PDA

View Full Version : Bong Hits for Jesus - Overturned by SC


irishjayhawk
06-25-2007, 09:30 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court ruled against a former high school student Monday in the "Bong Hit 4 Jesus" banner case -- a split decision that limits students' free speech rights.

Joseph Frederick was 18 when he unveiled the 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002.

Principal Deborah Morse confiscated it and suspended Frederick. He sued, taking his case all the way to the nation's highest court.

The justices ruled 6-3 that Frederick's free speech rights were not violated by his suspension over what the majority's written opinion called a "sophomoric" banner.

"It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority.

Roberts added that while the court has limited student free speech rights in the past, young people do not give up all their First Amendment rights when they enter a school.

Roberts was supported by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito. Breyer noted separately he would give Morse qualified immunity from the lawsuit, but did not sign onto the majority's broader free speech limits on students.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "This case began with a silly nonsensical banner, (and) ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message."

He was backed by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

At issue was the discretion schools should be allowed to limit messages that appear to advocate illegal drug use. "Bong," as noted in the appeal filed with the justices, "is a slang term for drug paraphernalia."

The incident occurred in January 2002 just outside school grounds when the Olympic torch relay was moving through the Alaska capital on its way to the Salt Lake City, Utah, Winter Games.

Though he was standing on a public sidewalk, the school argued Frederick was part of a school-sanctioned event, because students were let out of classes and accompanied by their teachers.

Morse ordered the senior to take down the sign, but he refused. That led to a 10-day suspension for violating a school policy on promoting illegal drug use.

Frederick filed suit, saying his First Amendment rights were infringed. A federal appeals court in San Francisco agreed, concluding the school could not show Frederick had disrupted the school's educational mission by showing a banner off campus.

Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr argued for the principal that a school "must be able to fashion its educational mission" without undue hindsight from the courts.

Morse, who attended arguments in March, told CNN at the time: "I was empowered to enforce the school board's written policies at that time aimed at keeping illegal substances out of the school environment."

As for Frederick, he is halfway across the globe, teaching English to students in China.

Now 24, he 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. But Frederick claimed his message of free speech is very important to him, even if the wording of the infamous banner itself was not.

"I find it absurdly funny," he said. "I was not promoting drugs. ... I assumed most people would take it as a joke."

I have to agree with the well put dissent. Free Speech is free speech as long as it isn't hurting anyone. Advocating bong hits even as a joke is not hurting anyone.

Boo, to the Supreme Court.

Cochise
06-25-2007, 09:33 AM
I don't see how this is anything new. He was at a school-sponsored event which theoretically isn't anything different than being in school itself. Schools have always imposed rules that could be construed as limiting free speech, like not allowing a pot leaf on a tshirt or something.

Adept Havelock
06-25-2007, 09:34 AM
Damn activist judges. :cuss: :p


Considering the school had "let them go"/dismissed them for the day to attend this, I'm surprised this qualifies as a school event.

Personally, I think the politics of the quixotic, eternal, and IMO foolish "war on drugs" had far more to do with this decision than any actual basis in constitutional law. JMO :shrug:

irishjayhawk
06-25-2007, 09:37 AM
I don't see how this is anything new. He was at a school-sponsored event which theoretically isn't anything different than being in school itself. Schools have always imposed rules that could be construed as limiting free speech, like not allowing a pot leaf on a tshirt or something.

The school was off their grounds and they were just viewing the Olympic Torch go by. I don't consider that a school sponsored event even if they're with their teachers.

Chiefnj
06-25-2007, 09:51 AM
To me the critical issue is whether it was a school event or not. If they were dismissed then I disagree with the ruling.

What if a student was crossing the street and was run over by the torch carrier and set ablaze? Would the school have said - "The kids were dismissed. We aren't responsible for any accidents that occurred off school property and we aren't responsible for not providing adequate safeguards like crossing guards."

irishjayhawk
06-25-2007, 09:55 AM
And even if they were at a school sponsored event, it is a public school and therefore free speech must be adhered too. (I do hate the fact that private schools don't have to abide by that...)

This is not the same as yelling fire in a crowded theatre or bomb on an airplane. This is a sign saying something. It doesn't condone it - and even if it did - let's not pretend that people aren't using bongs.

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2007, 10:31 AM
.... Free Speech is free speech as long as it isn't hurting anyone. Advocating bong hits even as a joke is not hurting anyone.

Boo, to the Supreme Court.

Time, manner, and place restrictions on conduct, as opposed to REAL speech...are NOT new.

Wah! WWWAAaaaahhhhhhh! WWWWWWAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!

:p

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2007, 10:33 AM
While student first amendment freedoms are not necessarily left at the "school house door".....the Court's been consistent that student's don't enjoy the same full-fledged rights as adults. Again, this is nothing new at all.

Direckshun
06-25-2007, 10:39 AM
How is this any different than a student sitting in class talking about getting high.

You can't suspend a student for simply talking about getting high, and you shouldn't be able to suspend a student for this.

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2007, 10:44 AM
......You can't suspend a student for simply talking about getting high...

:spock:

Depends on context, but....you want to bet? :hmmm:

patteeu
06-25-2007, 11:28 AM
... it is a public school and therefore free speech must be adhered too.

:spock:

patteeu
06-25-2007, 11:28 AM
:spock:

Depends on context, but....you want to bet? :hmmm:

My money's with you on this one.

Direckshun
06-25-2007, 11:31 AM
:spock:

Depends on context, but....you want to bet? :hmmm:
Zero tolerance only regards violence. I highly doubt there's a zero tolerance policy for conversations about drugs.

patteeu
06-25-2007, 11:37 AM
Zero tolerance only regards violence. I highly doubt there's a zero tolerance policy for conversations about drugs.

I didn't take your first statement to imply that you were talking about zero tolerance and based on his response, I don't think Kotter did either. I'd agree with you that there are probably some circumstances under which talking about getting high wouldn't get you suspended, but I think it's very possible that talking about it could get you suspended.

irishjayhawk
06-25-2007, 11:41 AM
So then the 18 year old (which IS an adult at 18) doesn't have free speech?

Taco John
06-25-2007, 11:46 AM
Freedom is so passe'...

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2007, 11:47 AM
Zero tolerance only regards violence. I highly doubt there's a zero tolerance policy for conversations about drugs.

Context. If the speech can be reasonably be termed "disruptive" (time, place, manner....overall context)....it can be, and most often is, subject to school district's progressive discipline plan--just as any other "disruptive" speech or action can be.

Most school district policies probably are similar to following.....
First offense, is probably a parental phone call, and detention; multiple similar offenses can be deemed insubordination, and subject to short term suspensions; chronic offender/sustained insubordination can lead to long term suspensions, or even alternative placements and/or expulsions, depending on circumstances.

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2007, 11:47 AM
So then the 18 year old (which IS an adult at 18) doesn't have free speech?

As a student, attending public school....not exactly.

Taco John
06-25-2007, 11:49 AM
As a student, attending public school....not exactly.



He wasn't attending public school at the time of the offense.

I don't understand how you can always be on the douchebag side of every argument.

patteeu
06-25-2007, 11:51 AM
We'd have far better schools if they could kick kids out for any reason whatsoever.

Taco John
06-25-2007, 11:55 AM
We'd have far better schools if they could kick kids out for any reason whatsoever.



We'd have better schools if they were run by private organizations, and parents could vote with their dollars.

But since that will clearly not happen any time soon, we have public schools that teach public values.

Cochise
06-25-2007, 11:57 AM
The school was off their grounds and they were just viewing the Olympic Torch go by. I don't consider that a school sponsored event even if they're with their teachers.

It doesn't matter if you consider that a school function or not, apparently the supreme court does.

irishjayhawk
06-25-2007, 11:58 AM
Context. If the speech can be reasonably be termed "disruptive" (time, place, manner....overall context)....it can be, and most often is, subject to school district's progressive discipline plan--just as any other "disruptive" speech or action can be.

Most school district policies probably are similar to following.....
First offense, is probably a parental phone call, and detention; multiple similar offenses can be deemed insubordination, and subject to short term suspensions; chronic offender/sustained insubordination can lead to long term suspensions, or even alternative placements and/or expulsions, depending on circumstances.

Then how does "disruptive" describe this offense?

irishjayhawk
06-25-2007, 11:58 AM
It doesn't matter if you consider that a school function or not, apparently the supreme court does.

And that's why I'm disappointed with their ruling.

Adept Havelock
06-25-2007, 12:16 PM
We'd have far better schools if they could kick kids out for any reason whatsoever.


Sure. Then the schools can just kick out all the kids with low scores (especially the ones who try, but are unable to succeed at a high academic level) to give a false impression of the effectiveness of that school. Maybe we could even directly tie school funding to that.

It's not like that just happened down in Texas and New York a couple of years ago... :spock:


I agree we need to give schools more flexibility, but it should not be taken to that extreme, for this very reason IMO.

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2007, 12:51 PM
Then how does "disruptive" describe this offense?

I'll quote the article, since you apparently overlooked a couple of key points:

....The justices ruled 6-3 that Frederick's free speech rights were not violated by his suspension over what the majority's written opinion called a "sophomoric" banner.

"It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority.

Roberts added that while the court has limited student free speech rights in the past, young people do not give up all their First Amendment rights when they enter a school.

The incident occurred in January 2002 just outside school grounds when the Olympic torch relay was moving through the Alaska capital on its way to the Salt Lake City, Utah, Winter Games.

Though he was standing on a public sidewalk, the school argued Frederick was part of a school-sanctioned event, because students were let out of classes and accompanied by their teachers.

Morse ordered the senior to take down the sign, but he refused. That led to a 10-day suspension for violating a school policy on promoting illegal drug use.

....

Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr argued for the principal that a school "must be able to fashion its educational mission" without undue hindsight from the courts.

Morse, who attended arguments in March, told CNN at the time: "I was empowered to enforce the school board's written policies at that time aimed at keeping illegal substances out of the school environment."

..... [Frederick] 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. But Frederick claimed his message of free speech is very important to him, even if the wording of the infamous banner itself was not.



The majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the school district. You may disagree, but the Court's opinion is all that really matters.

WoodDraw
06-25-2007, 02:09 PM
I haven't read much about this case because frankly it sounds stupid, but here are my quick thoughts.

The kid blatantly advocated drug use (whether he intended to or not) in an idiotic, unjournalistic way. His free speech was not prevented since it was his 'speech' in the first place that led to his suspension. He says he attempted to solicit a response, and that response was suspension.

Public schools and free speech unfortunately contradict each other to some extent. The children should be encouraged to express themselves, even if the school administration disagrees, but this went beyond that. It was a matter of discipline, not speech. A school doesn't forfeit that right with public funding.

L.A. Chieffan
06-25-2007, 02:15 PM
I think the REAL question here is this: WWJS?
What Would Jesus Smoke?
Is Jesus a bong toker or maybe a quick sneak-a-toke...I personally think he's more of a puff, puff, pass guy.

KChiefer
06-25-2007, 02:19 PM
I think the REAL question here is this: WWJS?
What Would Jesus Smoke?
Is Jesus a bong toker or maybe a quick sneak-a-toke...I personally think he's more of a puff, puff, pass guy.

"Hey Peter! Quit Bogartin' that sh!t! I know I have infinite compassion and all, but you really testing me Man!"

KChiefer
06-25-2007, 02:36 PM
I'm assuming this was a town event as well as a school event. I wanna know if this event was mandatory for the students. If it was, then this kid is dead in the water. Also, were there permission slips?

But if it wasn't mandatory, and they could have gone elsewhere, it's hard to say the principal had authority over the student. If he didn't go to the event, did he have to go straight home?

This is what the principal said: "I was empowered to enforce the school board's written policies at that time aimed at keeping illegal substances out of the school environment."

Does that mean if they went to Six Flags or a museum he could kick out any person wearing a "Pot is Good" shirt?

irishjayhawk
06-25-2007, 02:39 PM
Condoning drug use is far from harmful, especially since drug use is a victim-less crime.

Free Speech should be protected unless it is violent or would cause harm in some way.

WoodDraw
06-25-2007, 02:48 PM
Condoning drug use is far from harmful, especially since drug use is a victim-less crime.

Free Speech should be protected unless it is violent or would cause harm in some way.

Uh, I'm sure most would disagree with that. Considering the black market of drugs, there are plenty of victims. Where are drugs grown/made? Where does the money go? A bit more complex than a few kids getting stoned after school.

BucEyedPea
06-25-2007, 02:55 PM
I don't see this as judicial activism. I don't even think it belongs in a federal court for any decision either.

Here's my take: what the govt funds it controls. Period. It's
always been this way. Don't accept a free govt education; then expect to have complete liberty. One always trades a little bit of individual sovereignty when they compromise on getting benefits from govt. Besides people just can't stick solicitation signs anywhere they want on public property ( and publically funded) such as sidewalks and roads either. There are local zoning laws. I don't see this as any different. And my take on it from earlier is how the SC decided.

go bowe
06-25-2007, 02:56 PM
I'll quote the article, since you apparently overlooked a couple of key points:



The majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the school district. You may disagree, but the Court's opinion is all that really matters.what's this?

kotter saying the supremes (those ravenous bastards and bastardette) are all that matters?

who are you and how did you get into kotters account?

must be a case of identity theft...

go to the local jailhouse and get yoursef arrested...

i'll tag along so i can keep the planet informed...

c'mon, it'l be fun...

go bowe
06-25-2007, 03:07 PM
I think the REAL question here is this: WWJS?
What Would Jesus Smoke?
Is Jesus a bong toker or maybe a quick sneak-a-toke...I personally think he's more of a puff, puff, pass guy.i will probably go to hell for this, but that there is some pretty funny stuff...

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2007, 03:23 PM
Condoning drug use is far from harmful, especially since drug use is a victim-less crime....

If we are ONLY talking about MJ, I tend to agree; however, you go any "harder" than that....then you are stinkin' outta your friggin' mind. :shake:



'Victimless" crime? :spock:

Tell that to the children of wives and children of junkies.

Tell that to those who are in prison for criminal acts committed to feed their habit/addictions which rob them of productivity.

Tell that to taxpayers who foot the bill for OD emergency room visits and rehab for junkies, or who support the families of junkies who can't support themselves....because of their habits/addictions.

Victimiless crime, my ass.... :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2007, 03:26 PM
what's this?

kotter saying the supremes (those ravenous bastards and bastardette) are all that matters?

who are you and how did you get into kotters account?

must be a case of identity theft...

go to the local jailhouse and get yoursef arrested...

i'll tag along so i can keep the planet informed...

c'mon, it'l be fun...

Heh....I figured you, AH, Amnorix, and few others might like that. LMAO

go bowe
06-25-2007, 03:27 PM
If we are ONLY talking about MJ, I tend to agree; however, you go any "harder" than that....then you are stinkin' outta your friggin' mind. :shake:



'Victimless" crime? :spock:

Tell that to the children of wives and children of junkies.

Tell that to those who are in prison for criminal acts committed to feed their habit/addictions which rob them of productivity.

Tell that to taxpayers who foot the bill for OD emergency room visits and rehab for junkies, or who support the families of junkies who can't support themselves....because of their habits/addictions.

Victimiless crime, my ass.... :rolleyes:your ass?

what about your ass?

i can help you with that.../denver chief

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2007, 03:29 PM
your ass?

what about your ass?

i can help you with that.../denver chief

Nah, Jason's cool; but I ain't lettin' him anywhere near my butt. Uh-uh. :shake:

mlyonsd
06-25-2007, 05:47 PM
Question....

Can a student in a public school post a copy of the Lord's Prayer or some such other religious symbol on their locker?

Jenson71
06-25-2007, 05:48 PM
Condoning drug use is far from harmful, especially since drug use is a victim-less crime.

Free Speech should be protected unless it is violent or would cause harm in some way.

Free speech should be limited in schools. Schools need the ability to kick kids out or suspend them without worrying about parents/children going on about their supposed rights. Watch a society crumble with children and their rights.

Jenson71
06-25-2007, 05:51 PM
Question....

Can a student in a public school post a copy of the Lord's Prayer or some such other religious symbol on their locker?

I don't the the for sure answer, but I would be shocked if they couldn't. Or if they couldn't wear a crucifix chain or a WWJD wristband.

pikesome
06-25-2007, 05:54 PM
I don't the the for sure answer, but I would be shocked if they couldn't. Or if they couldn't wear a crucifix chain or a WWJD wristband.

Some school districts ban teachers from wearing religious symbols.

mlyonsd
06-25-2007, 05:55 PM
I don't the the for sure answer, but I would be shocked if they couldn't. Or if they couldn't wear a crucifix chain or a WWJD wristband.

I never thought of that but I wonder if a locker is considered different because it's actually school property.

pikesome
06-25-2007, 05:56 PM
So then the 18 year old (which IS an adult at 18) doesn't have free speech?

I spent 4 years working for the government who revoked my freedom of speech (military). Some circumstances the government gets to, and I don't think that's a bad thing in this context.

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2007, 06:16 PM
Question....

Can a student in a public school post a copy of the Lord's Prayer or some such other religious symbol on their locker?

Inside, yes; outside, questionable.

Logical
06-25-2007, 06:35 PM
I don't know what is worse, that this case made it to the SC or the result.:rolleyes:

Jenson71
06-25-2007, 06:37 PM
I don't know what is worse, that this case made it to the SC or the result.:rolleyes:

The former.

http://warnerkirby.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/the_more_you_know775718.jpg

go bowe
06-25-2007, 06:38 PM
Nah, Jason's cool; but I ain't lettin' him anywhere near my butt. Uh-uh. :shake:he's very polite but i think he might be more interested in someone who is a little younger and has a bit more muscular "butt", as you call it...

p.s. if this offends you, dc, i will apologize and maby even send you a case of condoms...

as for you kotter, rest easy (untll an older homosexual comes along and thinks your butt is just what the doctor ordered)...

until then, have fun, as much as you want...

life is but a glimpse or some shit like that...

as you get older the years seem to melt away...

so enjoy life now while you can, youngster...

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2007, 07:23 PM
I don't know what is worse, that this case made it to the SC or the result.:rolleyes:

Well, you have only the Left Coast Idiotic Ninth Circuit Moonbats to thank for it making it to the Court....had THEY done the right thing, the case would have died. Instead, they fugg it up, like they do....more often than any of the other 11 circuits.

It's the SC cleaning up after the stupidity of the Ninth Circuit, that you have to blame this one on. :)

Logical
06-25-2007, 07:48 PM
Well, you have only the Left Coast Idiotic Ninth Circuit Moonbats to thank for it making it to the Court....had THEY done the right thing, the case would have died. Instead, they fugg it up, like they do....more often than any of the other 11 circuits.

It's the SC cleaning up after the stupidity of the Ninth Circuit, that you have to blame this one on. :)Being as the Ninth seems to have got this one right it is a shame the Supremes interfered.

patteeu
06-25-2007, 07:49 PM
We'd have better schools if they were run by private organizations, and parents could vote with their dollars.

But since that will clearly not happen any time soon, we have public schools that teach public values.

I agree with that, but in the meantime, our public schools should be allowed to be schools. I don't think this ruling goes far enough to reign in disruptive behavior. It actually seems to affirm the expansive view of the 1st Amendment in the public school setting despite finding a narrow reason to rule against Mr. BongHit4Jesus.

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2007, 10:04 PM
Being as the Ninth seems to have got this one right it is a shame the Supremes interfered.

You obviously didn't pay attention in Poli Sci 101, bi-atch... :rolleyes:

The "Supremes"" are "supreme" for a reason, yo...ho? :harumph:

Logical
06-25-2007, 10:11 PM
You obviously didn't pay attention in Poli Sci 101, bi-atch... :rolleyes:

The "Supremes"" are "supreme" for a reason, yo...ho? :harumph:

I learned long ago that I could disagree with anything I wanted to including an arbitrary decision by the Supreme Court that overules the first amendment. They want to stomp on our liberty I don't have to agree in silence.

Jenson71
06-25-2007, 10:17 PM
I learned long ago that I could disagree with anything I wanted to including an arbitrary decision by the Supreme Court that overules the first amendment. They want to stomp on our liberty I don't have to agree in silence.

Should students have full freedom of speech?

ClevelandBronco
06-25-2007, 10:29 PM
Condoning drug use is far from harmful, especially since drug use is a victim-less crime.

That a crime is "victimless" isn't enough to make the criminality of the act suspect. For instance, drunk driving is usually a victimless crime, but it's still a crime nonetheless.

Drunk crashing often (but not always) involves victims.

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2007, 10:58 PM
I learned long ago that I could disagree with anything I wanted to including an arbitrary decision by the Supreme Court that overules the first amendment. They want to stomp on our liberty I don't have to agree in silence.

Stomp on liberty, give me a break....whiny bi-atch. :rolleyes:

Time, manner, place restrictions. In place, LONG ago...even the fugged-in-the-head-Warren-Court recognized that chit.

Students don't have the SAME first amendment rights as adults. In place, LONG ago...check the cases yourself.

Free speech is NOT necessarily defined as whatever "conduct" or "symbolic" speech one claims. In place, LONG ago....check.

This SC decision broke absolutely NO NEW GROUND. As Don Henley would say, "Get over it....get OVER it!"

stevieray
06-25-2007, 10:59 PM
That a crime is "victimless" isn't enough to make the criminality of the act suspect. For instance, drunk driving is usually a victimless crime, but it's still a crime nonetheless.

Drunk crashing often (but not always) involves victims.

get caught operating heavy equipment(or driving your car) under the influence of drugs and see if you aren't the victim of your own actions.

Logical
06-25-2007, 11:46 PM
Stomp on liberty, give me a break....whiny bi-atch. :rolleyes:

Time, manner, place restrictions. In place, LONG ago...even the fugged-in-the-head-Warren-Court recognized that chit.

Students don't have the SAME first amendment rights as adults. In place, LONG ago...check the cases yourself.

Free speech is NOT necessarily defined as whatever "conduct" or "symbolic" speech one claims. In place, LONG ago....check.

This SC decision broke absolutely NO NEW GROUND. As Don Henley would say, "Get over it....get OVER it!"

You appear to be the one who cannot deal, so you resort to insults and childish taunts.

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2007, 11:57 PM
You appear to be the one who cannot deal, so you resort to insults and childish taunts.

When you choose to be THIS dense, you deserve it. Sorry. Even IrishJayhawk knew when he was whipped. You just can't admit it. :shake:

Insults and taunts...heh? What, poor Jimmy-boy can't take it? Though you certainly deal it, quite REGULARLY I might add...

Don't make me laugh anymore.... ROFL

Go start a thread about, "What Does God Think About Free Speech?" so you can taunt those evil "believers"...some more. :rolleyes:

Logical
06-26-2007, 12:49 AM
When you choose to be THIS dense, you deserve it. Sorry. Even IrishJayhawk knew when he was whipped. You just can't admit it. :shake:

Insults and taunts...heh? What, poor Jimmy-boy can't take it? Though you certainly deal it, quite REGULARLY I might add...

Don't make me laugh anymore.... ROFL

Go start a thread about, "What Does God Think About Free Speech?" so you can taunt those evil "believers"...some more. :rolleyes:
Really, please show me where I regularly use childish taunts and insults. If I insult someone it is because they insist on being beyond the level of ignorant and have jumped right into stupidity. I don't insult people for merely holding a different view and opinion. Your schtick is well known and your feigned anger is frankly bogus.

Mr. Kotter
06-26-2007, 01:06 AM
Really, please show me where I regularly use childish taunts and insults. If I insult someone it is because they insist on being beyond the level of ignorant and have jumped right into stupidity. I don't insult people for merely holding a different view and opinion. Your schtick is well known and your feigned anger is frankly bogus.

Wow. Jim...."insulted" by bi-atch, meant in an endearing way. :shake:

Dude's gettin' old, I guess. Lighten up, Jimbo. If you consider bi-atch insulting, you are outta touch. On the other hand, disagreeing with the SC...in this case, is just plain silly. So, pick your poison...as you please. :)

Taco John
06-26-2007, 02:29 AM
hahaha... Mr. Whine About Activist Judges thinks that it's silly to disagree with the Supreme Court.

Not much for consistency, are you?

Saggysack
06-26-2007, 04:47 AM
I think the REAL question here is this: WWJS?
What Would Jesus Smoke?
Is Jesus a bong toker or maybe a quick sneak-a-toke...I personally think he's more of a puff, puff, pass guy.


I think he is more of a douse yourself in oil till you can't move type of guy. I think Jesus likes body highs rather than the heady highs. Kineboisin/Kaneh-bosm/Cannabis, it's all the same. Jesus loved them all.

Mr. Kotter
06-26-2007, 06:42 AM
hahaha... Mr. Whine About Activist Judges thinks that it's silly to disagree with the Supreme Court.

Not much for consistency, are you?

Not much for understanding the distinction between a restraintist Court, and an activist Court are you? :)

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 07:28 AM
Being as the Ninth seems to have got this one right it is a shame the Supremes interfered.

Yet, the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court.

The reason I posted the SC shouldn't decide it is because philosophically I take an originalists view of the Constitution, which means the 1st Amendment protects speech from being curtailed by the Federal govt. There were no public schools at the time either let alone fed funds going into local schools as they were later in the 20th century.

I know that's not " in vogue" since the expansion ( judicial activism) of the 14th Amendment which itself was never originaly intended to extend the Feds from applying the BoR's across the board to the state level because it was intended for protection of black people post Civil War. I don't see any mention of that in the case though. I'm just assuming it's just part of the trends. Apparently, though there's other case law on this that supports the opinion.

So it's no surprise to me at all that the biggest liberal judicial activists are the one's who dissented with one of them alleging something out of "whole cloth" was created. Pure projection imo. It's not like the kid can't express his views elsewhere at another time. So it's nonsense that his rights were suppressed.

Here's the actual case:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-278.ZS.html

patteeu
06-26-2007, 10:46 AM
I learned long ago that I could disagree with anything I wanted to including an arbitrary decision by the Supreme Court that overules the first amendment. They want to stomp on our liberty I don't have to agree in silence.

Says the guy who's the first defender of laws forcing business owners to ban smoking in their establishments (not on technical grounds but on the grounds that you don't want to be bothered by smoky air). You're a trip. ROFL

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 11:00 AM
Sorry, I still feel the way I do.

Kid was passively holding a sign.
Kid wasn't on school grounds.
It was definitely stupid, but within his rights.
I wholeheartedly disagree that students lose rights and don't have the freedoms of adults EVEN WHEN they're 18.


My question now is:

If it were a college, would this still be acceptable?

Logical
06-26-2007, 11:10 AM
Says the guy who's the first defender of laws forcing business owners to ban smoking in their establishments (not on technical grounds but on the grounds that you don't want to be bothered by smoky air). You're a trip. ROFL

Not sure where the constitution protects public businesses from public laws, you against health regulations too patteeu after all they infringe on the restaurant owners right to select how clean he keeps his establishment.

banyon
06-26-2007, 01:05 PM
I think Justice Stevens' dissent makes sense.

In my judgment, the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students. This nonsense banner does neither, and the Court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding—indeed, lauding—a school’s decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed.

patteeu
06-26-2007, 03:20 PM
Not sure where the constitution protects public businesses from public laws, you against health regulations too patteeu after all they infringe on the restaurant owners right to select how clean he keeps his establishment.

As a matter of fact, I do. But in any event, I'd distinguish between regulations that relate to latent health issues and regulations that are aimed at issues that are easily visible to those who choose to involve themselves with that particular business establishment. If you choose to work, eat, or drink in a smoke filled bar, you don't do it without being aware of what you're getting into.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 03:22 PM
As a matter of fact, I do. But in any event, I'd distinguish between regulations that relate to latent health issues and regulations that are aimed at issues that are easily visible to those who choose to involve themselves with that particular business establishment. If you choose to work, eat, or drink in a smoke filled bar, you don't do it without being aware of what you're getting into.
Do you think it could be said that if one servers a poison steak in a restaurant that it violates some sort of implied warranty?

Pitt Gorilla
06-26-2007, 03:36 PM
As a matter of fact, I do. But in any event, I'd distinguish between regulations that relate to latent health issues and regulations that are aimed at issues that are easily visible to those who choose to involve themselves with that particular business establishment. If you choose to work, eat, or drink in a smoke filled bar, you don't do it without being aware of what you're getting into.I'd assume you're against pot being illegal as well.

Mr. Kotter
06-26-2007, 03:37 PM
I think Justice Stevens' dissent makes sense.

Of course you would.

As a chronic minority dissenter type. ;)

patteeu
06-26-2007, 03:50 PM
Do you think it could be said that if one servers a poison steak in a restaurant that it violates some sort of implied warranty?

I don't know.

patteeu
06-26-2007, 03:51 PM
I'd assume you're against pot being illegal as well.

Would you? What leads you to that assumption?

Logical
06-26-2007, 06:37 PM
As a matter of fact, I do. But in any event, I'd distinguish between regulations that relate to latent health issues and regulations that are aimed at issues that are easily visible to those who choose to involve themselves with that particular business establishment. If you choose to work, eat, or drink in a smoke filled bar, you don't do it without being aware of what you're getting into.

If you choose to work, eat or drink in a filthy restaurant that does not follow sanitary practices, you don't do it without being away what you are getting into.

mlyonsd
06-26-2007, 07:30 PM
As a matter of fact, I do. But in any event, I'd distinguish between regulations that relate to latent health issues and regulations that are aimed at issues that are easily visible to those who choose to involve themselves with that particular business establishment. If you choose to work, eat, or drink in a smoke filled bar, you don't do it without being aware of what you're getting into.

I agree with this. As long as tobacco is considered a legal substance in this country the owner of any establishment should decide whether or not it is allowed.

Logical
06-26-2007, 07:57 PM
I agree with this. As long as tobacco is considered a legal substance in this country the owner of any establishment should decide whether or not it is allowed.

Alchohol is legal but the places you can consume it are regulated, no different than smoking in CA

ClevelandBronco
06-26-2007, 09:40 PM
Alchohol is legal but the places you can consume it are regulated, no different than smoking in CA

Private business establishments wherein one can legally consume alcohol are regulated by a licensing board. On that point you are correct.

The problem is that private business establishments wherein one can consume tobacco are increasingly being banned. They aren't being licensed, they're being made flat out illegal.

If states were licensing private businesses to allow tobacco consumption under certain standardized conditions, you'd be all correct. But that's not what's happening.

You're incorrect in the parallel you're trying to draw.

BTW: I don't smoke regularly, although I enjoy a friendly poker game that includes cigars every couple of months.

Logical
06-26-2007, 10:11 PM
Private business establishments wherein one can legally consume alcohol are regulated by a licensing board. On that point you are correct.

The problem is that private business establishments wherein one can consume tobacco are increasingly being banned. They aren't being licensed, they're being made flat out illegal.

If states were licensing private businesses to allow tobacco consumption under certain standardized conditions, you'd be all correct. But that's not what's happening.

You're incorrect in the parallel you're trying to draw.

BTW: I don't smoke regularly, although I enjoy a friendly poker game that includes cigars every couple of months.

There are licensed smoking establishments out here. Mostly for Cigar and Pipe smoking.

ClevelandBronco
06-26-2007, 10:23 PM
There are licensed smoking establishments out here. Mostly for Cigar and Pipe smoking.

Most smokers smoke cigarettes. I know of no state that's making allowances for that behavior. Do you?

Logical
06-26-2007, 10:30 PM
Most smokers smoke cigarettes. I know of no state that's making allowances for that behavior. Do you?

I admit that as of this point I don't. Probably coming.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2007, 10:36 PM
Even at 24 years of age he's still a dumbass. He wasted countless hours of our justice system for a joke. Just because we have the right to say what we want...that doesn't mean there aren't consequences.

ClevelandBronco
06-26-2007, 10:41 PM
Wait a minute. I think Colorado still allows cigarette smoking in casinos in the three mountain town that are allowed to house limited stakes gaming: Central City, Blackhawk and Cripple Creek.

But that particular legal behavior is banned entirely inside all other private business establishments in all other Colorado cities.

Logical
06-26-2007, 10:49 PM
Wait a minute. I think Colorado still allows cigarette smoking in casinos in the three mountain town that are allowed to house limited stakes gaming: Central City, Blackhawk and Cripple Creek.

But that particular legal behavior is banned entirely inside all other private business establishments in all other Colorado cities.

Actually people can still smoke out here (cigarettes) at the Indian gaming casinos, so there are places here as well.

patteeu
06-27-2007, 05:20 AM
If you choose to work, eat or drink in a filthy restaurant that does not follow sanitary practices, you don't do it without being away what you are getting into.

Which is why I said that I do have a problem with them. :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
06-27-2007, 06:35 AM
Even at 24 years of age he's still a dumbass. He wasted countless hours of our justice system for a joke. Just because we have the right to say what we want...that doesn't mean there aren't consequences.

BEST post of the entire thread. :clap:

Logical
06-27-2007, 09:56 AM
Which is why I said that I do have a problem with them. :shrug:

And why I have a major problem with smoking in public facilities.

irishjayhawk
06-27-2007, 10:36 AM
Would you guys still feel the same way if it was a college?

patteeu
06-27-2007, 11:34 AM
And why I have a major problem with smoking in public facilities.

If that makes any sense, I'm not getting it. Unless you're just trying to point out that you consistently oppose freedom when commerce is involved.

pikesome
06-27-2007, 11:57 AM
Would you guys still feel the same way if it was a college?

The thinking (and it's not completely incorrect) is that once you get out of HS you should be able to make intelligent decisions for yourself. High schools have 14-15 year olds (depending on the district) who aren't capable of thinking for themselves completely. It's the same train of thought as requiring someone to be 18 to consent to sex. We also have a habit of "better safe than sorry" when it comes to rules for and about children.

irishjayhawk
06-27-2007, 01:23 PM
The thinking (and it's not completely incorrect) is that once you get out of HS you should be able to make intelligent decisions for yourself. High schools have 14-15 year olds (depending on the district) who aren't capable of thinking for themselves completely. It's the same train of thought as requiring someone to be 18 to consent to sex. We also have a habit of "better safe than sorry" when it comes to rules for and about children.

Well, one can be in HS and be a legal adult (18). This was that type of case. So, in a state college, funded by the government to an extent but still requiring tuition, would it be considered acceptable free speech.

FTR, I thought the case itself was stupid, but the principle behind it isn't and that's what the ruling got wrong.

pikesome
06-27-2007, 01:28 PM
Well, one can be in HS and be a legal adult (18). This was that type of case. So, in a state college, funded by the government to an extent but still requiring tuition, would it be considered acceptable free speech.

FTR, I thought the case itself was stupid, but the principle behind it isn't and that's what the ruling got wrong.

The problem is that the 18 year olds are elbow to elbow with the younger kids. That's why, I think, their rights usually have to take second fiddle. Much like the limits put on teachers, in other jobs it would be completely inappropriate but it's tolerable for those working with children. I'm not sure I 100% agree with how this went down but I'm also not the one making the decisions here.

Mr. Kotter
06-27-2007, 02:32 PM
Would you guys still feel the same way if it was a college?

The rules ARE different for college; and that seems reasonable. The Court doesn't buy your 18 year old argument, and neither do I; bottom-line is, in public schools the rules are different. The courts have said so, often. This is no different.

irishjayhawk
06-27-2007, 02:50 PM
The rules ARE different for college; and that seems reasonable. The Court doesn't buy your 18 year old argument, and neither do I; bottom-line is, in public schools the rules are different. The courts have said so, often. This is no different.


Then what good is having the legal age of an adult at 18?

I'll buy pikesome's reasoning but yours, well I don't know that you've said anything different than public schools the rules are different. And even that's weak when a university is a public state sponsored school.

Mr. Kotter
06-27-2007, 04:33 PM
Then what good is having the legal age of an adult at 18?

I'll buy pikesome's reasoning but yours, well I don't know that you've said anything different than public schools the rules are different. And even that's weak when a university is a public state sponsored school.

Pikesome's arguments are among the very ones the courts, and I, recognize. I conisder it common sense. :shrug:

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 04:40 PM
There was a lawyer on tv last night, versus another liberal lawyer, who said the public school's role and educational message was anti-drug which just means that's a public value. Govt can reg public morality. She clarified that had this kid's message been one that was advocating overturning a bad law; that such would have been protected political speech.

Adept Havelock
06-27-2007, 04:50 PM
She clarified that had this kid's message been one that was advocating overturning a bad law; that such would have been protected political speech.

I bet it wouldn't have been protected if he had been speaking out against restricted speech in public schools. ;)

My problem with the view suggested by that particular shyster is it's awfully subjective as to what constitutes a "bad law". To me, a bad law might be one that makes it too easy for the govt. to sieze property. To QuikSsurfer or sedated, I'm sure they would see the laws criminalizing pot as "bad laws".

JMO.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 04:59 PM
I bet it wouldn't have been protected if he had been speaking out against restricted speech in public schools. ;)

My problem with the view suggested by that particular shyster is it's awfully subjective as to what constitutes a "bad law". To me, a bad law might be one that makes it too easy for the govt. to sieze property. To QuikSsurfer or sedated, I'm sure they would see the laws criminalizing pot as "bad laws".

JMO.
Well even a judge renders an opinion. I don't quite agree, even if a sedated would see it differently, as the mission of the school is not to promote illegal drugs. Now if was a sign that wanted to overturn such laws, maybe, just not sure, that would be considered political. Besides, it was partly religious speech too.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 05:21 PM
Then what good is having the legal age of an adult at 18?

One is that he's free to drop out now if he wants. There's NO mandatory law for any 18 year old keeping him in school if he doesn't like their rules. We have to presume that those who go to college are their by choice.

Like I posted, earlier nothing is free. You always have to curtail some liberty when you get something from the govt, that's paid for by others.

Logical
06-27-2007, 06:37 PM
If that makes any sense, I'm not getting it. Unless you're just trying to point out that you consistently oppose freedom when commerce is involved.ROFL

Yes patteeu I consistenly oppose freedom.

go bowe
06-28-2007, 01:06 PM
* * *
Go start a thread about, "What Does God Think About Free Speech?" so you can taunt those evil "believers"...some more. :rolleyes:hey...

but but but...

i thought it was my turn next...

can't i taunt the beleivers too?

just a little bit?

Sam Hall
06-28-2007, 10:29 PM
This was entirely predictable considering it happened at a high school. The story might be different had it occurred at a public university.

Chiefnj
06-29-2007, 07:38 AM
This was entirely predictable considering it happened at a high school. The story might be different had it occurred at a public university.

Except it didn't occur at a high school, it occurred on a public street outside of school property.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2007, 08:05 AM
Except it didn't occur at a high school, it occurred on a public street outside of school property.
Under the jurisdiction of the school.
Have you ever heard of a "field trip?"
Those are still under the school's jurisdiction even if off school grounds.
My kid and some of her friends got in trouble on one for tossing strawberries out the window of the school bus, particularly since some landed in a cops face.

Chiefnj
06-29-2007, 08:06 AM
Under the jurisdiction of the school.
Have you ever heard of a "field trip?"
Those are still under the school's jurisdiction even if off school grounds.
My kid and some of her friends got in trouble on one for tossing strawberries out the window of the school bus, particularly since some landed in a cops face.

Did they sign permission slips?

Chiefnj
06-29-2007, 08:11 AM
Did they sign permission slips? In fact, the kid in question had not even been to school that day prior to the "field trip". He went from home to the public street.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2007, 08:36 AM
Per the picture looks to me like he joined his komrades under the jurisdiction of a govt school paid for by the people, promoting a message that could reasonably be seen as promoting illegal activity. Not a message advocating overturning laws making marijuana illegal.

Adept Havelock
06-29-2007, 09:08 AM
Per the picture looks to me like he joined his komrades under the jurisdiction of a govt school paid for by the people, promoting a message that could reasonably be seen as promoting illegal activity. Not a message advocating overturning laws making marijuana illegal.

Yes, but as he was suggesting said illegal activity be done in honor of a supernatural deity (in the eyes of many), I'd think it might be covered under the freedom of religion cause. Similar to the Natives and the peyote ceremony.

Yeah, I know... :p

BucEyedPea
06-29-2007, 09:44 AM
Yes, but as he was suggesting said illegal activity be done in honor of a supernatural deity (in the eyes of many), I'd think it might be covered under the freedom of religion cause. Similar to the Natives and the peyote ceremony.

Yeah, I know... :p
I'm surprised the ACLU didn't get more involved on the basis of this violating church and state then.

irishjayhawk
06-29-2007, 11:36 AM
Sorry, I continue to believe that no one "gives up" or "checks" their rights when they enter HS.

Saggysack
06-29-2007, 12:40 PM
To be honest, this really is an interesting subject.

There is a lot of evidence that points towards Jesus being a cannibis user. Old hebrew text lists the things that were in anointing oil. One of the things listed was kineboisin in some texts and kaneh-bosem in others. Translated into cannibus.

But, what makes it interesting, is how would Jesus view the sign and our laws concerning cannibus if he was a cannibus user himself.

Sam Hall
06-29-2007, 01:30 PM
High school administrators have a lot of power when it comes to this and the courts usually back them up. The courts will support high schools that have a pedagogical reason for censoring speech. If that's the school's practice and philosophy, then the courts will support it. High schools aren't public forums like the typical college or university.

Baby Lee
06-29-2007, 01:35 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q2HBP80&show_article=1

BucEyedPea
06-29-2007, 06:39 PM
Sorry, I continue to believe that no one "gives up" or "checks" their rights when they enter HS.
Define "rights."

Since when has it been a right to promote illegal activity? If so, where does that right come from? It is a right to advocate repeal of laws you feel are stupid for making that activity illegal.

There is a difference between "license" ( seeking permission to do what one ought not to do ) and a true "right."

Logical
06-29-2007, 07:24 PM
Define "rights."

Since when has it been a right to promote illegal activity? If so, where does that right come from? It is a right to advocate repeal of laws you feel are stupid for making that activity illegal.

There is a difference between "license" ( seeking permission to do what one ought not to do ) and a true "right."ROFL

C'mon you are just trying to see if he knows about the 1st Amendment?

go bowe
07-29-2007, 11:46 AM
I bet it wouldn't have been protected if he had been speaking out against restricted speech in public schools. ;)

My problem with the view suggested by that particular shyster is it's awfully subjective as to what constitutes a "bad law". To me, a bad law might be one that makes it too easy for the govt. to sieze property. To QuikSsurfer or sedated, I'm sure they would see the laws criminalizing pot as "bad laws".

JMO.bad, naughty and hot...

that's the way i like it...

oh wait, you are talking about laws prohibiting the use of pot...

very bad laws... :bong:

jettio
09-23-2008, 02:00 PM
Even at 24 years of age he's still a dumbass. He wasted countless hours of our justice system for a joke. Just because we have the right to say what we want...that doesn't mean there aren't consequences.


Interesting post considering your post today about the retarded father and son in Colorado with the t-shirt.

Seems that you believe that there is a right of free speech in public school, but ........, it is not a right that should be enforced if infringed, but.......decide whether to cricitcize the kid or criticize the school depending on whether you agree with the expression based on your political point of view.

I would have to conclude that you have a strange point of view on this issue.

jettio
09-23-2008, 07:41 PM
Even at 24 years of age he's still a dumbass. He wasted countless hours of our justice system for a joke. Just because we have the right to say what we want...that doesn't mean there aren't consequences.


What a stupid thing to say.

irishjayhawk
09-23-2008, 08:48 PM
Wow, nice bump.