Ken Starr Files SCOTUS Petition Against Student in Bong Sign Case

[Rose Siding]

President Clinton’s impeachment nemesis Kenneth Starr is staying busy. Monday, the former Independent Counsel is expected to file a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the suspension of a high school student disciplined for holding a banner across the street from campus reading, “BONG HITS 4 JESUS.”

The incident occurred in January 2002, as the Olympic torch relay wound through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the winter games in Salt Lake City. As the torch passed by the school, student Joseph Frederick and friends unfurled the banner across the street from campus apparently to attract the attention of television cameras.

A bong is a popular device used to smoke marijuana, inhalation from which is commonly known as a “bong hit.” The school principal suspended Mr. Frederick — allegedly the only student who disobeyed her command to put down the banner — for 10 days. Mr. Frederick claimed the suspension violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. A federal district judge sided with the school, but a panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously reversed.

Mr. Starr and other attorneys in the Los Angeles office of Kirkland & Ellis have accepted the case pro bono. Should the court grant the petition, the outcome could hinge on whether the banner disrupted the educational process, whether watching the relay was a school-sponsored event, and whether Mr. Frederick — who had yet to enter school property that morning because his car had been stuck in the snow — was officially on campus.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/08/27/from-cigars-to-bongs/

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Well thank god

Ken Starr is going to save us from the bong hitter banner fliers in the world. What would America come to without him?

[Wickerman]

2. I'm going to weigh in on the side of

over-reaction! :eyes:

[yellowcanine]

3. Why don't we just make Ken Starr the Ayatollah and be done with it?

We could even give him a special costume to wear that would make it easier to spot him in crowds. Then we could more easily keep an eye on him.

[zanne]

8. How about a " Scarlet A"...

for "Asshole"?

[yellowcanine]

15. Ok but let's spell it out so there is no room for misinterpretation.

[Mz Pip]

4. Your tax dollars at work

Geez, aren't there mor important things to tie up the courts with? Now they want to regulate silliness. :eyes:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[rodeodance]

5. oh for Pete'ys sake! --talk about clouging up the courts with NONsence!

[Kickoutthejams23]

6. Somebody needs to get a life.

Why is the school administrator making a big deal anyway it wasn't a school event is was the Olympic Torch relay.

[Mist]

7. So Starr works pro bono for the REALLY important issues. Too bad

he didn't work pro bono on the Clinton case--would've saved the taxpayers millions.

[kurth]

9. The Holy War Pornographer who HATES blow jobs

tries to get himself a minor headline.

[Lerkfish]

10. wow...what an important and relevant case to use SCOTUS's valuable time

:sarcasm:

[CrownPrinceBandar]

11. Blowjobs to bong-hits..........

I'm sure glad he's spending his time (and our tax $) well. Showing those evil "bong-hitters for Jesus" who's boss is hard work, and he's just the guy for the job!



wait for it.....


:sarcasm: :wtf:

[immoderate]

12. This puts Starr AGAINST Jesus!

Right? :shrug:

--IMM

[TheFriedPiper]

13. I dunno what good bong hits would do for a zombie, but...

...who REALLY needs bong hits are those that still think religious people should have power over rational people.

[Hubert Flottz]

14. Another frivolous court case goes to the SCOTUS.

At our expense. If the sign had pictures of dead babies on it, the GOP would be proud of that!

[zbdent]

16. Meanwhile, the "God Hates Fags" crew is allowed to go their merry

way (except for right around a military funeral ...)

[noonwitch]

17. The school was right in it's discipline, but all this litigation is silly

These are high school students on school property. They have limits to their free speech in that situation. If they were on their own (read: their parents') property, then it would be a different issue.

[kiahzero]

19. They were across the street from the school.

Furthermore, a student's right to free speech in a school setting is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, not content restrictions.

[Bandit]

20. They were not on school property

They were on a public street and the boy in question had not attended school at all on that day. IOW he was not there on a school event. He may have be truant but he is not guilty of acting as a student on a school activity.

[sakabatou]

18. Is the school public or private?