Quote :

"US supreme court case to test free speech right The World Today - Tuesday, 20 March , 2007 Reporter: Kim Landers ELEANOR HALL: In the United States, the Supreme Court is considering its first major free speech case in two decades. The case has been sparked by a school student who, during a public event, hung a banner that some people found to be offensive. The case will test just how far the free speech rights of school students extend, as Washington Correspondent Kim Landers reports. KIM LANDERS: It's one of the quirkier cases to go before the US Supreme Court. Five years ago a high school student in Alaska unfurled a four-metre long banner saying "Bong Hits for Jesus". He did it as the Olympic torch was carried through the streets of his town and it was captured on TV. Joseph Frederick, who was 18 at the time, says he meant it as a joke. JOSEPH FREDERICK: I conveyed this to the Principal by explaining that it was intended to be funny, subjectively interpreted by the reader, and most importantly an exercise in my inalienable right to free speech. KIM LANDERS: But Principal Deb Morse believed the phrase "Bong Hits for Jesus" referred to smoking marijuana. She ordered him to take the sign down and when he wouldn't she grabbed it and crumpled it up. Joseph Frederick was then suspended and in return he sued the principal. Today the US Supreme Court began to hear the free speech case and the now former principal Deb Morse, says she's relieved it's underway. DEB MORSE: I'm thankful that the court has heard this case today and I'm hopeful that the court's decision will give administrators better guidance and clarity on their roles, and so that school officials can go about their day to day duties without the risk of legal liability. KIM LANDERS: Deb Morse' lawyer is Kenneth Starr, the former special prosecutor who investigated President Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. Speaking outside the Supreme Court today, he said the principal was acting in accordance with the school's anti-drug policy. KENNETH STARR: We want the court to say absolutely no to pro-drug, pro-alcohol, pro-tobacco messages. We also want the court to say that there has to be someone to interpret these messages and that person or persons are the school officials. They have to make snap judgements; they have to essentially issue a ruling from the bench. There should be a culture of deference to school administrators who are making good faith judgements under very difficult circumstances. KIM LANDERS: Dahlia Lithwick is a legal analyst for the online magazine Slate. She listened to the oral arguments in court today. DAHLIA LITHWICK: And it seemed like the justices couldn't say it enough, they were enjoying the words almost as much as we reporters enjoyed hearing it in court. I was quite a zippy oral argument. They were cutting each off, and having a grand old time today. KIM LANDERS: And she says another unusual twist to this case is the alliances that have been formed. DAHLIA LITHWICK: One of the most interesting aspects of this case is that you have the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) lined up with evangelical Christian groups all supporting a student's rights to speech. The evangelical groups say, "Look, a lot of these cases involve students, Christian students who are trying to speak in unpopular ways, and they're being sort of suppressed by political correctness". So, they actually line up with the "Bong Hits for Jesus" guy today. It does make for some strange bedfellows. KIM LANDERS: A decision in the case is expected by the end of June."

ACLU working with Evangelical Christians!.. Rivers and seas boiling! … The dead rising from the grave! ... Dogs and cats living together!

3/20/2007 10:50:10 AM

good thing it wasnt Bong Hits for Allah cause the school would have already been blown up

3/20/2007 10:56:12 AM

Hookah hits for Allah! I'm not sure they'd be down with that either.

3/20/2007 11:34:13 AM

Quote :

"Rivers and seas boiling! … The dead rising from the grave! ... Dogs and cats living together!"

... Mass hysteria! (finished the quote for ya )

3/20/2007 12:45:07 PM

I'm glad that some of the more conservative members of the court are for protecting 1st amendment rights in this case despite it referring to drugs.

It gives me hope that the courts haven't completely been politicized yet.

3/20/2007 12:51:54 PM

This article doesn't make it clear, was the banner on school grounds? If so, then the kid is a little shit who thought he would be cute and the principal had ever right to take down the banner... and why the hell is he suing the principal?? He was probably suspended not for the banner, but for refusing to take it down when the principal asked him to, thus undermining :gasp: discipline at the school.

3/21/2007 7:32:33 AM

Quote :

"was the banner on school grounds? "

No

3/21/2007 7:36:45 AM

the banner was not on school grounds. it was across the street or something and the students had actually signed out of school, albeit it was a pseudo field trip and a teacher was with them. they were basically there to watch a parade and get on the news.

he was suspended for the schools anti-drug policies because he was promoting drugs via the banner. this case is basically testing how far the schools can go to limit/control the free speech of students (on or off campus).

he's sueing the principal because his free speech rights were violated, his record was tarnished, etc. the student was never asked to take the banner down, he was suspended for simply showing the banner.

also, the kids dad sued the school and won a few years ago because his dad used to be a contractor for the school system and was fired for this.

3/21/2007 7:39:08 AM

^ p.s. i didn't see your post, but still, my point stands. and he WAS asked by the principal to take it down, at least that's what the article says, and he refused.

p.p.s. can someone answer me this: how many meanings are there to what was written on the banner? if it refers to drugs, are evangelical christians pro-drugs?

it is not completely clear where and how this was taking place.

if the student was there, and so was the principal, it seems like the whole school, or at least his class, were gathered on the streets as the torch went by.

IF they were there officially by the school, then school policies hold even outside the school, for example on a school trip, students still have to follow school rules (smoking, weapons, etc).

so if they were there officially representing the school, then the principal is right.

if they just happened to be at the same place, then the student could do what he wanted.

not that it matters, but where did he hang the 4-meter banner? that's pretty big.


[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 7:50 AM. Reason : ]

3/21/2007 7:45:27 AM

they held it up, it looked like a bunch of students participated but he was the leader and took it for the team.

i agree that his message was stupid, but i don't believe that you leave your first amendment rights at the school door. if it's not illegal to say in public then it shouldn't be punishable at school. now the principal could have made him go to some drug counseling shit, or made him do school cleanup.

schools should teach kids, not force a party line. this is america not communist china.


[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 7:59 AM. Reason : pic]

3/21/2007 7:58:53 AM

I've never understood why you would take someone out of class, unless their actions are preventing others from learning. She should have made him write a 5 page essay explaining the sign and why he felt the need to hold it up at the torch run.

3/21/2007 8:07:09 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/01/scotus.bonghits/index.html

Quote :

"Principal Deborah Morse ordered the 18-year-old senior to take down the sign, but he refused. That led to a 10-day suspension for violating a school policy by promoting illegal drug use."

He was suspended for refusing to comply with the Principals request. He should have down what she told him, then if he felt so strongly about it he could later go to the school board about it.

It was a school event, they were let out of class and were with teachers. The banner was disrespectful to the community and since he was under the schools supervision at the time, they had every right to tell him and his friends to take it down and go back inside the school.

I fail to see how his First Amendment rights were violated. I know most high schools were I grew up wouldn't let students were shirts with messages about drugs, sex, guns, etc etc on campus on during school events. I fail to see how this is different.

3/21/2007 8:08:14 AM

The article that you quote says he violated the drug policy and was punished, he wasn't punished for ignoring the principal, though that's what led to the punishment.

Being punished for breaking drug policy and for ignoring a school official is vastly different.

3/21/2007 8:10:28 AM

Well, the way most of the articles I can find portray it. If he had initially complied and taken the banner down, I doubt he would have been suspended.

I read it as, he was being a little shit, she asked him to do something, he refused and made a big deal about refusing, she threw the book at him for being a turd. He deserved what he got.

[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 8:20 AM. Reason : !]

3/21/2007 8:16:56 AM

Quote :

"Being punished for breaking drug policy and for ignoring a school official is vastly different."

No they are not.

The official is merely holding up the school's policy, the policy's enforcer, if you will.

It is just like disobeying a cop on the street. Who is the cop to tell you anything? Well he enforces the country's laws.

3/21/2007 8:19:00 AM

I'm totally confused.

The kid held up a sign that said "BONG HITS" on it. I imagine that's a violation of school of policy. It certainly would be at any public school here in Wake County. So I don't see why the principal should have gotten sued.

It would be great if this case led to the determination that free speech rules our schools. The issue has remained unclear. And I think our children can handle that right the same way we all manage to handle it everyday.

Anyway, where the fuck do the evangelical Christians come in?

[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 8:24 AM. Reason : ^Y'all are arguing over a really silly detail.]

3/21/2007 8:23:55 AM

I guess I remember that incident where the middle school kid got to wear his anti-Bush shirt that had alcohol and cocaine representations on it because it was political speech. If this "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" was some form of political speech then, in my understanding, under current law, it should have been permitted.

3/21/2007 8:27:22 AM

Free speech should be protected regardless of the level of stupidity attached.


He could be rasta???? lol

[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 8:39 AM. Reason : .]

3/21/2007 8:39:15 AM

I would smoke pot too if I lived in Alaska.

3/21/2007 8:42:19 AM

Quote :

"It would be great if this case led to the determination that free speech rules our schools. The issue has remained unclear."

That is one of the reasons that Kenneth Starr is representing the principal. To get a better clarification on free speech rules in school. Did you ever think you'd be agreeing with Ken Starr on anything?

Quote :

"Anyway, where the fuck do the evangelical Christians come in?"

Evangical Christians want a ruling in favor of free speech so that students can freely promote their religion in school.

3/21/2007 9:18:29 AM

Quote :

"That is one of the reasons that Kenneth Starr is representing the principal. To get a better clarification on free speech rules in school. Did you ever think you'd be agreeing with Ken Starr on anything?"

I never really gave two shits about Ken Starr either way.

And, no, he and I do not agree. How can you possibly think that this:

Quote :

"KENNETH STARR: We want the court to say absolutely no to pro-drug, pro-alcohol, pro-tobacco messages. We also want the court to say that there has to be someone to interpret these messages and that person or persons are the school officials."

And this:

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: It would be great if this case led to the determination that free speech rules our schools. The issue has remained unclear."

...are in agreement?

Quote :

"EarthDogg: Evangical Christians want a ruling in favor of free speech so that students can freely promote their religion in school."

Ah, I get it. So it's the potential for a ruling for free speech that interests them and not the "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" sign...

I'm dense for not seeing that.

3/21/2007 12:37:41 PM

I'm torn on this issue, my father being a Principal himself I want to see Joe win one for free speach. I have no problem with pot, but what if the banner had said "I love to give blowjobs" or something else retarded

3/21/2007 12:48:24 PM

Quote :

"KENNETH STARR: We want the court to say absolutely no to pro-drug, pro-alcohol, pro-tobacco messages."

Here is another possible example of being careful what you ask the gov't to do for you.

The basic idea sounds harmless...schools want to keep kids off the dope.

Let's say the court establishes that the principal is the final authority on squelching pro-drug, pro-alcohol and pro-tobacco messages. It seems it would be just a hop, skip and a jump of the school board to give themselves authority to judge almost any idea a student could profess in public.

"Oh we'd never do that" would be the principal's response. But in a clinch, I bet she would use the ruling to get her way. A Supreme Court ruling in her favor would have a definite chilling effect on any type of student speech in schools. Students would have to look outside the school to learn about and exercise their birth-right freedom and constitutionally-protected right of free speech.

[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 10:12 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 10:13 PM. Reason : ..]

3/21/2007 10:11:54 PM

I won't be surprised if he wins.

3/21/2007 10:22:58 PM

has no one mentioned the funniest part about this? the kid initially got 5 days of suspension, paraphrased jefferson and got 10 days. Hooray for vindictive principals.

Also, the court will either give a very very limited ruling or find in favor of the kid. they wont find for the principal and establish new precedent. if they want to do that (i dont think they do) they will do it on a better case than this.

3/22/2007 12:35:32 AM

Where is the ALCU when NC schools went Tobacco free? If i am not mistaken when I was 18 I was old enough to purchase and smoke. I believe my rights were robbed from me because I wasn't allowed to smoke. There has to be a line drawn somewhere between common sence and whats right. Today everyone wants to have things there way the kid was 18 and got suspended for it. If he was on a field trip then he was on the schools time and was there responsibility.

3/22/2007 8:47:42 AM

^ but that is ON school property

3/22/2007 12:19:15 PM

No any time you go on a field trip or sporting event withyour school you are on there time and insurance. If you do something wrong then you are considered on a school function and can be punished just like if you were actually on school property.

3/25/2007 11:22:26 AM

smoking isn't a right.

3/25/2007 12:44:25 PM

Strictly speaking, smoking is not a civil liberty.

3/25/2007 1:02:40 PM

eh

[Edited on March 25, 2007 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .]

3/25/2007 1:21:31 PM

whether smoking is or is not allowed should be the right of the property owner..
in that case.. the state. Its gone leave it be and shut up.


interesting case though.

3/25/2007 1:55:57 PM