aerojockey: because high school students aren't old enough to vote, and so few cater to their rights.

They should be allowed to vote. They should be allowed to drink. They should be allowed to have sex. Or, they shouldn't be able to be tried for a crime as adults.

Walker

You haven't read the case. That much is clear. Wiki isn't a definitive source. It's a good place to start but you should READ the fact-finding presented in the opinion before making incorrect claims.

He WAS under school supervision. Period. That is why he lost. It had NOTHING to do with free speech.

God, please read the background of the case, folks.

These kids were released from school so they could watch the Olympic torch carrier. So they roll across the street from the school, where the school officials still are, and unfurl this banner. They were not released from school to do that, they were released to watch the torch bearer.

I have no problem with marijuana, but I guess they thought that they could mock school officials because they weren't physically in school, despite the fact that students were released with the intention of witnessing a significant cultural event.

This guy is an idiot, and he's already been busted for selling since that time.

VideSupra: He was under school supervision and the school was still responsible for him, therefore he was still under school policy and had to adhere to school rules. Had he been there on his own, this case would have been different. His team could not prove he was (because he wasn't). The ruling is correct for this particular case.

redcard: En Loco Parientes, folks. The school rules still apply when you are out of class and being supervised by school officials.

Winners, at least legally

If the sign said "drink wine as the blood of Jesus" that would also have been advocating an illegal act, as the kid is under 21.

Weaver95: Actually, I'd exempt anyone sending their kid to a private school from anything to do with paying school taxes.

That's not conservatism, that's anarchy and it's retarded.

/everything else I can agree with you on in this thread.

Cowboy Spencer: He wasn't advocating drug use.

Sure he was. Bong hits for Jesus? It's a cryptic (and very silly) little message to be sure, and it's not what I would call a reasoned and compelling arguement, but how else should that be interpreted than "Take some bong hits for Jesus?"

(School is) not even close (to being like an employer.) It would be closer to see school as your prison, since you're required to be there and you earn nothing.

Perhaps my employer comparison isn't completely analogous, but your prison comparison is farther from the mark, I think. Comparing school to prison grossly overstates the "oppression" that school kids go through. Granted, you don't get paid for being there, but you don't have to pay for the education you receive either, so you are technically receiving some value for being there, aren't you?

High school wasn't too long ago for me to remember what it was like, and I went to a private Catholic high school where you got an hour detention for not tucking in your shirt. Is that bull crap? Absolutely. But I still think my employer analogy holds up in that school faculty are like your managers. When they tell you to do something, you have to do it, even if you don't agree with it. If my employer says that dress for my job is business formal and I show up in jeans, a t-shirt and a ball cap, I would expect some sort of disciplinary action regardless of the fact that they're curtailing my freedom to express myself through my choice of attire.

The kid sounds like a rabble rouser, I'm glad he and his stupid sign got smacked down by the Supreme Court. We don't need more rabble rousers, we need more patriots.

I forsee a booming business in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" bumperstickers. Yes, profit to be made!

Weaver95: I just wish the damn kids would learn to drive.

Same here :) But I wish the same thing for about 50% of the drivers I encounter during my commute, and most of them are not teenagers :)

Weaver95

There is no doubt in my mind that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and ciggs.

absoluteparanoia: Wow, go back to school you sophomoric idiot. Free speech about "illegal" and "dangerous" activities is ESSENTIAL. The first amendment was created specifically so we could mention these things.
Look it up. If the government can make something illegal and make talking about it illegal, then they control your speech.
God, your post reeks of horse shiat.

Way to keep the debate civil.

Anyways, you aren't allowed to use free speech to incite violence or even to create disorder (disorderly conduct?)

You = wrong.

Sir Charles: Anyways, you aren't allowed to use free speech to incite violence or even to create disorder (disorderly conduct?)

That's true. But talking about revolution isn't the same as inciting one.

You = bad at history.

huszar!

BZZT! Want to try again?

The prom is a school sanctioned event, that doesn;t always take place at school. Does that mean the school has the right to enforce dress codes or speech criteria at say, the local ball room?

The school can already enforce these things on school property, but the second you leave the property thier leverage on you disappears.

Sure he was. Bong hits for Jesus?

I disagree. His stated intention was to put up a controversial message to illustrate the bad atmosphere students had to face at the school. He could have put up "Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches for Jesus", but it wouldn't have had the same impact. The nonsensical "message" was secondary to his intention, a protest.

Granted, you don't get paid for being there, but you don't have to pay for the education you receive either, so you are technically receiving some value for being there, aren't you?

Your parents and the community and you (to a lesser extent) paid for it, so you're receiving value for the money you put in. Ironically, your taxes also pay for prisons :)

Weaver95: Actually, I'd exempt anyone sending their kid to a private school from anything to do with paying school taxes.

I understand the sentiment, but when you go down that path, you're going to pretty much guarantee that the public school system is destroyed and that nothing will replace it. The system only works because everyone pays in, and if the system fails, it's not like you're going to see hundreds of private schools pop up to replace them.

Read the ruling before you start moving to Canada (not that you will be missed)

The ruling said it was OK for him to have the sign on a free-speech basis, but supported the schools decision to suspend him on the grounds that the sign was displayed while he was under the supervision of the public school system. As you ought to know, you lose quite a few of your rights when you're at public school, or even driving in your car on a public road.

DownTheRabbitHole

There is no doubt in my mind that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and ciggs

Your mind is clouded... with smoke.

Idiot.

absoluteparanoia go back to school you sophomoric idiot. God, your post reeks of horse shiat.

Elequent. Not singling you out, but calm down.

Don't get so heated people, this was a school sponsored event. You simply can't promote illegal or dangerous activity under the supervision of the school.

/Flag burning is legal and I'm sure you can't do that on school grounds/trips.

Bong Hit Jesus is now Crack Jesus' biach

we_hates

Schools have the right to set and enforce policies. All kinds of things you can do out in public on your own time freely, will result in your being punished if you do them in school, or at a school function. That is the state of the law, and in most cases, appropriately so. I would say that there is some question about whether he was at a schoold function here, but if the court comes to that conclusion, the rest is academic (unintentional pun).

/If this was a private school, his rights would be even further diminished, not the other way around.
/The 1st amendment protects you from the government, not other private entities

eqtworld: If the sign said "drink wine as the blood of Jesus" that would also have been advocating an illegal act, as the kid is under 21.

Actually, context is key, here. If he were of a sect of Christianity that does consume wine for traditional purposes, nothing would happen, as children are typically allowed to consume wine for religious purposes, especially since the amount they would actually drink is far too little to intoxicate them.

He wasn't even advocating changing marijuana law in a conscientious way, which would bring more merit to his case - he was making a shock statement to piss people off or to be a dick to other people around him.

Strict constructionists... except when the Constitution doesn't say what we want it to.

Anyone else notice Ken Starr was counsel for the school?

haha, i go to SFA. it sucks. the only things to do are drugs and each other.

"Bong Hits for Jesus" is not cryptic. Anyone who says that that is cryptic is an asshole.

absoluteparanoia

You're assuming things completely off your own opinion and interpretation of the intent of the law.

You're right, talking about revolution isn't the same as inciting one and hence the two ARE ALREADY TREATED DIFFERENTLY BY THE LAW.

You cannot talk about something in a manner that incites a dangerous activity. You can discuss a fire in a movie theater, but you cannot yell "Fire!". They are two different things. The ruling was on the latter. If he was having a discussion with his friends about marijuana, that's different. He made a banner to incite a reaction, that is automatically a different form of speech.

Besides, this case, once again, was not about free speech. Students don't have it. This case is merely a reminder.

boo farkin' hoo, a kid promoting drug use and simultaneously offending a religion at a school sponsored event got punished. yep, it's the downfall of society alright. that is, if your definition is a bunch of stoner children with the right to be jackasses as they please.

what the hell kind of society do you people want anyway? is there no limit? for those of you that think this kind of thing is okay, i'm fully in favor of shipping you all off to your own little country where you can smoke all day and be known as having the new record for lowest GDP and highest unemployment of a nation.

actually, now that I think about it, I don't know if I like that idea. if we sent you away then we wouldn't have anyone to work the counter at gas stations or serve our food at cheap restauraunts. okay, you can stay.

DownTheRabbitHole: There is no doubt in my mind that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and cigs.

Both of these are debatable. Pot contains cancer causing chemicals and can actually do more damage since people typically hold it in longer than a cigarette drag. This applies doubly for people who smoke up regularly. Pot vs. alcohol is more on a person by person basis.

This thread sucks a big fat greasy one. I figured Fark was here to add a little humor to a persons day. Apparently it's only here as a debate session among a bunch of closed minded farkers who aren't willing to see anyone’s side, but their own. Fark this

bg10117: As you ought to know, you lose quite a few of your rights when you're at public school, or even driving in your car on a public road.

No, you don't. Rights by definition cannot be lost. I don't lose my right to free speech when I'm driving in a car, or at school. The SCOTUS is horribly wrong on this one; it's not the first time, and it won't be the last.

My headline for this story mentioned Kelo, and the recognition of corporations as individuals with "rights". Both of those were terrible ideas which significantly damage our society.

Walker

Read the documents for the case.

After the torch relay, Frederick attended class for the remainder of the day. When asked, he stated he was "running late." Even his lawyers concede this was a school sponsored event and that he attended it. They just argued that he should not be considered "at school" because he was across the street from school.

You really should read this case.

jpbreon: The school can already enforce these things on school property, but the second you leave the property thier leverage on you disappears.

The leverage definitely doesn't disappear, it just lessens slightly.

Walker: What you and redcard aren't getting is that he was NOT on a field trip because he didn't even go to school that day.

If a school had a field trip to Magic Mountain that left school at 10AM, but a student didn't show up to school but came to Magic Mountain and stayed with the group, he would still be under school control and part of the "school sponsored event". Now, the question then is how far the reach of the school sponsored event goes -- to the sidewalk? Apparently so, says the court.

*adds "The US Supreme Court" to the list of government entities that have sold out America's citizens to fascism*

Holy shiat, we will never be able to have an intelligent discussion on this because it's impossible to get some people to understand that:

- he was 18 years old (and besides, minors do have rights)
- he was not attending school and was there on his own free time

I'm outta here.

Bob Dolemite,

You are the idiot my friend. Get your facts straight and do some reading before you make comments.

Romeo_Santana: What makes it perfectly fine to be so blatently disrespectful to the Christian religion?

I think its because the vast majority of us don't threaten to blow stuff up over it.

***
A jury recently awarded Frank Frederick $200,000 in a lawsuit he filed over his firing.
***

At least something good came out of it, but wasn't the student on private property when he displayed the sign? That might lead to a mistrial motion, since the decision was based solely on the "school-sanctioned event" angle.


Your parents and the community and you (to a lesser extent) paid for it, so you're receiving value for the money you put in. Ironically, your taxes also pay for prisons :)

schools = prisons
You are forced to go and you have no rights. Shouldn't be that way. Is.

aerojockey: But that shiat won't fly so easily if adult organizations tried it.

Last I remember, Don Imus was fired for saying something that was completely protected by free speech (He could have dropped an N-bomb, and that still is protected). However, his employer also had the right to fire him.

This is a slightly different relationship between a student and a school, but there are similarities. Free speech is not speech without penalty, it is the ability to state your views in an appropriate forum (now deciding what is appropriate or not can get slippery). The fire in a movie theater is commonly used, but that is an over used example. On the other side of the spectrum, walking into Harlem wearing a KKK outfit is completely protected as freedom of expression and speech. But you better be ready to accept the consequences - you are either going to be shot, of a cop is going to pick you up on public safety concerns. A little extreme I know, but we have to understand that there are forums for expression and forums where that expression should and can be limited.

I personally think that the SCOTUS is restricting too many freedoms, but I agree with the ruling in this case. I don't necessarily agree with the schools position that this kid was a problem, but according to the facts of the case this is not an unusual or life-changing ruling.

Deevo

He was attending school. He attended school for the remainder of the day and was suspended the next day. He stated he was "late" that morning. Not that he was skipping, but that he was "late."

Maybe you should READ the findings of fact here.

deevo

The kid and his lawyers admitted he was under school supervision. Try again?

deevo: - he was 18 years old (and besides, minors do have rights)

Age is irrelevant for student First Amendment rights. A 21 year old 12th grader would have restricted First Amendment rights just the same as any other student.

MadAsshatter,

Cannabis vaporized is much safer, and I hate that people forget that it can also be eaten.

cowboy_spencer: His stated intention was to put up a controversial message to illustrate the bad atmosphere students had to face at the school. He could have put up "Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches for Jesus", but it wouldn't have had the same impact. The nonsensical "message" was secondary to his intention, a protest.

His stated intention. As I said in my original post, I don't believe this for a second. It seems more likely to me that the kid just thought it would be funny. The whole "illustration of the oppression of personal liberties that takes place in the public schooling system" angle sounds like it was concocted by a lawyer, not a 17 year old kid.

BrknPhoenix

i want a society without morons like you in it. is that too much to ask for?

Bob Dolemite

Not that this thread is concerning marijuana directly, but you would hard pressed to show evidence that marijuana results in more deaths and injuries than alcohol or cigarettes. While some of this is because of the ease of purchasing alcohol and tobacco, I doubt you could produce many instances where cannabis was the sole culprit in a death or injury.

Horace Wimp

The kid sounds like a rabble rouser, I'm glad he and his stupid sign got smacked down by the Supreme Court. We don't need more rabble rousers, we need more patriots.

Aren't we looking for Rebel Rousers?

don't just stand there mumblin' and fumblin'

/not relevent, just had to throw it out there

Weaver95: So it's official then - the Bill of Rights doesn't apply on campus anymore.


Where does the Bill Of Right apply anymore?