each party; Nebraska does too. Oklahoma has two Republicans, but historically had one (and sometimes two) Democratic Senators for most of the 20th century.
Kansas has had only three Democratic Senators since its admission to the Union. No Democrat has ever served 2 terms here. No Democrat has been elected in Kansas since 1932.Kansas’s Republican-only record since George McGill left office in 1939 is the longest single-party monopoly streak in America (for either party).
Kansas is DIFFERENT from other states, including those next door. Which is okay.
Alaska is different from other states. Which is okay.
The Alaska State Senate has a 55% Republican majority. The Republicans granted the minority Democrats the chairs of five committees: judiciary, health education and social services, labor and commerce, community and regional affairs, and transportation. The finance committee has bipartisan co-chairs.
This was crafted by a majority of Republicans who created a coalition with all the Democrats, generating a 75% bipartisan supermajority to marginalize far-right extremists, and change previously counterproductive conflict into productive cooperation.
Do you think Kansas Republicans would do this? Could they ever THINK of this?
So you might not like what is going on in Alaska, but they’re trying to do things that work for Alaskans.
There’s enough room in this vast country for people to exercise a wide variety of viewpoints, political experimentation and lifestyles.
You know Heartlander and no offense, perhaps you can have made your point in two paragraphs. I got what you were trying to convey to me at the very beginning.
However, I still disagree with the context and the premise of your argument.
I was surprised that some posters were only able to see the phrase “Bong Hits for Jesus” as contradictory. Have none of you heard of Carlos Casteneda? Peyote? Indians have used hallucinogenics as spiritual aids for eons of years. I know many people who are pot users AND are deeply spiritual. One doesn’t exclude the other. Also, I would like to suggest that 60% is likely a low estimate of usage. And finally, if his banner had read “gay power” or “Samoan Pride” or “Hell no, we won’t go”, would the principal have reacted as strongly? This is not only freedom of speech but freedom of choice as well.