The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear to the nation’s public schoolchildren Monday that their limited First Amendment protections don’t apply to self-expression that appears to be pro-drug. The justices ruled 5-4 against the Alaska kid suspended from high school in 2002 for unfurling a 14-foot-long banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at a school-sanctioned event. We shouldn’t read too much into the decision, just as the principal probably shouldn’t have read so much into a sign the kid claimed he meant as a joke. (Then again, that kid, now 23, pleaded guilty to a drug charge in Texas in 2003.) But it’s hard not to wonder if this outcome would have been different if the justices’ average age was younger than 67.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
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
- thomaswitt on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- Phantom on Let immigrants run
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
114 Comments
I haven’t read the decision yet, but it strikes me that this is a disappointing outcome.
Perhaps another conclusion after I’ve read the gory details.
And this is what ties up our Supreme Court’s time? Cases to make the Christians feel good about themselves? I heard Dana Perino (sp?) go on and on about how brave the two Supreme Court justices that George W. Bush placed on the court when they came out with this decision.
Hogwash – the count was 5-4 – I would not call that a landslide decision by any means.
Well, I suppose for the time being, Bush has managed to pack the Supremes, but with an average age of 67, and almost zero chances for a republican win next year, it won’t stay packed for long.
But Jeb Bush had help in packing the court, the spineless Democratic Senators caved.
That’s right fundies, express religious opinion at school and the Supreme Court says it’s okay to get your ass put in detention.
Too bad the Catholic 5 on the Supreme Court was too stupid to realize the phrase’s sole purpose was to irritate bible thumpers who preached at Mardi Gras. It means nothing.
The banner was in the best style of the Dadaist movement, right next to the Dali reproduction of the Mona Lisa, complete with Dali’s mustache. It was a celebration of oxymoronity, not an advertisment for illicit drugs. You’d have to get more than densely literal to take it that way. I’m rather astonished that “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Makes me wonder what the Bush Court will do next, reinstate the Comstock Laws and slavery, and have the teletubbies arrested?
” and have the teletubbies arrested?”
Over my dead body!!!!
This was a horrible ruling. So if somebody wears a NORML shirt to school that has a marihuana leaf and says LEGALIZE, is that now illegal too? This court is probably going to make a mess of the law and precedent before it gets fixed. Not that the old court with O’Connor was much better.
And if you think this reading was messy, wait till Thursday
I think what was in question was whether or not the event was actually a school sponsored activity. I don’t think it was. This SC is terribly scary…the new judges will do Bush’s bidding for a very long time.
I told you so.
pssst-
I heard a runmor today from the GOP. Bush is going to declare that since we are in a war on terror, the COnstitution is set aside, and he will remain in office until the war is on. In addition, he will sign an executive order barring al abortions, give 40% of all tax revenues to Halliburton, and invade Norway, put gays in concenration camps, and give all their jobs to illegal aliens, most of which ar catholic THE CATHOLIC 5 members of the Supreme Court havealready signed off on his plan and will vote in a block to grant him the title “his majesty”
Yes, we should encourage our teenage students to wear shirts that say “Legalize” with a picture of a marijuana leaf. It’s not like those shirts actually get more kids to use drugs. And at the same time, school principals should think twice about their actions against these intellectual high schoolers who are pushing the limits of the first amendment. It’s pretty clear, fundamentalist Christians are once again just trying to oppress free speech–they are not looking out for teenagers’ best interests. The supreme court should be revamped and those kids from Juneau should be the justices.
Like GMC, I’ve not read the opinion. However, in general, my initial thought is that this is a troublesome decision within the First Amendment arena. Again, as GMC said, should I have different thoughts after reading the opinion, I’ll post the same.
Was this a school event?
If so, ANY banner, saying ANYTHING, should have been approved, in advance, by the school authorities.
End of story.
Disruptive behavior is generally not covered by the First Amendment, especially if “YOUR” speach interferes with someone else’s speach.
Disruptive behavior by juveniles is NOT protected speach.
How hard is that?
Econ, from the history of the case, it is my belief that this was NOT a school-sponsored event. Rather, the parade at which the banner was unfurled was a public event, for which the school had been dismissed so the students, should they desire to do so, could attend. Attendance, as I recall, was not mandatory.
The student involved was in high school at the time, an adult as he was age 18. Again, from memory, there was not any attendance, etc., taken, and there was no requirement that the students attend the parade, being held on a public street which runs on one side of the school building. The sidewalk upon which the banner was unfurled was not on the school grounds (again from memory), but a public walk, across the street from the school.
Bad decision IMHO on its face.
GMC–
Now you’re starting to get it.
Who becomes President has consequences for the nation.
There’s no other way to interpret this except the CON 5 saying that “free speech is speech we agree with; anything else is not free speech.”
That’s the way Stalin and Hitler defined free speech too . . .
All we say to America is, “Be true to what you said on paper.” If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn’t committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of the press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right.
Martin Luther King, April, 1968
After a quick scan of the majority opinion, I am compelled to say the majority had to strain to arrive at the opinion released.
More appropriately, IMHO, why was cert granted in this case? From the facts as presented, this is a long way from Tinker, for example. A frivolous banner, apparently designed to provoke the principal, which succeeded. However, I ask myself why cert was even granted in this thing.
Many years ago we were dismissed from class in HS so we could attend an LBJ rally. However, a similar dismissal was NOT given to attend a Goldwater rally. I was one of those who got in trouble for ‘cutting’.
VT, GMC, aren’t the schools getting a bit partisan when they do things like this?
WHile I am no lawyer, I read the majority opinion, and part of the dissent. It seems to me the majority opinion had the poper viewpoint, but I have to agree. Why was cert even granted? Surely there are far more important things to take up before SCOTUS?
“Disruptive behavior by juveniles is NOT protected speach.
“How hard is that?”
I want it declared that if you can spell speech correctly, you get no protected speech.
As Tom Lehrer said to those who compained of having difficulty expressing themsevles: “then, kindly shut up.”
speech, sorry, always do that
“I want it declared that if you can spell speech correctly, you get no protected speech.” SD ??????
Steven, I guess you will have to be quiet now.
Hmm. One reason I never say nuthin about other people’s spelling or typing. My spelling is okay, but my typing is atrocious. I will do need to use the preview mode more. (sigh)
Capn-
As you wrote, the SCOTUS, you charge, says that “free speech is speech we agree with; anything else is not free speech.”
Funny. It seems to me that, as a general rule, that’s the left’s approach.
Yea, Capn, I “get it.” Of course, I got it years ago. That’s why I’m a conservative.
And, though Vaughn makes some strong points, I have to ask you lefties something:
What if the banner was one of Fred Phelps’ nutty phrases, like, or something like “Jesus hates bong-hitters”?
Vaughn, if this was a “field trip” type event, I am sure school policy spells out that students are not to put the school in a bad light.
Still, with the facts you present, I even admit that it is not quite such a “slam dunk” for school authorities as I had once thought.
I would prefer that the court had found a better case on which to make its point.
If it were Fred Phelps, we’d have to hold our noses and endure it.
I went to a Democratic event in Topeka where Barak Obama was speaking. On a prominent corner near the event was F*ckHead Fred with a big sign: a nazi swastika over the word “Democrats.”
When I saw that, my first response was to bury my fist in the guy’s face, but then I took a breath and walked on by . . .
It’s protected speech. Otherwise, we’re Communist China.
I don’t think people are getting the premise of the case here. Like Capn who blames Bush for everything. :)
“Bong Hits” Frederick sued the school district and the Principal in order to get the suspension lifted against him on the grounds of “freedom of speech.” The boy should have just shut up and took his punishment for being disruptive. Also from CNN, this bit of insight:
“Now 24, he(Fredericks) told reporters in March that he displayed the banner in a deliberate attempt to provoke a response from principal Morse, by whom he had been disciplined previously.” CNN
So it seems Fredericks was provoking a response and not his freedom of speech rights.
On the majority opinion, Judge Roberts stated:
“The message on Frederick’s banner is cryptic,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. But the school principal who suspended him “thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one,” Roberts said in the majority opinion.” Chicago Tribune
So here is a case that helps school administrators control disruptive behavior in and around schools which I find a good thing. Back in the day, this would have not be questioned.
Now days, every “slim stick” and nanny-begging swindle hoodlum thinks he can get away with anything under the protection of free speech.
Free Speech does not include that bad behavior be allowed in our schools. This is what this case was about, the justification for schools to limit disruptive behavior by students who want to “shoot the finger” and think they can get away with it.
This was not a case about free speech as Judge Roberts pointed out. Abusing free speech in the manner it was, is just another soulless attempt by secular progressives to warp the intentions of our found fathers.
To recap, Fredericks attempted to get out of his suspension by waving the banner of free speech. Instead, he was caught with his true intentions showing, that is, to be disruptive in a school environment and being disrespectful to school officials.
Isn’t this what we want folks? I mean all you whiners and complainers about less discipline in school and here is a decision to celebrate that helps Principals every where to put much needed teeth back into school discipline.
By the way Mister, where is your Hall Pass! :D
This “proud liberal” totally agrees with CapnA on the Phelps question. I don’t like anything Phelps seems to be for, but it is his right as long as he stays within the law to be as distasteful as he is.
found fathers=founding fathers
I will agree with capn and Linda about Phelps. I think there is a difference between such a parade and a funeral where I go along with restrictions.
I was at a dem function here in Wichita where the Phelpses showed up; actually it was rather amusing. Like I told the cop – ‘better here than bothering some family somewhere. we can take care of ourselves.’
“Steven, I guess you will have to be quiet now.”
Sheat no, outlander. Only in your fevered dreams…
I will need to go read the circumstances surrounding this case, and the basis for the decision myself. If the student was at a non-school event, why did he get suspended for his actions? In regard to the school, how was what he did different than if he had held the same banner in the mall on a Sunday?
Most likely he was suspended for “skipping” school as I recall the story. He was supposed to be in school, but showed up at an event where the school was participating and decided he needed to make himself the center of attention.
I’m unsure how the truancy laws work in that state, but pretty sure if a truant is caught, a school administrator can take the action necessary for appropriate suspension as their State Rules and Board of Education allows.
Which of course, is what happened.
WELCOME to the Taliban States of America!! First, nowhere in that Banner is it implied this is the Jesus of the “bible”, or the Heysus from Juarez… That was the implication made by some… That it was offensive to Christians. Second, the Parade in the town was NOT a field trip of the school… It was NOT a school function… AND, the student in question was 18 years old at the time… working on graduation from High School… He was NOT required in that state, or any other state, to be IN school at that age…
Third, the student said he was doing what he did to get back at the Teacher/Principal for something that happened BEFORE the parade and the Banner….
I agree with VT — How in sam hill did this thing even GET to the Court???
Republican, the school had DISMISSED classes that day because of a LOCAL parade… Whatever the reason, NOBODY was required to be in school that day… Go read it for yourself…. AND, as I said, truancy laws do not apply to ANYbody in ANY state who are over the age of 16…
It got into court Chas, because “Bong Hits” Frederick decided to change it from a school discipline issue to one of “free speech.”
The Supreme Court saw through that disguises and meted out judgment accordingly.
This case was never about “free speech” it was about the actions of a school administrator that ws perfectly appropriate in that situation.
Those waving around the “free speech” banner need to get a grip on what was examined.
The Principal of that school had NO authority at a NON School event, taking place on a PUBLIC Street, and having nothing to do with the School…. THAT sir, is the point in question… In so much as it had to do with a Banner(speech) it had to do a LOT with the First Amendment…
What might be interesting would be to find out, if available, what tension there had been between the Principal and the Student, before the “banner” incident…
You are probably right to a certain extent about the ages covering Truants Chas. But I think there was an issue in Alaska anyway as I understand it, that the School Administrator was required under State Law to suspend the student for unauthorized absence.
If they didn’t, the School could lose public (State and Federal) funds if they continue to show poor attendance without subsequent disciplinary action.
According to this Web Site, here’s how the “Freedom of Speech” issue crept into the mix.
“Frederick unsuccessfully appealed his suspension, then sued, seeking removal of the suspension from his record, an admission his rights had been violated, and damages. He lost in federal district court, but picked up support from the Student Press Law Center, the Village Voice newspaper, and the First Amendment Project. Sonja West, an attorney for those organizations, told the San Francisco Chronicle they intervened out of concern the federal district court ruling that the banner was school-sponsored expression was too broad and would allow the school to control any student speech as if it were a school newspaper, which the courts have ruled schools can censor. The 9th Circuit’s decision “reaffirms the idea that for a school to simply allow students to express themselves during school hours does not mean the school is endorsing the message,” West said.” stopthedrug WebSite
“Bong Hits” Fredericks had already lost one appeal in court and used a free attorney to fight this particular case under the guise of “Freedom of Speech.”
The school at which he attended had a policy of “no drug-endorsing” related protests or implicative signs, adornment or clothing.
There were no free speech violations here, just a case where a school bad boy got suspended for violating school policy under several rules.
This case should have never made it out of Alaska. It is a waste of everyone’s time to consider such trivial matters that were dealt with locally.
Wrong again Republican… If NOBODY is required to attend classes that day, then you cant suspend somebody from being absent… The student was NOT absent, cause there was NO SCHOOL that day… Get it???
And not only that, the School has NO authority to tell a student what he or she can say or wear outside of the limitations of the School, its events, and classes…
The School might not LIKE Nike’s… but they cant force a student NOT to wear them at a Wranglers baseball game…
BTW, I use Nike’s because in some cities, Nike’s are gang fodder….
Chas,
It was a school-sponsored event at the parade. Which as I understand it, falls under “absentee permission” laws of that particular school district. With that said, all of the rules applied for that School District applied because it was a school sponsored event.
Now Chas, you can argue semantics all you want, but the event was sponsored by the School and the rules that applied were by law and definition under the School District where they were held.
It’s like a school sponsored Event at the Zoo. The rules don’t get thrown out the window, because some malcontent wants to abuse them.
You are defending wisps of dissident air Charles and there is nothing there to defend.
“Most likely he was suspended for “skipping” school”
School was not in session. The banner was unfurled off school grounds, across the street.
Given those facts, how was the school allowed to punish the student?
If a student drops the F-bomb at a drive in restaurant a mile from the school, can the principal still suspend him?
Read my previous post WSCLark. School Sponsored Events are by law the ability to have the standing of a classroom. There is no difference in conduct rules applied at these events or in a classroom.
It’s a simple concept really. Examine the facts.
REPUBLICAN, for the umpteenth time, this was NOT a school sponsored trip, like a trip to the Zoo… It was some kind of a local community event… The School had dismissed classes on that day, so students could attend the Community Event… NO attendance record would have been in force on THAT DAY…. The Sign was NOT on school grounds… And the School had NO authority over those students who chose to attend that Parade…
What is there that is difficult to understand about this case??
The SCHOOL has authority at SCHOOL events… Like Clark noted above, an F Bomb at the drive-in a mile away, is not an enforceable offense for the school to be involved with… And neither is this Banner… no matter how offensive it might have been to the Principal!!!
One more time with FEELING: Mr. Republican, THIS WAS NOT A SCHOOL EVENT… SCHOOL WAS DISMISSED FOR THAT DAY… IT WAS NOT A SCHOOL EVENT… NO ATTENDANCE WAS EVEN TAKEN THAT DAY… THIS WAS NOT A SCHOOL EVENT!!!!
I think that is clear enough —
Whatever Chas…Show me where it was not a School Sponsored Event.
Evidently, the School could not even made a suspension ruling if it wasn’t a School Sponsored Event.
You lose your base of reasoning by denying the action that was taken under that particular School Districts by-laws. That is, the action could never have been taken if it was not a School Sponsored Event.
So keep on flailing about Chas, perhaps you eventually find something in the empty air eventually.
How many of you have actually READ the damn decision. THe dissent makes little more than a side note about it may or may not have been a school activity. Had that been the valid and preemptory argument, don;t you think they would have used it? The dissenting opinion is about wether or not the school cold reasonably hold back “free speech” on the banner that even by the banner holders own statments, wasn;t promoting anything other than trying to get attention. I thnk the majority held sway, but barely. The dissent makes some very valid points. However, one of note that “bong hits for Jesus” is really very oblique reference to drugs. “bong hits” for anything, is pretty much drug related. But I digress. Read the damn thing, all 60 pages, huh?
OK… Here’s the deal… The event was the Olympic Torch passing through this town on its way to the Winter Games in Utah…
It is NOT a SCHOOL SPONSORED event… but, because the School felt it an important event, the School dismissed classes… That makes it NOT SCHOOL SPONSORED… NOT on school property, but SCHOOL sanctioned… Attendance NOT required… Attendance NOT taken… School Sanctioned and School Sponsored are two different entities… with different RULES…
In THIS case, all the School did was say, Hey, the Olympic Torch is coming through our town… Might not ever happen again… If you want to go see it, GO! School is out for the day!!
If it was school sponsored, it would have been attendance required… THEN the student could have been punished for NOT attending, AND, yes, even for using the Banner….
As a school sanctioned event(read here, SNOW DAY) The school had no authority over student behavior.
So, that mystery is now solved…
I am all for Schools maintaining order at School Sponsored events… but what a student does at a NON School event, is in the hands of local authorities, and parents….
L J — your keyboard reminds me of one I used to have… needs work in spelling… Other than that, Good Post there… I think that SCOTUS is being a bit frivolus on this one… and a bit of the dark ages showing through..
LJ, I read the dissent’s seemingly off-hand remark about a school activity as being an acknowledgment that that fact, in and of itself, had little bearing on the First Amendment claim. The majority makes quite a bit of the “school sanctioned” event argument in arriving at its opinion, which I invite all to read in its entirety.
Chas, responding to your query upthread, there was a history between the principal and the student involved from reading articles and other sources concerning the case at the time of oral argument. My analysis: she didn’t like him, he didn’t like her.
Yeah, this thing if full of typos and mispellings. To top it off, it has different typos and spellings than my home computer. Dang things. I agree about SCOTUS being a bit frivolous. Somehow bong hits for Jesus just doesn’t raise to the same level as the questions raised and answered in Tinker, for instance. Although the First Amendment is serious work, always.
I agree VT — At the time this thing first happened, I remember making the comment that perhaps it was a battle of personalities, and it should have been dealt with at a School Board meeting… Thanks for the memory boost…
Vaughn Tolle-
But I think the question is wholly relevant. WSCLARK and CHAS are right to point out that if this was not a sponsored activity, then the school has absolutely no right to interfere. However, if it was, then the school, through some of the cited precedence, has the right to regulate speech that promotes illegal activity. Then, the argument goes, did it promote illlegal activity. I think it did not, and give the dissent good points for that. However, if the school had no authority, it had no authority, and that ought to have been the argument, no?
Vaughn:
I’ve not read the opinion (too much to do – an Agg. Kidnapping case, two briefs, etc, etc.) but I respect your legal analysis.
My question is this: Keeping in mind the question presented on cert, and the standards which generally apply re: deference to school officials’ decisions and responsibilities, the record, etc., does the majority present a solid rationale for its decision? I know, you may disagree with it, but strap down that lawyer hat.
In other words, What’s your bottom line opinion?(Yes, I know, I’m using you as a shortcut for reading the opinion, at least for now – but I respect your analysis)
Chas,
Sorry you had to go through so much emotional turmoil in trying to prove your point. Read the first line of the link from the Supreme Court of the United States about what is says about it being a School Sponsored Event.http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf
GMC and Vaughn,
I’m somewhat disappointed that neither of you recognize the importance of “loco parentis” in this case. Perhaps you have manipulated in your mind, but neither one of you saw through the trees to examine the forest.
Any re-thinking from either of you on this case?
GMC, waiting on a response from a client concerning closing of a sale of business assets set for Friday, so will give you a shorthand response.
My bottom line opinion is that the majority analysis makes sense only in the case where “school sponsored”=”school sanctioned”. In fact, had the event been school sponsored, I’d not disagree with the opinion at all.
The majority makes much of “school sanctioned” and the possible construction of the banner as promotion of drug use. As I mentioned above, this is a big stretch, IMHO, and I believe the dissent has the better argument here.
Conclusion: bad case that should never been before SCOTUS yielding bad law.
Good luck with the briefs, etc.
We crossed posts Vaughn, you answered my question. :)
Repub, “in loco parentis” makes no sense in this case to me. As posted above, had the event been, in fact, school sponsored rather than school sanctioned, the majority analysis would not draw a peep from me.
Vaughn Tolle,
I am still not getting it. If school sponsored vs school sanctioned, is the dividing line, And I am not sure I disagree, would not the dissenting opinion made more of this fact, and attempt to make the point that the school had no jurisdiction? Aren;t juridictional points or other finely divided legal points of the same nature used all the time?
I understand Vaughn, but if you will read the alternative terms describing the event as “school-supervised” wouldn’t this be inclusive of all School District rules applicable in regarding the handling of the situation?
The exact wording I think is school authorized, or school sanctioned… And I think that if one wants to hang on to that concept, then another, rather silly, question needs to be raised: Did the Principal seek the proper “parental permission” slips required for a student to participate in a school authorized event?? (Like going to the Zoo)
I see nothing in the Court decision that declares whether Principal Morse did, or did not, obtain parental permission slips from parents BEFORE the Torch event…
I would still argue that there is a distinct difference between School Authorized(sponsored) event, and school Sanctioned event.
And I still maintain that IF it is merely a school Sanctioned event, then the case should have been decided at a School Board Meeting.
The 5 CONs unlike the District Court concluded that this was a “school function” and that the teachers and administrators were charged with “school supervision.”
An 18 year old kid standing on public access to a public street is “at school” if the teachers encouraged students to be there.
So . . . if they set up voting booths in the gym and the teachers encourage students to go vote, they can suspend a student who votes with a T shirt that says “Legalize Hemp.”
Zeig Heil!
Irrelevant semantics won’t get noticed much in Supreme Court Cases Chas. You need to try a different approach.
So . . . if they set up voting booths in the gym and the teachers encourage students to go vote, they can suspend a student who votes with a T shirt that says “Legalize Hemp.”
Zeig Heil!
Posted by: CapnAmerica | June 26, 2007 at 03:05 PM
Most likely he/she would be suspended Capn. If there is a problem with that, then graduate or drop out of High School and wear the “legalize hemp” T-Shirt all you want.
Yeah, let’s encourage Drug Use Capn, that’s the ticket.
As pointed out by VT above, I do NOT believe that the difference between Sanctioned and Authorized is irrelevant…In fact, if it was clearly a school sponsored(authorized) event, then I dont disagree with the SCOTUS decision either… But, since I am not certain of that, my question remains as to whether it was school sanctioned, or school authorized…. We may never know.
So . . . if they set up voting booths in the gym and the teachers encourage students to go vote, they can suspend a student who votes with a T shirt that says “Legalize Hemp.”
Zeig Heil!
Posted by: CapnAmerica | June 26, 2007 at 03:05 PM
Maybe, but I think not under Tinker. The t- shirt you use to make your point is taking an advocy position, not encouraging illegal activity, or encouraging significantly disruptive behavior
Might I remind Mr. Republican, that Hemp has MANY MANY uses other than for smoking… Indeed, entire industries are made out of the usage of Hemp, that have nothing whatever to do with smoking pot…
I did get quite a chuckle out of the SC’s opinion trying to find some kind of interpretation of the words displayed on the banner… Can you see these stalwart justices huddled around a picture of this banner, all attempting to decide: What does it mean?? LOL
Hey maybe a good one for SNL, or that cable news spoof show…
Industrial grade hemp has no value for a pot smoker – it has little THC – so a user would have to smoke pounds of it to get high.
I know that Clark… But yet it is still banned as illegal in many states… industrial strength, or not… I believe Colorado still bans Hemp sales in any form, if I am not mistaken… Of course, some states have authorized possession in small amounts now as being legal…
Some day, we might just get it figured out…. And yes, I am over 56, and yes, I did, unlike Mr. Clinton of folklore fame, inhale… LOL
“a user would have to smoke pounds of it to get high.”
So, THATS what has been wrong with my… Ahem… Hemp all these years.
“did get quite a chuckle out of the SC’s opinion trying to find some kind of interpretation of the words displayed on the banner… Can you see these stalwart justices huddled around a picture of this banner, all attempting to decide: What does it mean?? LOL ”
Could be a great skit———————————so a user would have to smoke pounds of it to get high.
Posted by: WSClark | June 26, 2007 at 03:17 PM
So you say :)
“
Interesting hemp facts…..
“Make the most of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere.”
George Washington, 1794
http://www.lightparty.com/Energy/Hemp5.html
The kid should have said “hit a bong, for Jesus”.
I didn’t realize that Capn was referring to industrial grade hemp or any other application for it thereof. My bad.
However, the implication of promoting drug use still applies and even if it was a”Legalize Smoking pineapple” on his/her shirt the attempt by the student should be considered as a violation of school policy.
The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a drug is not the issue.
The promotion of substance use or should I say abuse is the main constituent for the rules.
Having read the majority opinion, the two concurring opinions, the dissent, and the dissenting/concurring opinion, it was critical to the majority opinion to have this case framed as a “school speech” case. Thus, the “school sanctioned” argument, pulling in the handbook (which, from the partially excerpted portion set out in the dissent, would seemingly not facially apply given a reasoned reading of the banner’s words) to justify the restriction. I cannot recall if it was in the majority opinion or in one of the concurring opinions, but implicitly if not straight out, the language there admits that if not a school speech case, then there is a First Amendment violation. Again, my thought is that cert should not have been granted here. As it was, then again my thought that the majority’s opinion and analysis is a stretch.
This case isn’t Tinker, or even close, In fact, I feel I’m trivializing Tinker by even posting its name in discussing this case.
BTW, I found Justice Breyer’s dissent/concurrence interesting, and all in all, the analysis he presents the most useful and practical in how this case should have been decided by SCOTUS, IMHO.
Now, back to document editingrevision/drafting/other joys of office practice.
However, the implication of promoting drug use still applies and even if it was a”Legalize Smoking pineapple” on his/her shirt the attempt by the student should be considered as a violation of school policy.
The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a drug is not the issue.
The promotion of substance use or should I say abuse is the main constituent for the rules.
Posted by: Republican | June 26, 2007 at 03:29 PM
I don’t think SCOTUS would agree. It is not promoting illegal drug usage, but advocating a political position, ie the legalization of something, hence, would probably be protetected,
Got sloppy there in my last post. When I said “First Amendment violation”, should be “a First Amendment protected statement”.
LJ, as I read the majority opinion, the Chief Justice seemingly implied as much when discussing the wording on the banner.
Absolutely GREAT link Clark!! Had to make that link a keeper!! Now if only Nathan could read that one… Who knows, maybe he has…
Isn’t the promotion of something and advocating something pretty much similar lj? :)
Methodology notwithstanding, via politics or personal agenda, I think “intent” that is categorized as contrary to school policy is the point.
Ummm I believe that there is a legal hair splitting between advocating for something, and promoting something… Might want to touch base with VT, or GMC on that question, Repub… Lots of hair splitting in legal definitions.
Now, just to make sure some of you get this, IF this is a case of a School sponsored(authorized) event, then I am in full agreement with the SC majority opinion…
But IF this is a school sanctioned event, then I am in full agreement with the dissenting opinion… and it should not have even come before the Court.
Isn’t the promotion of something and advocating something pretty much similar lj? :)
Methodology notwithstanding, via politics or personal agenda, I think “intent” that is categorized as contrary to school policy is the point.
Posted by: Republican | June 26, 2007 at 03:39 PM
No. Advocating the LEGALIZING of something is not ADVOCATING the usage of something.
I advocate the legalization of gay marriage, something I personally do not advocate.But you are right to a certain degree. Intent is important. As in I intend to work for the legalization of Hemp, versus I intent to illegally use hemp. Note the difference?
Yes lj…
I’m simply viewing this through the eyes of a School Principal who must make quick and accurate judgments without the influence of outside kibitzing over every decision they make regarding a policy that is pretty much common sense.
A kid wearing a t-shirt of a Jesus image I imagine could be suspended if it was in violation of the School District’s policy and that kid had a record of previous violations.
There is way too much horseshoeinggoing on in this thread.
It’s a simple matter, really it is.
Why does that clown, “capnamerica” always quote mlk and go on about “free-speech” when he is always threatening to have people like Ed banned?
As to the topic, I say again, ban ALL religion! People of “faith” who believe in a “supreme being” in the sky are insane and dangerous.
The early headline on MSNBC today was regarding the bumper crop of poppy’s in Afghanistan last year. If you don’t know, poppy’s are used to manufacture heroin and opium. Afghanistan produced 49% more poppy’s last year than the year before. Afghanistan is responsible for 92% of opium production in the world.
“U.N.: Opium production soaring in Afghanistan – Nation’s record poppy harvest has boosted global supply to new record high”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19431056/
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to focus on the deadly crop of potentially addictive heroin from Afghanistan than to worry about some High Schooler touting “Bong Hits for Jesus.”
Maybe he should have had a banner that said “Needle Tracks for Bush.”
I know the location of tens of thousands of defoliant that would take care of that Afghanistan problem real quick WSClark.
Vaughn,Is “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” advocating illegal drug use, or is it part of a campaign to legalize marijuana? If it’s the latter, then wouldn’t it then be protected as political speech?Back in the late 1950’s we had several cases here where students were expelled for advocating ideas considered communist inspired, including racial equality and a ban on nuclear weapons. I don’t recall suits being filed in such cases, but it would seem to me that those would have been considered cases of protected speech under the First Amendment.
“I know the location of tens of thousands of defoliant that would take care of that Afghanistan problem real quick WSClark.”
So why hasn’t Bush ordered the military to clear out the poppy crops?
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to focus on the deadly crop of potentially addictive heroin from Afghanistan than to worry about some High Schooler touting “Bong Hits for Jesus.”
Posted by: WSClark | June 26, 2007 at 03:53 PM
On a national basis, I couldn;t agree more. Why SCOTUS took this case I have no idea, but I doubt the principal or the student had any such concerns when they took their individual actions. I doubt the principal saw it as either/or, and I doubt the student saw anything but an opportunity to 1) get on tv, and 2) stick it in the eye of the principal. This case took on way more significance thatn it deserved
Jed it is ideally classified as a case of student misconduct as outlined by the School District’s rules.
The Free Speech issue was an add in by the attorney who later represented “Bong Hits” Frederick after he lost his appeal to overturn the school’s decision.
The kid violated school policy and was subsequently suspended.
It’s really that simple. Really, it is.
WS,”So why hasn’t Bush ordered the military to clear out the poppy crops?”
Probably for the same reason our state legislature a decade or so ago refused to spray ditchweed (wild marijuana) that grows in Kansas. They said it might also cause harm to the giant ragweed. Hey, the ditchweed doesn’t concern me, but if they could harm the giant ragweed, I’d be ever so grateful!
Publican,You’re telling me the school had a previously stated policy against “Bong Hits 4 Jesus?”
Yes Jed, they have had a rash of bong hit attacks where they were disguised as preachers. Pretty scary affair, really.I am sorry, I could not resist. SOmetimes my inner child demands to be let out. Sometimes I resist.
Okay Jed buddy, step away from the Liberal diatribe and examine what school policy against the promotion of drugs use might indicate.
Gee, it might indicate that the schools are opposed to drug use…
“Probably for the same reason our state legislature a decade or so ago refused to spray ditchweed”
Nonsense. Ditchweed grows wild – poppy fields are cultivated by farmers. There has been news footage showing fields of poppy’s growing. They don’t grow by accident.
Christ.
It really is not that simple. Might I remind you that 4 supreme court justices did not concur with your opinion.
Had this been during a school sponsored event, I would agree. I do not believe this was any sort of school sponsored event. If simply by definition a school sponsored event is during school hours, then football games at night would not be covered.
There are all sorts of things school lets out for that aren’t school sponsored.
Lets put it this way…if during Martin Luther King day, and black students can take a day off….can they now be held accountable for their speech if it disagrees with the school? It’s during school hours…The school let them out.
“If it were Fred Phelps, we’d have to hold our noses and endure it.
I went to a Democratic event in Topeka where Barak Obama was speaking. On a prominent corner near the event was F*ckHead Fred with a big sign: a nazi swastika over the word “Democrats.”
Actually, as a Democrat, I openly encourage people like Phelps and Coulter to keep doing what they are doing. If I were the DNC, I would find ways to slip these people a little cash on the sly so they could expand their message to a wider audience!
“The SCHOOL has authority at SCHOOL events… Like Clark noted above, an F Bomb at the drive-in a mile away, is not an enforceable offense for the school to be involved with… And neither is this Banner… no matter how offensive it might have been to the Principal!!!”
Used to be that way when I was in school. If you fought in school, you would be in trouble. But if somebody did something that required they be beat on, you waited until after school and went down the street to give them a whuppin.
“Lets put it this way…if during Martin Luther King day, and black students can take a day off….can they now be held accountable for their speech if it disagrees with the school? It’s during school hours…The school let them out.”
If only black students are allowed a day off on MLK day, the school is going to be in court over bigger issues than a sign. That is discrimination and highly illegal. Not even a private business can legally say “OK you blacks can have Monday off but you whites come to work as usual”.
Uh PMom,
Er nm, it would take a lifetime to explain to her.
WS,Actually, ditchweed didn’t happen by accident; hemp (marijuana) was cultivated in Kansas during WWII for the manufacture of rope that was in short supply after the fall of the Phillipines. Some survived and propagated since then, only to be harvested by wayward and desperate hippies, although I’m told that it’s so low quality as to be practically useless for smoking purposes. I just wish they’d make ragweed illegal!
Yea, it could take a lifetime, if you have nothing to start with…
Well I hate to break it to you Kev, but some schools around my neck of the woods do handle it that way.
Okay, just very briefly folks. No time for cites or follow-ups–the regulars are gonna have to get my back, alas.
I skimmed thru the opinions yesterday. A few observations.
Those who are cheering this crap: please explain (to anyone) why explicitly poltiical statements, say, “legalize marijuana now” or “support medical marijuana” would be protected speech (that’s what was ruled), but an obvious joke like “bong hits 4 jesus” would not?
I of course understand the (private) logic beyond the decision. After 20+ years of relentless anti-drug propaganda in the schools, we are now being told that referring to marijuana in a non-political way–let alone not taking it DEADLY SERIOUS–is verboten. How dare they! Damned stoners! (Face it: YOU KNOW that’s what they were thinking, folks; remember Kennedy’s disgusting “druggie school” attack on Lindsay Earls?).
Let’s assume the cirmcustances were in fact equivalent to being, say, at a school assembly. That doesn’t make what the majority did any less chilling. Special school environment, en loco parentis, you say? Well, okay: what is the standard, then? The district argued for total control over speech, period (”I like pie” could be an offense); Thomas alone apparently agreed with them (he would reverse Tinker!).
But, assuming that they were somehow “promoting” illegal activity, what, again, is the standard? Other than the reasonable [hysterical] view of the school administration? What does “promoting” illegal activity even mean?
In the adult world, the relevant precedent (for now) is whether speech is directed to or inciting imminent lawless action (the Brandenburg case). If Fredricks will become the comparable case in the school environment, what on Earth is permissible, and what is not?
If you favor legalizing marijuana, how is it that you can dryly express this position with constitutional protection, but anything else you might say in support of this view that expresses a non-negative view of the drug (such as, say, DAREing to joke about it!), can be recklessly swept under the rubric of “advocacy”? The Fascist Five are pulling a fast one: IF I say “I like marjuana,” that may IMPLY the POSSIBILITY of personal civil disobendience, but it doesn’t even suggest–let alone direct lawless action from others, imminent or otherwise. Nor could it be said to be “disruptive” under the Tinker standard.
And, as Justice Stevens aptly pointed out, this is Alaska, where private possession of marijuana has been judicially upheld (under the Alaska constitution) as something that cannot be made criminal. One could very well interpret “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” as a cry of compassion for the terminally ill. I don’t believe that–Frederick has never made such a claim–but if we’re going to engage in reckless speculation about its meaning (and conclude that it somehow advocates defying the law), why the hell not?
Will it be permissible to talk about drugs in schools only if one is evangelizing against their evils? I have little doubt that majority would like it to be that way.
But if we are to set up a new Borkian standard, where only explicitly political speech is protected (gag!), then even peaceful, well-considered, intelligent dissent is in danger. I think GMC and Vaughn (2 of our resident attorneys) can see that.
I believe, like Justice Stevens, that students do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate.
Rage, your 1:00 am post described in the penultimate paragraph my distress with the majority opinion in this case.
Justice Thomas needs to retire.
“I wish they would make ragweed illegal” posted above by Jed —
The Lions Club is a GREAT civic organization.However, back when I had time for them, I asked some of there leaders the following question:
“If every lawn and garden store in America has herbicides intended to kill dandelions, and there is no commercial use for dandelions, and nearly every home owner hates dandelions, and we have FAILED to eliminate dandelions, how do you think the Lions campaign to eliminate marijuana will work?”
By the way, most of the Hemp grown during WWII was transported by train.Creek banks directly under railroad bridges are usually full of wild hemp, even today.
their leadersdid it again, sorry
This case was muddled from the get-go.
According the the Ninth Circuit petition, students were allowed to wander down the street and go into a cafe, under no adult supervision. No measures were taken to bring them back to the schoolyard. Defendant Principal Morris did not dispute this. So parade-watching attendance was optional. Students were effectively dismissed from school.
The Olympic torch parade was a free public attendence event, permitted by the city as a private-party street-usage event, run by the International Olympic Committee and paid for by Coca-Cola and General Motors. The school contributed no money to the Olympic Committee, either in donation or event-ticket purchases.
The school-band played in the schoolyard. This was a school-sponsored activity. We would think that had any band players elected to skip the event, they could be disciplined by the band leader the next day, but the principal could not suspend them from school anymore than it could suspend a football player for failing to show up for after-school practice or a game.
The banner, Bong Hits 4 Jesus, was nonsensical. Assuming a translation to Marijuana Smoking for Jesus, this would be an absurdity on its face. One would have to impute marijuana smoking to be represented to be a religious act, specifically one connected to Christianity. The sign taken in this context is nonsense.
Would it then be interpretable as an incitement, or enticement to readers to smoke marijuana? Not unless the purpose was to spur marijuana smoking for Jesus. This would require an argument that somebody could be convinced that Jesus approves marijuana smoking, an argument that has no serious foundation.
It is very likely that some teachers looked at the sign as sophomoric, and some might have laughed at the “theater of the absurd” nature of teenagers holding up this nutty sign.
Justice Stevens got it right: the majority SCJ’s gave the principal the authority to form a “reasonable opinion” that the sign was intended to encourage sub-adult readers to smoke marijuana, even though the sign contains no explicit exhortation, so the principal invented her own interpretation, which the SCOTUS could not find to be the sign-maker’s actual purpose.
Justice Thomas’s separate opinion devotes substantial arguments to the in loco parentis. His citations are from the 19th and early 20th century, a period in which society was very different from what it is today. JIm Crow laws were tolerated by the federal government. We much more barbaric. Fathers were allowed to beat their wives and children with impunity. Schoolteachers could inflict levels of injury on students that would constitute criminal battery today. John Ise’s “Sod and Stubble” describes a malevolent teacher who beat him and his brother merely because they were German. For severe beatings she waited until Fridays when her brother took her home for the weekend, and he beat them, inflicting deep soft-tissue injuries. This teacher was 14 years old. Her brother was not an employee of the State of Kansas or the local School District.
Justice Thomas is ignorant. Did parents authorize 14 year old girls to act in their stead? These pubescent girls–puberty occurred 2 years later than it does today–were not even adults. How could they act as parent-substitutes? Moreover, children were forcibly separated from their parents by the state. Both of these were entirely different from the original common-law custom of boys being put into the hands of fully-adult men tutors and schoolmasters, in private voluntary transactions. In that system, fathers set boundaries of acceptable methods and causes of discipline. If a tutor or schoolmaster refused to accept these conditions, then the father could decline to hire him.
The post-Civil War period was a time of great corruption of the Founding Fathers’ vision of America. There was no such thing as compulsory institutional childhood education in their time. This was a German invention devised to expedite industrialization. It was imported here after 1850 to enable America to industrialize, using tens of millions of imported peasants who were put to work in factories and mines.
To follow Thomas’s citation-based arguments, we would benefit by turning the clock back 100+ years. That would be great for blacks, sure.
As importantly, in loco parentis means an agent acting in place of a parent. The Juneau principal wasn’t acting in place of Frederick’s parents, because they supported his expression. She could not have been acting in place of the parents of kids across the street, because those parents would not have had the legal authority to make Frederick and friends take down the banner.
So Thomas’s in loco parentis arguments represent very muddled thinking.
The Juneau school was a state entity. Possession of up to 4 oz of marijuana is legal under the State of Alaska Constitution according to two Alaska Supreme Court rulings and a third expected to be issued shortly. State and local police are prohibited from arresting people for possession, and personal use, although sales are illegal.
The federal Controlled Substances Act is controlling, but the federal government has elected to not enforce the Act in Alaska vis-a-vis small-amounts possession without distribution.So marijuana’s legality is muddled in Alaska, with its use effectively being permitted, for adults.
The decision was muddled, 5-3, with Breyer concurring in part and dissenting in part. He voted to absolve the principal of liability, while arguing that the Court’s holding could pave the way to a widespread restriction against expressing viewpoints.
Chief Justice Roberts came in with a stated mission to create consensus, without which he fears the Court’s legitimacy is threatened. He has substantially failed his mission, as this case exemplifies. He needs to more thoughtfully consider the cases the Court should take to avoid split decisions.
As Vaughn and others have stated, this was not a wise case to take. It may prevent overt communications, but they’ll just go underground. Kids will develop codes that adults cannot dicipher.
Frederick is the winner here. His schoolmates admired his stand-against authoritarianism on this and other occasions. He annoyed and frustrated the principal to no end, but suffered no adverse consequences. Frederick defeated her, as she surrendered her school command and took a job coordinating school district events, which conferred no significant authority, while went to college and then decided to travel around the globe, teaching in two different continents so far.
And now, with Acehnese twist (the tsunami place, the most conservative islamic region of Indonesia).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070627/od_nm/indonesia_marijuana_dc;_ylt=ApAYEXa8JTi1xGY5koeFVrbMWM0F
Politician okays marijuana in food
Wed Jun 27, 12:20 PM ET
JAKARTA (Reuters) – Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla, who opposes legalizing marijuana, doesn’t mind the drug being used in cooking, a newspaper reported on Wednesday.
“It’s alright to use it as a food seasoning, but it should not be fully legalized,” Kalla was quoted as saying by the Jakarta Post daily.
Kalla was commenting on a recent study by two Indonesian agencies dealing with drug abuse that recommended the government review its policy to outlaw the use of marijuana for recreational purposes, the Post said.