In January, 2002, Joseph Frederick unfurled a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across the street from the school he was attending. The school suspended him after the incident. The banner was an attempt to get on TV as the Olympic torch passed by.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, overturned the decision of Alaska's Federal Court, which ruled that Joseph Frederick's free speech rights were not violated by suspending him. Friday's ruling backs Frederick.
Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote "Public schools are instrumentalities of government, and government is not entitled to suppress speech that undermines whatever missions it defines for itself." This ruling also allows Joseph to seek damages.
I was down in Nashville when the 2002 Salt Lake torch was being passed. It was a party like atmosphere (Friday night in bar territory) and was very hard to get in front to see it with all the people lined across the streets downtown. It was like a busy parade.
If I can recall correctly, people took off their hats and put their hands in front of their hearts when the US flag passed with national anthem music right behind it (standard thing to do in the US when you hear the anthem and see the flag). I didn't feel like taking off my hat just for what I thought was kind of a blind tradition. I was kinna badgered about it by the group that I was with. If they wouldn't want to take off their shirts downtown if it were some weird tradition, it would be fine by me. (with the exception of certain women of course :P).
This is a tough one. I don't think they should throw the book at the offending student, however think about the consequenses of tolerating this kind of behavior.
What if the next kid want's to put up a swastika? Are you going to pat him on the back for such delightful free speech?
The problem with free speech is that about half of Americans are a useless waste of oxygen.
Nice to see that after all that wasted money and time someone made a sensible decision.
I am noticing a growing trend in America for schools to believe they have the right to punish students for things they do outside of school premises and hours.
Tellgar, first off, that is a poor title - the article does not say anywhere that bong hits are okay with Jesus. It is totally about a right to free speech. It's a cheap shot at christianity, and hence, a poor title.
Comments: Most schools, both public and otherwise have as part of their enrolment contracts some degree of extra-curricular oversight. However, as the Judge pointed out, public schools are government institutions and cannot discriminate nor deny free speech unless it is hateful.
First off, chill. Not everything is a cheap shot at christians. For all you know this was a cheap shot at Mormons, and not christians.
It wasn't a cheap shot at either group though. You may think it is, and I really doubt I can change your mind about it. My guess is that you are like most christians, you get overly offended over nothing.
Now as for the real reasons for the title. There's a line in a song by DC Talk, called Jesus is just all right. One of the lines in the song is "Jesus is just all right with me". The sign said "Bong hits 4 Jesus", and we have a federal judge saying the sign is ok. So I combined the name of the song title, the banner, and the judges ruling, and got "Bong hits are just all right with Jesus.".
Maybe I should have made it "Bong hits are just all right for Jesus", and make it fit more inline with the banner, and then maybe you wouldn't be offended, but who knows. You probably would still be offended.
Also I was originally going to have the just before all right, but I dropped it because too many people had questions about the titles I've had, that contained poor grammar while combining titles from one thing and another...
Anyways, long story short, just because you don't get it doesn't mean it was meant as a cheap shot at your religion.
"However, as the Judge pointed out, public schools are government institutions and cannot discriminate nor deny free speech unless it is hateful."
Umm... Actually, the judge didn't say anything about hateful. It can be hateful and still fall into free speech. It depends on what you're saying. I can hold a sign saying I hate white people, and that is still covered by free speech. Now if I hold a sigh that says kill the white boy across the street, then I am going across the line of free speech.
First I must point out that Mormons are christians. Second I agree it is a bad title. Not so much because of the words it's self (i.e. the fact that Jesus is a religous icon), but because it has only a very obscure refrence to the summery it's self. It Seems like a title designed to get traffic more then convay the content of a summery.
Now for comments: I am very happy to see a judge uphold this students free speech. Had it happened on school grounds or if it had contained the schools name (like an endorsment of the message) then I would understand. But it happened across the street with out the schools name. Schools tend to sometimes be a bit overbearing to "protect their image" or "maintain order". Glad to see that someone is disallowing that.
my point is that "freedom of speech" is being misused and manipulated by jerk-offs like this guy to get some attention.
If I rented the house across the street from you and put up a billboard saying that your mother is the biggest slut in town, would you slap me on the back for having such brilliant utilization of my freedom of speech?
These sadistic people are hiding behind the 1st amendment, and using it to intentionally hurt people. Sure it may be legal, but whatever happened to common sense?
"my point is that "freedom of speech" is being misused and manipulated by jerk-offs like this guy to get some attention." Tell me, how can one misuse the freedom of speech speaking in Constitutional terms?
"If I rented the house across the street from you and put up a billboard saying that your mother is the biggest slut in town, would you slap me on the back for having such brilliant utilization of my freedom of speech?"
Yes, I would.
I remember driving to one of my friend's apartments before the 2004 election and every time I would pass in between two houses. One had John Kerry signs all over their front yard. The other had the words "Freedom isn't free, Vote Bush" actually painted on the side of the house facing the Kerry supporter's. I am sure they probably did not like each other's signs, but if they were not allowed to put up those signs about their chosen candidate this country would not be free.
"These sadistic people are hiding behind the 1st amendment, and using it to intentionally hurt people. Sure it may be legal, but whatever happened to common sense?"
You’ve gotta love it when someone says that a sign reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" must be carried by a sadistic person. You can have your opinion, but how in the world do you get that he was intentionally trying to hurt someone? You're basically saying that common sense is to infringe upon other's rights when you don't like what they have to say. Is this not correct?
"If I rented the house across the street from you and put up a billboard saying that your mother is the biggest slut in town"
I believe that would fall under slander, and as such would not be protected by free speech... unless you had pictures or video as proof, surveys from the people in town, etc, then yeah, you would be protected.
The first amendment is designed to protect the rights of an individual to express him or herself without fear of reprisal from others. The problem is that it is frequently abused and used as a cloak to protect a particular party from responsibility for their actions. It is easy to say or do something stupid then hide behind the first amendment when they start to take flak for it. Everybody has an opinion,and has the right to express said opinion, but we have a moral responsibility to use this power sensibly. I personally love the first amendment, but think that its powers are too broad. On one hand we have those who use it to express legitimate concerns and grievances. On the other hand we have the racists and hatemongers who use it as the mantra for spewing their filth. This country was founded on the principles of freedom and equality yet at the same time we allow certain twisted individuals (running out of adjectives here) who try to suppress those principles of others based on aesthetic or idealogical differences. But I'm rambling now. On the short, I think the kid in the article is an idiot, but does not deserve to be hassled like he his.
Actually, no matter how you came to put it together, the title has very little to do with the article. For the record, I don't think that obscure music references suddenly make a title more or less valid.
If it was not a cheap shot at christians, then what exactly were you trying to accomplish? It remains a poor title.
I was going to reply to you about this, and try to explain better how a title like "Bongs Hits are All Right with Jesus" has something to do with a sign that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"... But seriously, it's a waste of time on both our parts. I'm not going to argue with you over a title of a story. It is a completely meaningless arguement.
If I'm wrong, the admins will change it. If it's ok, the admins won't change it.
Either way, we really have no say in it at this point, since you aren't an admin, and I don't have an edit button.
It got me to read the article when the story wasn’t all that thrilling. Good job Telgar. You sucked me in.
Lauriesman, please stop with the constant personal attacks. It’s not a very Christian thing to do. You sound almost like a Muslim extremist. If telgar had included cartoons of Jesus smoking a bong I would half expect you to declare a fatwa on telgar and car bomb his house. If you are going to complain about other people’s articles maybe you should write a few yourself. Take a chill pill and get a life.
Let me see.. the sign said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" - the ruling said that showing the sign was okay. The ruling makes no mention as to whether bong hits are indeed all right with Jesus, nor whether taking bong hits in Jesus' name is okay either.
So in other words, it has nothing to do with the article. That makes it a poor title.
Now, I could name an article "Abortion is okay with Jesus", because some person was acquited on free speech grounds, after displaying an "Abortions 4 Jesus" sign. I'm sure I'd get lots of hits too, but it wouldn't make it a good or accurate title.
"Lauriesman, please stop with the constant personal attacks. It’s not a very Christian thing to do. You sound almost like a Muslim extremist."
You mean personal attacks like this one?
"If telgar had included cartoons of Jesus smoking a bong I would half expect you to declare a fatwa on telgar and car bomb his house."
I criticised his title, thats a long way from going about murdering innocents. How about a sense of scale?
"If you are going to complain about other people’s articles maybe you should write a few yourself."
I have written a couple, but what I generally read is not really of interest to you lot. Ergo, it isn't really worth the time and effort. If I do find something original that is interesting and that I believe might be interesting to others on SN, I will post it. Doesn't happen very often.
"Take a chill pill and get a life. "
Nah, I'm happy with the one I have - my fiance arrived and we're settling in together, I have a great job, and live in a pretty good (if expensive) city. I'm pretty much at ease. However this is not a forum for how good my life is or isnt. It's a news forum, where journalistic standards are expected - and in some cases enforced.
"First I must point out that Mormons are christians. Second I agree it is a bad title. Not so much because of the words it's self (i.e. the fact that Jesus is a religous icon), but because it has only a very obscure refrence to the summery it's self. It Seems like a title designed to get traffic more then convay the content of a summery."
