"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Supreme Court Case Rules Against Student
The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 against Joseph Frederick, a former high school student from Juneau who unfurled a homemade "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner during the Olympic torch run through the city, on its way to Salt Lake City.[SN reported]
Justice Roberts: "The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," adding that the suspending principal "thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."
Justice Stevens said in dissent, the ruling "does serious violence to the First Amendment." Frederick's father, Frank, who was fired in connection with his son's case, took his employer to court and was awarded $200,000 by a jury.
The reason Bush has made these appointments is because we have to make sure we don't have any <Christian> activist justices who try to legislate <morality> from the bench!
I think they need to limit these judge appointments to 8 years or the age of 65, whichever comes sooner.
To appoint a judge for LIFE, is completely ridiculous. Age does not always bring wisdom, it often brings stale outmoded thinking and rigidity. If our own president cannot even serve more than eight years, why should some judge?
Root out the old farts, bring in some new blood, and don't let them stay there too long.
having a Bill of Rights and a Constitution. Too bad that’s all over with. So long democracy, hello fascism. Excuse me while I go practice my goose stepping. Sieg Heil!
Supreme Court justices are appointed by presidents. Presidents are elected by the public, in a fairly democratic process.
So stop whining and enjoy the justice and democracy you voted for.
After all, Bush is the type of guy you could sit down with and have beer with. This all important presumption appears to have been one of the major reasons why Dubya got so many votes.
The kid unfurled a sign that said "Bong hits 4 Jesus" apparently on school grounds. If you had that up at work what do you think would happen?
From the story: In their concurrence Alito and Kennedy said that the decision "goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use." The student is representing the school while on school grounds. Hence his banner shows the school promotes drug use. What if he'd had a banner that said "Kill all the Gays"? You guys would be all over him like stink on sh!t. Yelling that it's a hate crime and he should have his balls cut off.
He did something that he knew was wrong and he was punished. End of story.
You may want to research the story a little, the student was not on school grounds at the time the banner was unfurled.
"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 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.
M: Does having no clue how the American political system works EVER stop you from commenting?
F: Starshadow already pointed out your error, so just how do YOU defend a government entity quashing a citizen's free speech when not on government property or time? I will also point out how completely inappropriate your comparison of messages is. You liken hate speech, which is forbidden when it calls for violence, to a rather silly (and arguably meaningless) message - apples and oranges. Further, saying he knew it was wrong is pretty foolish, given that the highest court in the land just had to decide that.
Since he wasn't on school grounds then I say who the hell cares what this "dope head" does on his own time. I'd have to vote no on this one. (But as I said before, if he'd been on school grounds, then it's OK)
MOC, you are so naive. Of course he knew it was wrong, why do you think he did it? Because he loves Jesus and he was trying to spread the Holy word?
"Since he wasn't on school grounds then I say who the hell cares what this "dope head" does on his own time. I'd have to vote no on this one. (But as I said before, if he'd been on school grounds, then it's OK)"
Actually the kid was on a news program the other night (I think it was Beck) and he was involved in groups that promoted staying clean. He chose the sign he did to make a point about the current presidents past usage of drugs (He should have said snort a line for Jesus or A shot of Whiskey for Jesus to be more factual) and the fact that he has freedom of speach to say so.
Seriously if you are a freedom supporter as your sig says then this young mans freedom to have a sign or to say such a thing should be very important to you as well as most of us that live here. No matter what side of the fence politically you are the rate that our rights are being stepped on should concern every citizen. Right now it might seem it is the "lefties" whining but what happens when the "righties" start getting more and more of their beliefs squashed? This is one issue that all citizens should work together on no matter what political party (if any) one belongs to.
I'm sorry, does doubting your keen psychological intuition make me naive? Have you considered that maybe not everyone ascribes a "right" and "wrong" value judgement to every last thing they do? That perhaps not every action can be so dichotomously labeled? What, exactly, is "wrong" with holding up a banner? Who was harmed, or had their rights infringed upon?
Why did he do it? Maybe because he thought it was funny. Maybe, as he's stated, it was a free speech exercise. Maybe you ought to explain why it should matter at all when he's legally in the right, except to busybodies who want to cluck their tongues and make moral judgements of others. I fail to see the relevance of it.
