Top court backs school censorship in case over 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' banner. - MSNBC breaking news title, no article yet.

This kinda sucks imo.

6/25/2007 10:54:50 AM

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/25/america/NA-GEN-US-Supreme-Court-Bong-Hits.php

6/25/2007 11:17:45 AM

This is total crap.

I can't wait to hear the bullshit reasoning behind this obvious injustice.


FUCK CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!1



[Edited on June 25, 2007 at 11:30 AM. Reason : GOD DAMN IT SANDRA DAY, WE NEED YOU BACK!!!!!!!!!!1]

6/25/2007 11:27:00 AM

wtf, the kid was not even at school.

Next thing you know you are going to have a bunch of kids suspended from school b.c the principal went on facebook and saw them in a picture holding a beer can.

I think this sets an EXTREMELY dangerous precedent. With all the bill of rights that have been eroded in the "War on Terror" the government finally has a stepping stone to wipe it's ass of the 1st amendment. This incident may fly undercover because it involves some student but it only leads to worse.

Quote :

"The court has limited what students can do in subsequent cases, saying they may not be disruptive or lewd or interfere with a school's basic educational mission."

I guess the school's educational message is "only the terrorist question the government be a good little citizen and blindly follow your political leaders"


[Edited on June 25, 2007 at 11:45 AM. Reason : l]

6/25/2007 11:38:36 AM

Hear that????






















It's the sound of our rights being eroded little by little.

6/25/2007 11:40:44 AM

This is what was also said today

Quote :

"But Roberts said, "Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues also may be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.""

too bad this was related to companies running ads on tv's and not individuals.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19415033/

6/25/2007 11:52:59 AM

^that's the "new" republican party for ya........let the corps. get a little higher by standing on the little guy.

6/25/2007 11:54:53 AM

rights being eroded?

this is school we're talking about... random locker searches, suspensions for engaging in self-defense, uniforms...

there are no rights in public schools...

6/25/2007 12:05:13 PM

^ Actually, we're talking about a student getting suspended from school for something he did outside of school.

6/25/2007 12:07:31 PM

He did it across the street from a school, in full view of the school, with obvious intent to display to a school. If it was just about the olympic torch proximity then he could have easily chosen another location.

I would also understand a school wanting to suspend a student for letting loose a string of expletives into a megaphone while driving around a school.

[Edited on June 25, 2007 at 12:22 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2007 12:20:15 PM

it's always fun watching TWW offer their perspectives on Supreme Court decisions...

in case anyone wants to read the entirety of the Morse v Frederick decision:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf

it's also fun watching the media spin things to fit their pre-defined objectives, e.g. "O'Connor was the moderate swing vote holding the Court together." the ruling against Frederick was 6-3, yet the news reports highlight "5-4" re the ability of schools to enforce policy (that 5-4 majority itself being a 2-2-1 split) 

6/25/2007 12:28:02 PM

Quote :

"He did it across the street from a school, in full view of the school, with obvious intent to display to a school"

he was in no way disrupting any learning function of the school......school punishments should be reserved for actions that disrupt the purpose of the school.

[Edited on June 25, 2007 at 12:38 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2007 12:38:42 PM

you hoopleheads would be aplauding if the sign said Mohammad instead of Jesus

6/25/2007 12:53:45 PM

^not I, they are exacly the same to me, b/c that's not the issue.

6/25/2007 12:56:37 PM

I dont really support suspension.

I would prefer someone going out and smacking the brat

mohammad or jesus

6/25/2007 12:59:50 PM

Didn't Mohammad use a bong?

Wait, I'm sorry, I mean "waterpipe"...

6/25/2007 1:02:31 PM

6/25/2007 1:03:40 PM

6/25/2007 1:04:46 PM

Quote :

"Actually, we're talking about a student getting suspended from school for something he did outside of school."

inside or outside doesn't matter here, as this was at a SCHOOL FUNCTION.

school function/trips/activities might take place outside the physical premises of a school, but because they are official school activities, the same rules apply to them with regards to student conduct/behaviour.

he wouldn't be in trouble if this was not an organized school activity.

6/25/2007 1:14:49 PM

IMO the kid could get in trouble for disobeying a school principal, but not for holding a sign they disagree with. freedom of speech/expression should be protected and his speech is not endangering anyone therefore there should be no problems with it.

6/25/2007 1:25:44 PM

Quote :

"IMO the kid could get in trouble for disobeying a school principal, but not for holding a sign they disagree with"

that's what I think too......if the suspension comes b/c he didn't listen to the principal when he told him to get rid of it or something, that's different.

[Edited on June 25, 2007 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2007 1:31:57 PM

Quote :

"FUCK CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!1 "

6/25/2007 2:07:12 PM

^^ don't forget though that while he may have gotten in trouble for disobeying the principle, it was for disobeying what he thought was an infringement of a constitutional right

6/25/2007 2:07:57 PM

Quote :

"SkankinMonky: IMO the kid could get in trouble for disobeying a school principal, but not for holding a sign they disagree with. freedom of speech/expression should be protected and his speech is not endangering anyone therefore there should be no problems with it."

playing devil's advocate, how does disobeying the school's written policy differ substantively from disobeying the school's principal?

and in any event, how does the fact he was suspended somehow entitle him to $texas paid personally by said principal? (which was, at the end of the day, what he was seeking from his lawsuit)

6/25/2007 2:43:19 PM

This thread has been done already, but...

He was at a school event, with a sign promoting illegal drug use, he was asked to take the sign down, he refused/threw a temper tantrum and was expelled.

This isn't about free speech. It hasn't eroded any of our rights. If this has happened 200 years ago, the same decision would have been reached.

6/25/2007 2:55:40 PM

He could claim ignorance of obscure school policies unless he was notified and told to stop.

He would also be entitled money because it is a permanent mark on his school record if he was not in the wrong. He could have been rejected from colleges or even jobs if this was the case and he is entitled to reparations if he is found to be correct.

6/25/2007 2:56:04 PM

Quote :

"playing devil's advocate, how does disobeying the school's written policy differ substantively from disobeying the school's principal"

that's the issue for me, I doubt the school's policy had anything covering this specific issue.....as he wasn't (from what I can tell) disruptive, harming/threatening anyone, breaking any law, or disobeying any specific rule at all.

6/25/2007 2:56:31 PM

apparently he was breaking their 'drug policy'

which seems retarded because it basically would amount to, 'you can't show dissent against drug laws at school' which to me is a huge violation of his freedom of speech.

6/25/2007 3:01:11 PM

Quote :

"SkankinMonky: He could claim ignorance of obscure school policies unless he was notified and told to stop."

Read the Court's opinion, it's right there on the first page of the case summary:

Quote :

"Supreme Court of the United States: At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS," which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down the banner. When one of the students who had brought the banner to the event -- respondent Frederick -- refused, Morse confiscated the banner and later suspended him."

---

Quote :

"SkankinMonky: He would also be entitled money because it is a permanent mark on his school record if he was not in the wrong. He could have been rejected from colleges or even jobs if this was the case and he is entitled to reparations if he is found to be correct."

So a government official, doing something perfectly legal in their capacity as a government official, should be personally held financially liable for doing something someone else disagrees with? 

6/25/2007 3:24:24 PM

he should claim religious discrimination.

6/25/2007 3:32:32 PM

Quote :

"too bad this was related to companies running ads on tv's and not individuals. "

not like that is any kind of new revelation as far as politics goes.

6/25/2007 3:34:11 PM

They should be held liable if they were wrong. But considering the court stood behind him it's a moot point. Schools should always try to work with students as much as they can, not drop the bomb as soon as they're questioned, which I remember happening quite a bit when I was in school, and seems to be happening even more frequently now.

6/25/2007 3:34:49 PM

yeah zero-tolerance policy a lot of schools have is bullshit

6/25/2007 3:42:32 PM

Quote :

"This isn't about free speech. It hasn't eroded any of our rights."

Um, are you in the right thread?

Or are you dumber than my toe fungus?

6/25/2007 4:49:23 PM

i think the problem here is the zero tolerance bs that schools have. but it's important to understand the reason why they have those. we are obviously evolving very quickly as a race. school children half-generations apart, instead of multiple or full generations apart, are becoming more intelligent, are quicker to voice their opinion, are exposed to much much more, specifically when it comes to access to knowledge such as politics and personal issues. because the schools aren't ready to handle it, or just don't want to, or are simply incapable of doing it, they slap this "knee-jerk" response clamp down on it, much in the same way the patriot act and other things were put into play via "knee-jerk" responses

6/25/2007 5:14:53 PM

Quote :

"Um, are you in the right thread? Or are you dumber than my toe fungus?"

Then enlighten me with your vast and superior intellect. How, exactly, has this eroded any of our rights?

[Edited on June 25, 2007 at 5:19 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2007 5:19:00 PM

The court basically says that the government has the right to squelch free speech of certain individuals under government influence.

6/25/2007 5:44:15 PM

everybody drop their books during class tomorrow at 10:42

that'll show 'em!

6/25/2007 6:26:37 PM

Quote :

"The court basically says that the government has the right to squelch free speech of certain individuals under government influence."

we've been quelching all kinds of religious speech just because it falls under government influence, are you for loosening those restrictions?

6/25/2007 6:46:21 PM

Quote :

"The court basically says that the government has the right to squelch free speech of certain individuals under government influence."

If you are active Military you can't protest the government nor run for public office or campaign for someone running for public office.

There are, and always have been, limits to free speech. In this case, it was during school hours, inf ront of the school, during a school activity, that he decided to display a banner promoting illegal drug usage in association with a religious figure. This is disruptive and tarnishes the schools image, thus the school(by way of the school admin) had the right to tell the students to take down the banner.

This isn't eroding any of the rights of the individual. I don't know where you went to school, but from my experience you couldn't have worn a shirt on a field trip that had that exact same message.

6/25/2007 6:53:07 PM

THIS JUST IN: FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS LIMITED WHILE IN SCHOOL OMG OMG OMG



For the same reason you can't say the "F" word in class, this kid shouldn't have held this sign during what amounted to a field trip.

Are you guys really advocating unlimited free speech during field trips?

6/25/2007 8:53:56 PM

^ Yeah, kids should be able to say "Fuck you!" to revisionist history teachers like Boone-tard. Get Blue on the phone--we need a bill.

6/25/2007 10:30:08 PM

Quote :

"that he decided to display a banner promoting illegal drug usage in association"

yeah and just because something is "illegal" means we should just blindly follow and not question our superheros in Washington DC who pass legislation

6/25/2007 10:43:26 PM

^^wtf man?

Losing on the internet all the time must really annoy the shit out of you.

6/25/2007 11:12:15 PM

Quote :

"yeah and just because something is "illegal" means we should just blindly follow and not question our superheros in Washington DC who pass legislation"

Who said you shouldn't question if it should be legal?

No one would have stopped him from doing that after school.

There are some limits to free speech, school activities aren't the place to promote illegal drug use, sorry. Hell, he probably wouldn't have been suspended if he had just done what he was told to by a :gasp: authority figure (who had every right to tell him to do that).

6/25/2007 11:25:26 PM

^^ Keep telling yourself that, Gilligan. You've never won an argument here with me--you're fucking deluded.

6/26/2007 3:10:31 AM

You just lost the Cheney thread.

[Edited on June 26, 2007 at 10:52 AM. Reason : .]

6/26/2007 10:49:45 AM

Freedom of speech is very important

But still...don't kids try to keep their shit on the down low nowadays?

6/26/2007 11:20:44 AM

seriously, i would have been killed if my parents even thought i was smoking pot!

6/26/2007 11:26:25 AM

unfortunately this is a step backwards

the precedent for freedom of speech in the public school system was last tested and affirmed by

Tinker vs Des Moines School District
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0393_0503_ZO.html)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District)

This situation, while intended to be a humorous expression of the 1st amendment (as proclaimed by Frederick) was interpreted as a promotion of drug use. However, there was no evidence that school activities were disrupted as a result of the "bong hits for Jesus" banner. What is more is that the student was not even in school at the time - this was merely at a public event which was also considered a school function.

The suspension of Frederick was supposedly given for disruption of school for displaying pro drug messages which inhibits learning.

This, unfortunately, allows for the declaration of "disruption of learning" without evidence. (ACLU)

Very true. This is horrible.

6/26/2007 12:30:42 PM