TobyTheRobot: Schools see it as their responsibility to prevent their students from freely and brazenly advocating drug use.

He wasn't advocating drug use.

Besides, when you're in high school, your school can sort of be seen as your employer.

Not even close. It would be closer to see school as your prison, since you're required to be there and you earn nothing.

Walker: The decision was wrong and has frightening implications.

Are study groups at your house a "school-sanctioned event"?

If so, I'd have been locked up for life.

Weaver95 And the fact that those 'rules' were arbitrary, asinine and anal retentive are entirely besides the fact?

Well, not according to your strict constructionist friend, Clarence Thomas. Here's a little nugget from his concurring opinion in this case:

I am afraid that our jurisprudence now says that students have
a right to speak in schools except when they don't-a standard continuously developed through litigation against local schools and their administrators. In my view, petitioners could prevail for a much simpler reason: As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools.

Boy oh boy, I'm so glad that we're going to see more "strict constructionists" on the bench in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Although, I wonder if Thomas would be saying the same thing if some person sues his school district after being suspended for defending intelligent design.

Three legged dog

Sooooo, it's ok to protest something so long as it's already legal?

I'm confused, are you sure you're not just retarded?

From the Syllabus of TF Ruling, the first 6-8 words (depending on how you count):
At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event

So was he at a school event or not?

Don't get me wrong - I think the ruling was hare-brained and Wrong - but I'd like to get the facts straight.

earn nothing?

how about an education?

wow.....this is the attitude that's farking our country

enjoy your tinfoil hat

Solution: Don't send your kids to school. Home school FTW!

Eat_at_milliways

That's not true. He had a permission note signed to attend the parade. He was under the supervision of the teachers with the permission of his parents. READ the case. The whole point focused around the fact that the student in question was under the supervision of the school, and thus, the school's rules.

There is nothing on free speech here. Just read the decisions. You'll see that it all comes down to who was the "parent/guardian" of the child at the time. In the US, during school outings that have school permission slips signed for them that occur during school times and are supervised by school officials, the parents/guardians in question ARE the school.

That's the whole POINT of these permission slips.

fark scotus

Nacho Daddy: So was he at a school event or not?

As I recall, the students were released from class temporarily to watch the Olympic torch go by, or something like that. This kid crossed the street to be off school grounds and he and some of his friends unfurled this banner. The principal stormed over and ripped down the banner.

homosexual man: He wasn't on school property, but the teacher had the right to leave school property and restrict what he said?

I don't understand... :(

Actually, it seems like you understand the situation quite well.

Unbegoddamnfarkinglievable!

This wasn't even a tough call - a student on a Saturday off school property makes a political statement and the school punishes him for it.

There's simply no possibility that the school was in the right. None whatsoever. Reasonable people can disagree on where the line is, but its certainly not here.

I know how difficult it is to impeach Justices, but there's simply no other option. Anyone on the majority here just isn't qualified to be on the Court.

This sucks. So when is the revolution going to begin again?

The whole thing with pot, it's simple. People know it's being used on a large scale. People know that it's a part of a subculture -- this subculture is considered to be predominantly liberal, and/or ethnic. Therefore it is a simple and easy target for conservative or racist individuals to subvert their enemies while doing so under the guise of condemning drug use.

Same reason it was made illegal in the first place, and it still serves it's purpose well. Right-wingers, fundies, neo-cons, they all target pot users because it's an easy way to accomplish something more controversial while appearing righteous and justified. Pretty smart if you ask me, too bad we can't return the favor and make religious oppression illegal. Oh wait...

Smellvin: Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater leads to people getting hurt. Advocating drug use or a change in policy should never ever -- no matter how utterly stupid the idea is -- be stifled.

I could easily advocate that promoting drug use leads to people getting hurt.

/just playing devils advocate
//I don't agree with myself on this
///but it is a stand one could easily take
////the slashies, they smoke the sticky icky

japlemon: how about an education?

You said employer, and I responded in kind. Students are not compensated for the time they are required to spend at school. You could argue that they "earn" an education, but since their parents pay school taxes, you could more appropriately argue that they're receiving a service for payments rendered.

TobyTheRobot

mmmkay actually education is a right, employment is not.

there's no such thing as "at will" education.

your rights are given to you at birth, not at 18.

Walker

School sponsored and SUPERVISED events are always and have always legally been considered "on school grounds" and "under school rules." It falls under "En Loco Parientes."

Get it right. If you're on a field trip for band and you toke up and get caught , the school can suspend you.

The same thing happened here. He was on a school sponsored event , he misbehaved and broke a school rule, and then disobeyed a teacher's request. He got back and was punished for it. Life moves on.

It _WAS_ on school grounds legally.

Children, understand this and things might go easier for you. Until you can actually vote you are little more than property, like a horse or a dog is property. You have no opinion that matters and you can be taken and placed where others decide you will flourish the most at any time. No matter what anyone says, this is what the law actually is and does. Don't like it? When you are 18, try to fix it.

This is just an example of upholding precedent, nothing new here.

From the article:

"Students in public schools don't have the same rights as adults, but neither do they leave their constitutional protections at the schoolhouse gate, as the court said in a landmark speech-rights ruling from Vietnam era."

So don't blame the current Supreme Court for this one.

Also, they didn't press criminal charges against the kid, they just suspended him from that school. This is not a free speech case, this is a case about the role and responsibilities of public education. Clearly, a school that receives public money has a responsibility to educate most children, but also must have the option to not educate some.

If you publish the answers to a test, that's your free speech right. However, it might get you expelled from public school, and I don't see a violation of the Constitution there, either.

I do see Constitution violations in many related laws and precedents, however. For instance, the fact that schools get federal money is a big part of the reason this seems like a violation of the Constitution.

I am missing something. Did the court rule that he is not allowed to wave his sign, or did the court rule that it was okay for the school to suspend him for it? Free speech doesn't mean freedom from any consequences, or adverse reactions to your speech. But, if they said that just waving this sign was an offense of some sort against the general public, I have to disagree with them. If they said the school has a right to take action against a student at a school sponsored event for doing something against school policy, I'm okay with it.

Walker: He was NOT under their supervision since he didn't even go to school that day.

Thanks for the clarification.

Three legged dog

Much as you stoners don't like it drugs are still illegal. The whole Jesus thing was simply that kid using poor taste.

I don't understand this mentality. Is everyone that drinks booze an alcoholic? Is everyone that eats food a fatty? Is everyone that's ever had a speeding ticket a bad driver? No, no and no. Then how is it that everyone that uses marijuana is a stoner?

Walker

See RobertBruce's post below yours. Had it not been a school sponsored event, it would have been gravy. Sadly, just because he was not on school property doesn't mean they have no right. Legally, he was basically on a field trip. School has the right to punish misbehavior on a field trip.

Also, had it said to fuk the school in the arse, it would have been more defendable legally. Previous SCOTUS decisions give the school the right to curtail speech that promotes illegal behavior. Saying a school sucks isn't illegal, promoting drug use is. Not saying it should be (I'm pro-legalization) but it isn't the Court's job to say what should be, it simply applies the laws currently on the books.

"In the name of God almighty - smack my biatch up!"

Public (and to a greater extent, private) school are only trying to condition children to the status quo. It's more important to make kids think "what is done now, should always be done" than encourage rational debate on topics.

It's also why the fundies are aching to get thier noise in the public school system. They would like nothing more than to fill children's heads with thier brand of beliefs and make it taboo to discuss otherwise.

Weaver95
kinda makes you want to vote for school vouchers, don't it?

So you like the idea of government attaching more rules to private schools, and your property taxes funding some school way the hell across the state?

This is a scary farking ruling that back slides on years of other progress in free speach rulings. Freedom of Speech does not protect popular speech. Freedom of speech protects unpopular speech. Now this student who was not on school property and not techinicaly on school time is punished using his first admendment rights. And the ruling did just put the kabosh on just one segement it was THE WHOLE ARTICLE of the first admendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (gone the jesus part), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (gone if you are a student); or abridging the freedom of speech (double check), or of the press (It can be applied a number of mediums including banners); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (Which they did), and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (and despite all this goverment told them to go themselves).

//Nice
///Oh well I wasn't using my rights anyways

You know, it seems to me the constitution is becoming more and more like the Bible: everyone can just sort of twist the meaning however which way to align with their own agenda.

"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts said. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."

If you can't protest against laws you disagree with, what can you protest again? Isn't that the whole point of freedom of speech?

/sigh

Keep in mind, Roberts was installed after 2004, so all you can thanks all the numbnuts who re-elected Bush for this.

Yes, I'm still bitter that every single worst-case scenario I presented about Bush in 2000 (including packing the Supreme Court, gutting environmental policy, blowing the surplus, AND going to war) all proved true.

Weaver95,

Just piss? I want to shait on his grave lmao. He is such a POS. I completely agree that he messed up our views on cannabis.

I also agree that so many people are brainwashed by the DARE crap they were forcefed in school. I'm 24, and my parents know I smoke occassionally. I hate drinking, and find more pleasure in cannabis. Anyway, my dad has no problem with it and know it's not serious, but my mom is STILL convinced it is some evil drug!! There are too many people who are stuck in the Reefer Madness movement, and it is a shame. Scientific data has proved otherwise, but no extensive research is done on the drug because the government doesn't want to show that it isn't as dangerous as they make it out to be!!! GRR.

Three legged dog: Much as you stoners don't like it drugs are still illegal...

Not in Alaska, but nice try.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4522

Seems a little ridiculous. I can definitely see why the court was split 5-4.

Even if you determine that it doesnt matter that the kid hadnt shown up to school that day and that he wasnt on school grounds (which is reasonable to me because he clearly skipped school in order to bring that banner to a school sponsored even where all the students would be), an even if you determine that the sign encourages the illegal use of controlled substances (which I'm more skeptical of- bong hits 4 jesus? wtf does that mean?), theres still the issue that students should be able to speak their opinions in any context about controversial issues.

I mean I doubt anyone would have been suspended if the banner read "Illegal Immigration 4 Jesus". Interpreted the same way, that banner would be "promoting" something illegal. But its not likes its promoting murder- its promoting something controversial. Like marijuana use. Hell, i thinks you can make a very reasoned and rational argument for the legalization of all drugs- and I did all the time in Congressional Debate, a school sponsored club, and in classroom debates on school grounds during the school day.

I guess I'll have to wait to read the opinions before I make my final decision. Maybe it was more about disrupting the students or something, but the wikipedia article insinuates that the majority opinion was about the right to promote the use of marijuana- and considering the contentiousness and legitimacy of the argument for marijuana both as a mild recreational drug like alcohol, and as a medical treatment means that people should be able to support it publicly.

I think it might help if he didn't have a hand in getting his father fired, and then getting arrested for selling weed.

Romeo_Santana:

God that was stupid. Newspapers choosing not to run drawings of Mohammed is the essence of free speech - They were free to choose whether or not to run it. They weren't bullied by the government one way or the other.

I'd accuse you of a weak troll, but I genuinely believe you meant that as a reasonable comparison.

And by the way, just because you find "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" to be disrespectful to Christians doesn't make it illegal.

nopokerface: Free speech doesn't mean freedom from any consequences, or adverse reactions to your speech.

I see this bit of wrong far too often. Your statement is antithetical to the concept of rights. If speech is protected, then the government doesn't have a right to punish you for that speech. That's why they can't, for example, pass a law against flag burning. Not only is free speech protected, but the government even has to be careful about prior restraints that have a chilling effect.

whodigsben: so all you can thanks all the numbnuts who re-elected Bush for this.

You're welcome, jerkwad.

japlemon: Freedom of Speech was not meant for every asshat in the world to promote illegal and potentially dangerous activities...that's what Fark is for

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.

Bong Hits 4 Satan?

The Constitution only applies to adults and fetuses.

In between, you're farked.

Reading the opinions, the Roberts opinion is pretty much strictly about how drugs are illegal and the banner only glorified drug use and wasn't a political message. It is an awful opinion, but not nearly as restrictive or awful as Alito's concurrence (signed onto by his buddy Kennedy) which basically said, fark political speech, we don't give a shiat what you damn kids wanna say.