"Bong Hits 4 Jesus:" Protected by 1st Amend?

[Mr. Kotter]

ROFL

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/29/bonghits.4jesus.ap/index.html

Ken Starr is taking the case pro bono, to argue the school was justified in suspending a student who hoisted the banner "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at an Alaska school in 2002.....

At issue: does the first amendment protect a student's right to express a "pro-drug" message in a school setting? OR do administrator's have a right to suppress "pro-drug" expressions in the name of maintaining a positive educational environment.....

Interesting....:hmmm:

<A target=_blank name=ContentArea>High court to get 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case?


JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) -- Former Whitewater special counsel Kenneth Starr petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Alaska's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, a dispute involving a high school student, a banner and a tough school policy.


Starr, who gained national prominence while investigating former President Clinton's Whitewater land deal and relationship with Monica Lewinsky, filed the petition Monday on behalf of the Juneau School District in response to a March ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court sided with a high school student who displayed a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" during an Olympic torch relay in 2002. It ruled former Juneau-Douglas High School principal Deborah Morse violated former student Joseph Frederick's free speech rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court petition must receive a minimum of four of the nine justices' votes to be heard.

Frederick, then a senior, was off school property when he hoisted the banner but was suspended for violating the school's policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event.

"The principal's actions were so outrageous, basically leaving school grounds and punishing a student for a message that is not damaging to the school," said his attorney, Doug Mertz.

Superintendent Peggy Cowan said clarification is needed on the rights of administrators when it comes to disciplinary action of students who break the district's drug message policy.

"The district's decision to move forward is not disrespectful to the First Amendment or the rights of students," she said. "This is an important question about how the First Amendment applies to pro-drug messages in an educational setting."

Starr, of the Los Angeles-based firm Kirkland & Ellis, took the case pro bono.


The outcome could have implications on how student-conduct policies are enforced around the nation, said Eric Hagen, one of two other attorneys from Starr's office named on the petition.

"It makes it a little harder when teachers and principals in their daily duties might be subject to a damages lawsuit and be held personally liable," Hagen said.

[Mr. Kotter]

The "he was off of school property (though it was at a 'school event')" part.....may be crucial. :hmmm:

[jspchief]

I'd like some more detail on the "school sanctioned event" part of it.

I definately think a school should have the right to censor their students to a degree. It may be difficult to get a legal definition of what's appropriate and what isn't, but you would hope a little common sense would come into play.

[Mr. Kotter]

I'd like some more detail on the "school sanctioned event" part of it.

I definately think a school should have the right to censor their students to a degree. It may be difficult to get a legal definition of what's appropriate and what isn't, but you would hope a little common sense would come into play.

Yeah, me too. If it's like a football game, or school dance off of the campuse....seems like the right thing to do. If it's a fundraiser at the mall, at and during which the school was only a "part" of the event.....maybe the kid and his lawyer have a point.

[Cochise]

The "he was off of school property (though it was at a 'school event')" part.....may be crucial. :hmmm:

So if your 15 year old daughter is on a field trip blowing coke in a gas station bathroom, the school shouldn't be able to say a word because she's off school property?

I mean, whatever, I don't care about the sign. the policy seems pretty clear though.


was suspended for violating the school's policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event.

[Mr. Kotter]

So if your 15 year old daughter is on a field trip blowing coke in a gas station bathroom, the school shouldn't be able to say a word because she's off school property?

I mean, whatever, I don't care about the sign. the policy seems pretty clear though.
No, no.....

I agree with you philosophically. I'm just not sure if the courts will make a distinction between "at school" and "at a school activity." Personally, I don't think they should, in most circumstances.

[Demonpenz]

So if your 15 year old daughter is on a field trip blowing coke in a gas station bathroom, the school shouldn't be able to say a word because she's off school property?

I mean, whatever, I don't care about the sign. the policy seems pretty clear though.


Can we get clearification on if it is a pot bong or beer bong, because a beer bong and beer are not illegal

[jspchief]

...because a beer bong and beer are not illegalIt is for high school kids.

[Demonpenz]

It is for high school kids.


The bong was for jesus though.

[Demonpenz]

Maybe the kid was just trying to offer the over 21 version of jesus a beer bong. Nothing more than a modern day washing of the feet of jesus.

[NewPhin]

I'll be curious to see how this turns out. Past such cases involving student expression (Tinker and Hazelwood) tend to restrict expression in favor of the school, especially if the venue is school funded (as in the case of school newspapers).

[listopencil]

Can we get clearification on if it is a pot bong or beer bong, because a beer bong and beer are not illegal


It is illegal if you're a High School kid.

[listopencil]

If the event was sanctioned by the school then school rules apply to students. The students know that, it's in the little handbooks they get every year.

[Pitt Gorilla]

It is illegal if you're a High School kid.Even if the "beer" bong is filled with milk?!?

[listopencil]

Even if the "beer" bong is filled with milk?!?



Beer ("it") is illegal if you are a High School kid.

[Demonpenz]

Bongs without weed aren't illegal are they? That Seventh heaven would be going down if so. I Know lots of people get charged with drug para(Sp) but what if the kid wanted jesus to smoke tobacco and the kid was a senior he was probably 18.

[Cochise]

Bongs without weed aren't illegal are they? That Seventh heaven would be going down if so.

You mean like the owner's house getting raided last year and the stores shut down?

Dunno what happened with it, but I remember it happening.

[dirk digler]

The bong was for jesus though.

ROFL

[JBucc]

The kid should be punished but even Jesus had to laugh at that.

[Chiefnj]

The facts as I have read them.

1. The Olympic torch was being run through the town and on the street where the high school is located.

2. It was a school day and the school let kids out of school to witness the passing of the Olympic torch.

3. The kid at issue did not go to school that day.

4. The kid did however go across the street from the school with his banner that said Bong Hits 4 Jesus.

5. The kid said he was trying to attract attention and get it in the background of various news agencies who were filming at that spot.

6. The principal saw the banner across the street and confisicated it and suspended him.

[irishjayhawk]

The facts as I have read them.

1. The Olympic torch was being run through the town and on the street where the high school is located.

2. It was a school day and the school let kids out of school to witness the passing of the Olympic torch.

3. The kid at issue did not go to school that day.

4. The kid did however go across the street from the school with his banner that said Bong Hits 4 Jesus.

5. The kid said he was trying to attract attention and get it in the background of various news agencies who were filming at that spot.

6. The principal saw the banner across the street and confisicated it and suspended him.


If that's an accurate summary, that's downright lame.

[jspchief]

The facts as I have read them.

1. The Olympic torch was being run through the town and on the street where the high school is located.

2. It was a school day and the school let kids out of school to witness the passing of the Olympic torch.

3. The kid at issue did not go to school that day.

4. The kid did however go across the street from the school with his banner that said Bong Hits 4 Jesus.

5. The kid said he was trying to attract attention and get it in the background of various news agencies who were filming at that spot.

6. The principal saw the banner across the street and confisicated it and suspended him.If that's accurate, I don't think the school had the legal grounds to take the action they took.

However, that kid's parents have the grounds to beat his ass. I suppose they're in line with hands out waiting to sue the school rather than punishing their kid for being a moron and a pothead.

[patteeu]

If that's an accurate summary, that's downright lame.

If that's accurate, I don't think the school had the legal grounds to take the action they took.

You might be right about the legality here (the appellate court obviously agrees), but this points out a distinct disadvantage of the public school system. I don't think there would be any first amendment controversy at all if this had been a private school and it's a shame that public schools have their hands tied in this way. Just another reason to privatize education, IMO.

[jspchief]

You might be right about the legality here (the appelate court obviously agrees), but this points out a distinct disadvantage of the public school system. I don't think there would be any first amendment controversy at all if this had been a private school and it's a shame that public schools have their hands tied in this way. Just another reason to privatize education, IMO.No question about the public versus private.

Not sure how much of a factor this is in the argument for private though... unless this is a more common occurence than i'm aware of.

[listopencil]

The facts as I have read them.



2. It was a school day...

3. The kid at issue did not go to school that day.




Loser.

[BucEyedPea]

And how about the rights and feelings of the other parents of the other children in the same environment to be educated a certain way?

Do they have NO rights, so this kid can have his?

If there is a legal right to a publically funded education whose rights come first?

If there is a right to free speech, isn't there also a right to not hear certain speech as a corollary. Does this mean one now has a "right" to an audience, particularly a captive audience?

I would think that if one was using the funds of others, partially or wholly, who may not support this controversial message, they should have some respect for the others.

The modern mind, fails to see that what govt funds, it controls and that the more areas the govt funds the more restrictions on freedom follow.

This kid would have been expelled from my daughter's school and given a
refund of any unused tuition, even if at a school event off school property. This kid was only suspended. Big deal!

[DenverChief]

We are talking about speech that is "offensive" to some and not to others....Tinker v Des Moines is one case I can think of students protesting the vietnam war by wearing black armbands...while that case didn't involve the promoting of illegal activites...however if we ran around punishing people for saying things we didn't like there would be a lot of people locked up...should be an interesting case none the less

[DenverChief]

If there is a right to free speech, isn't there also a right to not hear certain speech as a corollary.

The SC has already said if you don't like what you see or hear you can turn away

[BucEyedPea]

We are talking about speech that is "offensive" to some and not to others....Tinker v Des Moines is one case I can think of students protesting the vietnam war by wearing black armbands...while that case didn't involve the promoting of illegal activites...however if we ran around punishing people for saying things we didn't like there would be a lot of people locked up...should be an interesting case none the less

"Running around punishing people for saying things we don't like" isn't exactly the same context here. I'd agree in many other cases.

The way I see it the Framers were after protecting political speech because they could not even print articles critical of the King. Armbands against a war to me is different than promoting an illegal activity particularly in an environment where other people's children would be exposed to the encouragment of the use of these substances. I mean really, should a religious drug pusher be allowed to advertise in the same school environment? That's the equivalent to me. Didn't they stop Coke or sodas from being dispensed in some schools vending machines?

[BucEyedPea]

The SC has already said if you don't like what you see or hear you can turn away

And how, when one is in school, is a teen to turn away? Go to another public school where it's still allowed? There isn't a choice unless one opts out of the public school system.

If you think I am against free speech you are wrong. I defended the Phelps peeps demonstrations at funeral homes on the grounds that offensive speech is allowed.

This is not the same situation.

[BucEyedPea]

If that's accurate, I don't think the school had the legal grounds to take the action they took.

Yep! I'd have to agree with ya' there....if that's true.

[Hydrae]

And how, when one is in school, is a teen to turn away? Go to another public school where it's still allowed? There isn't a choice unless one opts out of the public school system.

If you think I am against free speech you are wrong. I defended the Phelps peeps demonstrations at funeral homes on the grounds that offensive speech is allowed.

This is not the same situation.


If this happened in school during the school day, you would have a point. If the kids were given the day off and some of them came down to see the torch being run through town, you would be wrong as they are there voluntarily.

Also, if he was across the street he is not even on the school property. I could probably (depending on local laws) erect a similar sign across from the school and expose all those kids to that message on a daily basis with no repercussions.

[BucEyedPea]

If this happened in school during the school day, you would have a point. If the kids were given the day off and some of them came down to see the torch being run through town, you would be wrong as they are there voluntarily.

Did you even read my last post?

Also, if he was across the street he is not even on the school property. I could probably (depending on local laws) erect a similar sign across from the school and expose all those kids to that message on a daily basis with no repercussions.

It was a school sanctioned event. If he went to it as an attendent that day at school I don't think it's exactly the same. His only penalty was suspension.

[Hydrae]

Did you even read my last post?

Yes, I was responding to the post I quoted.


It was a school sanctioned event. If he went to it as an attendent that day at school I don't think it's exactly the same. His only penalty was suspension.

Sanctioned and sponsored are two different things. This really boils down to a lot of little details to which we are not privy.

BTW, the sign itself is pretty silly and the kid admitted he really did it just to get on TV.

[BucEyedPea]

Yes, I was responding to the post I quoted.

I wasn't referring to that post, which was my current post...but the "last" one before that one. "Last" does not mean current, but would mean the post before the current. If you followed, you'd see........(fill in the blanks).


Sanctioned and sponsored are two different things. This really boils down to a lot of little details to which we are not privy.

Again, did you follow my posts, and who I responded to?

[Chiefnj]

IMO, the case would hinge on whether he attended school that day. The facts that I posted were from a newspaper in Alaska. I didn't keep the link. I think if he went to school, signed in - or whatever it is kids and schools do these days, then the school has some responsibility for him and can enforce school regulations on him even if he walked across the street during school hours. If he never signed in/checked in for the day he wasn't their responsibility and he could do what he wishes when not on school property. I know there are probably loopholes in my opinion, but I think it's a fair rationale.

[BucEyedPea]

IMO, the case would hinge on whether he attended school that day. The facts that I posted were from a newspaper in Alaska. I didn't keep the link. I think if he went to school, signed in - or whatever it is kids and schools do these days, then the school has some responsibility for him and can enforce school regulations on him even if he walked across the street during school hours. If he never signed in/checked in for the day he wasn't their responsibility and he could do what he wishes when not on school property. I know there are probably loopholes in my opinion, but I think it's a fair rationale.
:clap:

[Garcia Bronco]

A bong is an apparatus. the principle should be fired because obviously it has or does poke smot..because whne it hears anbout a bong...that's what it thinks about.

[Adept Havelock]

A bong is an apparatus. the principle should be fired because obviously it has or does poke smot..because whne it hears anbout a bong...that's what it thinks about.

Put down the pipe GB...and slowly back away from the keyboard.

[Hound333]

I defended the Phelps peeps demonstrations at funeral homes on the grounds that offensive speech is allowed.



Lets not put this in the same class as that freak Phelps. While I don't agree with the kid in this instance he does have the out that he is still a kid and can learn from his mistakes. Phelps is just a hateful person who grows that hate by brainwashing his children and grandchildren.

[DenverChief]

"Running around punishing people for saying things we don't like" isn't exactly the same context here. I'd agree in many other cases.

The way I see it the Framers were after protecting political speech because they could not even print articles critical of the King. Armbands against a war to me is different than promoting an illegal activity particularly in an environment where other people's children would be exposed to the encouragment of the use of these substances. I mean really, should a religious drug pusher be allowed to advertise in the same school environment? That's the equivalent to me. Didn't they stop Coke or sodas from being dispensed in some schools vending machines?


Are your children exposed to pot bumper stickers or head shop signs as your drive/walk down the street?

[DenverChief]

And how, when one is in school, is a teen to turn away? Go to another public school where it's still allowed? There isn't a choice unless one opts out of the public school system.

If you think I am against free speech you are wrong. I defended the Phelps peeps demonstrations at funeral homes on the grounds that offensive speech is allowed.

This is not the same situation.


This was off school property no?

[banyon]

Court takes 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1154AP_Scotus_Bong_Banner.html

By MARK SHERMAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court stepped into a dispute over free speech Friday involving a suspended high school student and his banner that proclaimed "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

The justices agreed to hear the appeal by the Juneau, Alaska, school board and principal Deborah Morse of a lower court ruling that allowed the student's civil rights lawsuit to proceed. The school board hired former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr to argue its case to the high court.

Morse suspended Frederick after he displayed the banner, with its reference to marijuana use, when the Olympic torch passed through Juneau in 2002 on its way to the Winter Games in Salt Lake City.

Frederick, then a senior, was off school property when he hoisted the banner but was suspended for violating the school's policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event.

The school board upheld the suspension, and a federal judge initially dismissed Frederick's lawsuit. The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said the banner was vague and nonsensical and Frederick's civil rights had been violated.

At that point, the school board retained Starr, who investigated President Clinton's relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. He took the case free of charge.



The appeals court said that even if the banner could be construed as a positive message about marijuana use, the school could not punish or censor a student's speech because it promotes a social message contrary to one the school favors.

Frederick said his motivation for unfurling the banner, at least 14 feet long, was simple: He wanted it seen on television since the torch relay event was being covered by local stations. When Morse saw it, she crossed the street from the school, grabbed the banner and crumpled it. She later suspended Frederick for 10 days.

Morse still works for the Juneau school system but is no longer the high school principal. Frederick is a student at the University of Idaho.

The court is expected to hear arguments in the case in late February. In addition to the First Amendment issue, the court also will consider whether Morse can be held personally liable for monetary damages.

The appeals panel said she could be held liable because she admitted to being aware of the pertinent case law regarding student rights. The court said the law was clear and Morse was aware of it when she punished Frederick.

The case is Juneau School Board v. Frederick, 06-278.

[alpha_omega]

I don't know, but the headline sure is appropriate:

High court to get 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case?

[trndobrd]

If he was suspended for violating the school's policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event, I would be curious to see a definition of "promoting". If the intent of the policy prohibit promotion through distribution, use, or sales of illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event, that's fine. If it extends to handing out NORML literature or other political activity, that's not cool.