If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Supreme Court rules against student who displayed "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 682
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

19265 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2007 at 11:22 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



682 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-06-25 01:29:06 PM
VideSupra: En Loco Parientes

Heh. Those kooky parents!
 
2007-06-25 01:29:22 PM
MerlinX 2007-06-25 01:25:28 PM
firefly212 2007-06-25 01:22:02 PM


There, NOW I made the assertion.
///
Did you smoke a cigarette afterwards? >>> :)


Oh hell no... I have pretty bad asthma... my room has a big ass air filter in it that chugs along all day and night. The thing is... so long as risks are not distorted, people should be free to decide to do whatever they want with their bodies. If the risks of a product are distorted as they were with tobacco, there should be some product liability, but I'm still not in favor of outlawing things just because people may use them despite my personal disapproval.
 
2007-06-25 01:30:06 PM
@Uncle Karl

pardon, 200 participants, 22k joints.

/get on my lawn Uncle Karl *shakes fist*
 
2007-06-25 01:31:11 PM
VideSupra
I thought he never even attended school that day, I was pretty sure he skipped.

Did he or did he not show up to class that morning?
Did he or did he not at any point join his class?
 
2007-06-25 01:31:15 PM
Let's see, Mr. "Bong Hits For Jesus" claims this was a nonsensical remark, but just a few years later is busted (and pleads guilty to) selling dope. I think the principal had a damn good point there.

Sorry, but I've seen first-hand what dope can do to a person. A very good friend of mine (who was a pot smoker in her day) now has a son who's 26 years old who thinks it's the bomb to smoke dope every day. Oh, and he doesn't have a job (but he does have a kid) and if it wasn't for the fact his mommy supports him (because she fears for the grandkid's sake) there'd be another homeless family on the street.

Best of all, mom and said slacker were like, "You never hear of people getting busted for driving while stoned." Well, guess what, Mr. Slacker nearly hit a state trooper head-on while toked out of his mind. Luckily he only got a weekend in jail instead of the year he was facing. Maybe some jail time would have grown his arse up.
 
2007-06-25 01:31:37 PM
VideSupra: The school was responsible for his well-being. He was still under their supervision.

How so? He wasn't in attendance that day. He arrived after school started, never went to class and was over the age of 18. In actuality, he was absent that day.
 
2007-06-25 01:31:53 PM
For me, the issue boils down to this, from Roberts' majority opinion:

The dissent mentions Frederick's "credible and uncontradicted explanation for the message - he just wanted to get on television." [cite] But that is a description of Frederick's motive for displaying the banner; it is not an interpretation of what the banner says. The way Frederick was going to fulfill his ambition of appearing on television was by unfurling a pro-drug banner at a school event, in the presence of teachers and fellow students.

. . .[T]he dissent emphasizes the importance of political speech and the need to foster "national debate about a serious issue," [cite], as if to suggest that the banner is political speech. . . . Contrary to the dissent's suggestion, [cite] this is plainly not a case about political debate over the criminalization of drug use or possession."


His argument, if you agree with the basic premise, is not unreasonable. It's just unfortunate five others agreed with him. Frederick hedged by saying his banner was "nonsense" and didn't mean anything. I wonder if the outcome would have been any different if he said (admitted?) that it was a "pro-drug" political statement.
 
2007-06-25 01:33:52 PM
firefly212
Of course, but claiming there is no risk to lighting just about any plant on fire and breathing the smoke is a little out there. The risks, which are certainly less than with tobacco should not be understated and they do not need to be as for the most part they are rather low. Heck, it would be far easier to overdose on water and die than on THC.
 
2007-06-25 01:34:36 PM
VideSupra


But what redcard posted isn't true. He never went to school before the parade, and thus couldn't have been let out of class. He was never under the control of the teachers. Just because they say it's a "school sponsored event" doesn't mean that non-students are bound by their rules and control. He was not, at the time, acting as a student.
 
2007-06-25 01:34:48 PM
VideSupra 2007-06-25 01:25:27 PM
Uncle Karl

I'm going to repost something redcard posted earlier as it answers your question.

OK


You guys didn't really read this case, did you?
Just finished... its a bit of a long read.

He was let out of class..
False. Students were let out of class... he didn't show up that day.

Under the supervision of teachers..
False, he was not under the supervision of teachers, he was across the street after not having established attendance. A teacher simply seeing a student does not inherently establish supervisory capacity.

With the permission of parents as a school "field trip"..
No. You don't get to make up the facts as you go. The event wasn't even a field trip in the technical sense, no permission slips were distributed. Kids were simply let out onto the schools side of the street.

En Loco Parientes, folks. The school rules still apply when you are out of class and being supervised by school officials.
Yay, I can name rules that don't apply to this case either! Ex post facto, habeas corpus, posse cometatus! Seriously though, try reading the case that you tell other people to read.
 
2007-06-25 01:35:11 PM
El_Perro: Your wife could not have studied this case in law school, because this case was just decided today.

You are confusing "case" and "ruling" or "decision".
 
2007-06-25 01:35:27 PM
gallo caldo
two different things, this kid never joined his class, never checked in, and was over 18. Personally, if you're over 18 the whole "in whose care" thing should be out the window.
 
2007-06-25 01:37:08 PM
You know, this shiatastic Roberts Court is probably the worst thing the Bush administration has done. Worse than the war in Iraq, worse than anything else-because it will stick around, for decades perhaps. Not that the previous court was any great shakes (remember, they basically appointed Bush in the first place), but it used to be that at least most of the 5-4 decisions went the right way-now they are all pretty much going the wrong way.
 
2007-06-25 01:37:26 PM
Beer Bongs 4 Bacchus!
 
2007-06-25 01:37:28 PM
Uncle Karl 2007-06-25 01:33:52 PM
firefly212
Of course, but claiming there is no risk to lighting just about any plant on fire and breathing the smoke is a little out there. The risks, which are certainly less than with tobacco should not be understated and they do not need to be as for the most part they are rather low. Heck, it would be far easier to overdose on water and die than on THC.


I wholeheartedly concur... there is risk with it, as with anything. Most of the studies don't seem to be indicating lung cancer, but other risks... it is much easier to die from something like hyperatremia or even eating too many raw potatoes (I was serious, they really are more dangerous) than from marijuana related causes. I've kind of lost track as to where Bob was going with exactly why it is this speech should be banned though.
 
2007-06-25 01:38:01 PM
gallo caldo: Where'd you go to law school again?

I'm not suggesting that the concurrence is actually binding precedent, because of course it's not. I'm merely suggesting that, when there is a 5-Justice majority (or 6, depending on where you place Breyer, since he would not decide the case on the First Amendment merits), and two of the justices write a limiting concurrence - writing "I join the opinion of the court on the understanding that (a) it goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use and (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue..." - then the concurrence is highly influential, since future cases may well be decided on whether there the speech "can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue."

It's simple math: In a future case, with some "plausible" political/social message (whatever that means), this 5 Justice majority very likely loses 2 Justices, and becomes a 3 Justice minority/dissent.
 
2007-06-25 01:38:59 PM
Activist judge John Roberts gave his personal opinion on drug use on this one. His ruling over free speech in campaigns is exactly the opposite of this ruling.

Does this mean if a principal run into a student wearing a "Bong hits for Jesus" at the mall or a ballgame, they can suspend him ?
 
2007-06-25 01:39:15 PM
Even if he wasn't acting as a student (which seems ridiculous to me because not showing up at school that day doesn't take away student status) he unfurled the banner in a location whereby the school was responsible (as SUPERVISERS). Had he let loose the banner anywhere else the school wouldn't be able to claim jackshiat, other than he may have been skipping school.
 
2007-06-25 01:39:30 PM
Geotpf
Too bad assassination is no longer kosher, it used to be an accepted way of getting things changed.


/not going to assassinate anyone Mr.G-man just talking about the past.
 
2007-06-25 01:39:47 PM
VideSupra: The Supreme Court has no REASON to overrule the current law. It is constitutional and the precedent is there, as you pointed out. So calling the Supreme Court names for their decision just shows ignorance of the system.

You're a total moron.
 
2007-06-25 01:40:05 PM
Me fail English?...
 
2007-06-25 01:40:15 PM
Here's my feeling:

There are kids in every single public high school who should have been kicked out for being disruptive years ago.

Disruptive meaning they degrade the classroom experience and waste time for everyone else. They're wasting our money and they should be looking for a tutor or private education. It *should* be easier to kick kids out of high school.

But this? A banner, on parade day, outside of the classroom?

The real problem is that school administrators are draconian about 'thought police' type expression and incredibly lax about the day to day disruptions that actually hurts students.

When are we going to get our priorities straight?
 
2007-06-25 01:41:06 PM
firefly212: No. You don't get to make up the facts as you go. The event wasn't even a field trip in the technical sense, no permission slips were distributed. Kids were simply let out onto the schools side of the street.

This is why I love you.
 
2007-06-25 01:41:33 PM
Deucednuisance: El_Perro: Your wife could not have studied this case in law school, because this case was just decided today.

You are confusing "case" and "ruling" or "decision".


I'll say it once again: I mis-stated my point. I didn't mean to suggest that one could not have studied this case, only that one could not have studied this case and found that there was clear precedent prior to this decision. There was precedent on both sides, as I mentioned above, and the lower courts had split. I misread the original post and thought that the original poster had was suggesting that his wife had studied the case in class, and found that the case law clearly supported the SCOTUS decision here, and I was disputing that assertion.
 
2007-06-25 01:41:57 PM
So calling the Supreme Court names for their decision just shows ignorance of the system.

QFT

/buncha bubble-butts
//DOH
 
2007-06-25 01:42:34 PM
JabronieRamone: Does this mean if a principal run into a student wearing a "Bong hits for Jesus" at the mall or a ballgame, they can suspend him ?

Of course not . . . unless it were a school game. It's not like the Court is saying that as long as you remain a student, your speech is free to be restricted (oxymoron?) by school authorities.
 
2007-06-25 01:42:35 PM
Bazooka Duke
So what? I wear my "I support single mothers/stripper" shirt all over town, should I change it when I walk past a school?

Perhaps if the school was so worried that his sign would harm the other children then they should have all gone back inside.
 
2007-06-25 01:43:09 PM
Catsaregreen 2007-06-25 01:31:15 PM
Let's see, Mr. "Bong Hits For Jesus" claims this was a nonsensical remark, but just a few years later is busted (and pleads guilty to) selling dope. I think the principal had a damn good point there.


Yes, we should ban speech because speakers may turn out not to be good people.

Sorry, but I've seen first-hand what dope can do to a person. A very good friend of mine (who was a pot smoker in her day) now has a son who's 26 years old who thinks it's the bomb to smoke dope every day. Oh, and he doesn't have a job (but he does have a kid) and if it wasn't for the fact his mommy supports him (because she fears for the grandkid's sake) there'd be another homeless family on the street.

Best of all, mom and said slacker were like, "You never hear of people getting busted for driving while stoned." Well, guess what, Mr. Slacker nearly hit a state trooper head-on while toked out of his mind. Luckily he only got a weekend in jail instead of the year he was facing. Maybe some jail time would have grown his arse up.


Yes, if it weren't for that meddling dope he'd already have his first Fields medal and be working on finally finishing the unified theory. Seriously... have you considered the possibility that some people are just weak-willed slackers who aren't going to accomplish anything, then turn to drugs or alcohol to escape the reality the people themselves are responsible for? I mean, has it ever occurred to you that some people are just losers who seek a bit of a respite from their self-induced problems? No, of course not, let's blame their means of escapism instead of their chronic irresponsibility and inability to get their shiat together.
 
2007-06-25 01:43:20 PM
veedeevadeevoodee: / Nooooooo - they be takin' mah bukket !!!


Another Bukket lover! They work better then I thought they would.
 
2007-06-25 01:43:28 PM
High school student?? Yeah, you have limited rights as a child.

Of course, now that I've studied contract law, I realize I had so many rights I could have taken advantage of before 18 and I never used them.

Makes me wish I could go back and relive those days instead of biatching about what I couldn't do.
 
2007-06-25 01:43:29 PM
The kid is an asshat. Fark him on principle.
 
2007-06-25 01:43:32 PM
users.adelphia.net
 
2007-06-25 01:43:46 PM
Sir Charles, the 'inciting riot' statutes were repealed after the Chicago 7-8 trials. APs post does reek, its beyond stupid. Free speech means simply that, or nothing.
 
2007-06-25 01:43:46 PM
NakedYoga
What if the student is hanging out across the street from the school football game and is wearing that hat?
 
2007-06-25 01:43:47 PM
Uncle Karl

Ill save you the 60 page read. Here are some direct quotes.


(a) Frederick's argument that this is not a school speech case is rejected. The event in question occurred during normal school hours and was sanctioned by Morse as an approved social event at which the district's student-conduct rules expressly applied. Teachers and administrators were among the students and were charged with supervising them. Frederick stood among other students across the street from the school and directed his banner toward the school, making it plainly visible to most students.Under these circumstances, Frederick cannot claim he was not at school. Pp. 5-6.


Respondent Joseph Frederick, a JDHS senior, was late to school that day. When he arrived, he joined his friends (all but one of whom were JDHS students) across the street from the school to watch the event.


Yes, he was at school. Yes, it was a school event. Yes, he was under the school's responsibility and jurisdiction.
 
2007-06-25 01:44:38 PM
dang nabit
 
2007-06-25 01:44:43 PM
VideSupra: Godwin much? You're comparing murdering millions of innocent civilians to saying that promoting illegal drug use on campus is not allowed? Really now?

SS smoked weed.
 
2007-06-25 01:45:36 PM
as a xtian hitting the bong right now, i am getting a real kick out of some of these replies.
 
2007-06-25 01:46:06 PM
NakedYoga 2007-06-25 01:42:34 PM
JabronieRamone: Does this mean if a principal run into a student wearing a "Bong hits for Jesus" at the mall or a ballgame, they can suspend him ?

Of course not . . . unless it were a school game. It's not like the Court is saying that as long as you remain a student, your speech is free to be restricted (oxymoron?) by school authorities.


Yes, yes it is. The 18 year old was at a public event the school also happened to be at, in a public location, having not established attendence. The agents of the school (principal, teacher) identified the plaintiff in a public space with a message they didn't like, arbitrarily claimed supervisory status despite having no legal foundation for doing so, and punished the plaintiff.
 
2007-06-25 01:46:08 PM
VideSupra
Wasn't he 18? Not that it matters.

I don't care if he showed it too a bunch of 3rd graders, it is just a banner.

Captain Obvious
He was 18, not a child.
 
2007-06-25 01:46:26 PM
Nixon ramped up the anti-weed laws. They have him on tape saying he knew it was harmless, but a convenient way to torture his 'enemies.'

People who reflexively defer to the authorities are benighted and infantile and ignorant.
 
2007-06-25 01:46:50 PM
eqtworld
did that really happen?

Sorry, unclear. What (I think) Scalia meant was that students can't advocate illegal behavior in schools, or at least that the schools have the right to punish them for it. Fark posts would not be affected. Although far be it from me to interpret The Great Justice Scalia. The comparison to rape was asinine, though.
 
2007-06-25 01:47:12 PM
Remember: an activist judge is just a judge who made a decision you didn't like.
 
2007-06-25 01:47:47 PM
UncleKarl: What if the student is hanging out across the street from the school football game and is wearing that hat?

Still no.

From the opinion: The question [is] whether a principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. We hold that she may.

Across the street from the game is totally different from actually being at the game. I'd say being at the game is within the physical confines of the school (stadium area, parking lot, etc.). Also, it's unlikely that anyone across the street could see that message if it was written on a hat.
 
2007-06-25 01:47:55 PM
absoluteparanoia

Jesus smoked weed too. Who cares? ;)


Uncle Karl

Age makes NO DIFFERENCE. If he was 21 and still stuck in high school, the same rules would apply. A teacher is no less allowed to unfurl that banner than a student is. It's where and how, not who, that is the question for the fact-finder to decide upon.
 
2007-06-25 01:48:12 PM
If the kid wasn't in school, then this looks like one sorry ruling by the courts. It's a sad day for free speech in America.
 
2007-06-25 01:48:22 PM
VideSupra: Yes, he was at school. Yes, it was a school event. Yes, he was under the school's responsibility and jurisdiction.

No, he never attended school. Just because the school officials believe that since he joined his peers later that day doesn't make it an official presence on the role-call.
 
2007-06-25 01:48:53 PM
Solon Isonomia
I thought it was one who used personal opinion rather than established case law and the constitution.
 
2007-06-25 01:49:08 PM
Yeah, I live there. The sign was held right across from my school. That principal doesn't work there anymore though. Sad, sad day.
 
2007-06-25 01:49:08 PM
Supreme Court

The First Amendment was written to eliminate obscene speech, and restrict a persons ability to speak about things the government disapproves of. That was the point that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote it. That unpopular speech is detrimental to the health of a prosperous nation.

Drink your homogonized milk, pay your taxes, shut up, and die.

Thank you,

Justice Roberts
 
Displayed 50 of 682 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report