Justices put new limit on student speech (Supreme Court, Bong Hits 4 Jesus)

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Justices put new limit on student speech

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
4 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech
Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.

Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as
advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court
in a 5-4 ruling.

Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002,
as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to
the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw
on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say
anything at all.

-snip-

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bong_hits

---

EDIT: headline at link changed

Original headline at link: Student free-speech rights defined

[Goblinmonger]

1. Doesn't seem to be anything new.

Though I can't tell from the story, was this banner at school? I assume so, but it never said.

Students at the school where I teach can't wear shirts with messages relating to drugs, alcohol, or sex. Falls under the "disruption to the learning process" deal.

[TommyO]

3. The banner was not displayed on school property

The student was disciplined for something that didn't take place on school grounds.

[Goblinmonger]

4. Then that is just stupid.

Was it during school hours? I mean was this part of a school "field trip" to celebrate the torch going though town?

Sorry for my ignorance of the case.

[TommyO]

6. Students were excused from school to watch the torch pass

So yes, it was during school hours, not on school property.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Then maybe not so stupid.

The school is still responsible for the student at that time and the school rules still apply. I don't think this is a new limit. I don't think this banner would fall within Tinker.

[Occulus]

9. If they were excused from schoool, it cannot be "school hours"

What a bullshit ruling. Thanks for handing students' freedoms away, assholes.

Next we'll be seeing students suspended and/or expelled for things that happen on Saturdays.

[Goblinmonger]

13. I think "excused" may not mean on their own

I would imagine (and I admittedly above don't know much about this case) they were let out of classes to go as a group and watch the torch pass. The students were still likely the responsiblity of the school just not in a traditional classroom setting. That's just my guess. I don't think schools can "excuse" students during school hours so that the students are literally "on their own."

[harpboy_ak]

15. If you don't know anything, why post your ignorance?

"I would imagine (and I admittedly above don't know much about this case) they were let out of classes to go as a group and watch the torch pass. "

I live in Juneau. Your imagination is wrong. School was dismissed for the day.


"The students were still likely the responsiblity of the school just not in a traditional classroom setting.
That's just my guess. "

You guessed wrong. School was dismissed.

"I don't think schools can 'excuse' students during school hours so that the students are literally 'on their own.'"

What you think and what the laws are in Juneau, Alaska are two totally different things.

I just don't understand why some folks rush to post ignorant blather about a court case when they don't know the facts or the law. Please don't waste the bandwidth.

[Goblinmonger]

22. Appears perhaps you are wrong, oh great one

CNN.com seems to support my "ignorant blather." They were just out of the school grounds, had been "let out of classes" (which is different than "school was dismissed"), and were accompanied by their teachers (now why on god's green earth would the teachers need to accompany the kids if school was not in session oh all knowing of everything Alaskan? Perhaps Alaskan school students are so feeble-minded that they need to have teachers with them all the time to keep them safe? I doubt it. The teachers were with the kids because school was still in session).

Even though Frederick was standing on a public sidewalk, school officials argue that he and other students were participating in a school-sponsored event. They had been let out of classes and were accompanied by their teachers.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/01/scotus.bonghits/index.html

Wikipedia seems to indicate that Frederick had not attended school but was with his friends who had

Frederick, who had not attended school that day, joined some friends on the sidewalk across from the high school, off of school grounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

So either I wasn't blathering complete ignorance or you alone hold the truth in your hands. But, hey, mock me some more so I can do even more research and find that I was even more correct.

I get what this kid was doing. Most of what that principal did to him previously was bullshit (reading Camus and not standing for the pledge are pretty stupid and unconstitutional issues to get into it with a kid at school), but Frederick seemed to know what he was doing in this attempt to piss off the principal. As a teacher, I kind of like the fact that he did it. But that doesn't change school policy and the ruling of Tinker. Most of the articles I read indicate that Frederick admits he was trying to piss off the principal with the sign which seems an awful lot like causing a distrubance (which Tinker would not allow).

[silverojo]

24. Thanks for the REAL info, Goblinmonger! n/t

[cureautismnow]

2. Next time, he should change his sign to...

This Bud's for you, Jesus. Make 'em think a little harder. :eyes:

[marshall]

17. Should have approached it as a religious issue

If valedictorians can talk about God in their speeches the why can't druggies mention Jesus?

[maryallen]

21. Or even a little harder:

Would Jesus support torture?

Would Jesus support war in Iraq even if it had nothing to do with 911?
You know: Let's just kill for killing's sake. Sounds like a real "Christian" endeavor to me (sarcasm).

Would Jesus support war to "promote Democracy?"

Would Jesus kill for OIL?

Oh, but Jesus and bongs are so much more interesting to think about and of such major importance to the future of this country.
And so worthy of the Supreme Court's valuable time ...

[closeupready]

5. What's the saying about "not with a bang but a whimper"

This ruling, on the surface, doesn't seem that big of a deal, but it adds to the chipping away of First Amendment rights. I don't know what to say - it makes me sick to my stomach.

[redqueen]

16. It really is distressing...

to see how little outrage this case has generated.

Just another little chip off the block, nothing to worry about.

[maddezmom]

7. updated headline: Justices put new limit on student speech

Justices put new limit on student speech By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
2 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.

Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.

Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bong_hits

[Eugene]

12. Thanks.

The OP has been updated.

[cureautismnow]

18. Perhaps, they can get Clarence on board if...

The young man changes his sign to read, "Long Dong Silver Hits 4 Thomas."

[Hawaii Hiker]

10. What a suprise, it was a 5-4 ruling

Let's take a wild guess as to who the 5 are...

This court is going too far to the right, & this alone is reason enough to vote for WHOMEVER the Democratic nominee is next year...

A far-right court will continue to piss on people's First Amendment rights, this will NEVER change will the current far-right wackos on the court, :mad:

[hughee99]

20. Did you catch this part?

"Conservative groups that often are allied with the administration are backing Frederick out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose homosexuality or abortion."

It seems like the fundie groups are on Frederick's side on this. I'm not sure if it was 5-4 or 6-3 (I can't find how Breyer voted) but if it was, it looks like "the 5" screwed their own to make this ruling.

[fazoolius_2006]

11. Unreal

[Javaman]

14. And we can't sue morons* faith based religous bullshit plan.

we only will only know what democracy was when we have lost it.

[wellst0nev0ter]

19. Bwahaha! Freepies Are Having Buyers Remorse!

Conservative groups that often are allied with the administration are backing Frederick out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose homosexuality or abortion.

Yep, let's start rounding up and suspending all the hatemongers. I myself feel particularly vengeful, so why not use the newfound authoritarianism brought to you by your not-so-friendly neighborhood wingnuts against them?

[ihelpu2see]

23. That is what I feel is odd about this and the tax payer ruling... I realize that

Roberts and the other 4 know more about law, but it seems that this was decided more on the mention of a "drug administration device" than on a free speech issue.... Am I wrong?
In the majority decision they seemed to take the side of the school principle and said she was correct in censoring the sign due to its "Bong" reference. I think if that is the case and that is what the Justices were holding up as their decision then those 5 judges made an unconstitutional ruling.... they ruled for censorship!!!

As for the faith-based ruling again the neo-conservative side wins.... shocker..... "the taxpayer has no rights" is the take home message when it comes to Presidential decree..... so forget pushing for impeachment and forget any sort of revolt, peaceful ofcourse.... the president will decree that it is unlawful and the current Supreme Court will play the role of puppet and bow for the moron....