Supreme Court Rules in "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Case

[Gir]

I found out about this from the Daily Show.
Boo creepy foot doctor, hooray fake news.

So did I lol.

 

[PokéMart]

It's obvious that this should never be tolerated at a school function (right to free speech is a failed case when you're a clear disruption), but a lot of the signs point to this being simply a de facto "get out of school free' day.

Right, but one of the key issues here is that the student never went to school that day. That's like saying if a school goes to a Zoo, and a student, who isn't in school, also goes to the Zoo...

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

On the other hand, I kinda wish that my school system would have done more to stop bullies and the like. It took 5 years and thousands of dollars in therapy to even partially undo the damage that these kids did to me during my school years.

I agree--but just remember that bullying isn't a protected form of speech. I can't go up and threaten someone, or imply I'm going to hurt them.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

I don't even see the shirt as offensive(do NOT turn this into a debate about beliefs), I think it is quite funny.

If it was a private school with clothing regulations, I could see it, but otherwise, it is just another constitution-trampling file in the room where they keep their stuff.

Private schools have much different rules regarding censorship, because they are not extensions of the government, as pubic schools are.

RE the funniness...
I think the dissent from the SC notes how the message on the banner didn't even make sense.

 

[bullados]

The bullying wasn't of a physical nature. Wasn't even threatening. It was more harassment, just enough to get under my skin, but not enough to get the school involved (or even, for whatever reason, the parents of these kids, even after a couple detentions...)

 

[PjSparkles]

From a 1st amendment standpoint, school administration act like it doesn't even exist for minors. I just graduated, but during my senior year I was in a journalism class and we, the students, had the sole responsibility of producing a school newspaper and publishing it every 2 weeks. But after an article expressing opinions on Bush's policy of illegal immigrants was published (with nothing derogatory, racist, or offensive said), administration went around during lunch to every table and literally took the papers from student's hands, that copy of the newspaper wasn't allowed to be distrubuted to the students anymore. From there on out, an administrator was supposed to loook at our paper every time we published to make sure there was essentially nothing they disagreed with. In retrospect, I am mad at myself for not fighting this removal of my first amendment harder.

I really don't even know what to say about how far schools are taking their control over students in today's society. It just pisses me off.

 

[Lawman]

It is another sad chapter in the Bush legacy. His SC appointments will wreck havoc with our civil rights for years to come. Ever notice how the Republicans say they are ag'st "big gov't", yet try to restrict what "we" can do and say a nation of free people?? Who do they think is going to enforce these restrictions?? Government will have to enforce it! Can you imagine all those Republicans griping if the SC decided to restrict what a MALE does with his body (keeping it PG)?? Most of them see nothing wrong with telling a woman what they can and cannot do with their body.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Keith

 

[Stripes]

Any politician that says I'm against big government is naive. Grows bigger with every president. You guys have all the bases covered it sounds like, nothing more I can add to the discussion.
I may be missing something, but this was decided by the Supreme Court? What were the numbers on each side? 9-0 5-4?

 

[Lawman]

5-4.

 

[ninetales1234]

Get the government out of education and the problems will go away. People wouldn't have to debate about the proper role of public schools and what they should be able to do, if there were no public schools in the first place. That is the very important concept that is often missing from these kind of debates.

This story makes me think: what kind of private school would attempt to forcibly restrict its student's behavior outside of school grounds? That's no way to treat a customer. Government schools, however, get away with whatever they want.

Any politician that says I'm against big government is naive.

:clap:

That's what makes this whole issue so interesting--minors, who don't vote, DO have these rights (you do not graduate into the constitution), however, the adults (who do vote), want to place limitations on the expression of those rights.

Kind of like when blacks had to follow different rules, partly because they were not allowed to vote.
This kind of stuff is just another reason to get rid of the minimum voting age.

You are right about not graduating into the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there anythng about "graduating". There are no exceptions in the Constitution, in this regard. The Constitution is for everyone.

But here's the trouble with that.
If the government can suspend Constitutional protections at will for a group of people (minors), who is to say they cannot do so to other groups, for other reasons, at other times? Why not censor the blacks, Japanese, communists, or ***s?

Yes, there is a moral equivalency. Unfortunately there are too many people right now, that don't see that. Ageists are just as much scum as racists or nationalists.

---------
I agree w/ryanvergel. Let the police do their job for things outside of school.

It is another sad chapter in the Bush legacy. His SC appointments will wreck havoc with our civil rights for years to come. Ever notice how the Republicans say they are ag'st "big gov't", yet try to restrict what "we" can do and say a nation of free people??

As Harry Browne would say-

Republicans: campaign like libertarians-
govern like Democrats.

 

[Marril]

Freedom of speech means that you can (and often should) challenge authority.

Not really. "Freedom of speech" means just that: freedom of speech. Within certain parameters (unless you mean it, you can't yell "fire" in a theatre, or "mayday" over the radio, and so on), and of course barring the obvious restrictions (threats are a big no-no), it's saying that what you have to say won't be suppressed. It means that, among other things, you have the right to challenge authority or to speak negatively against the government (example: "Stephen Harper is a terrible Prime Minister!"), things that in other countries could get you jailed or killed. It's not to say, "You must challenge authority simply because you have the right to." There's little need for that in this day and age.

Most of them see nothing wrong with telling a woman what they can and cannot do with their body.

Remember that under a conservative viewpoint, women are supposed to be the reserved homemaker types. Men going out and "doing" something with their body is frowned upon, but women doing the same thing is downright unforgivingly reprehensible. It's just part of the conservative double standard that permeates North American society more than you'd think (for a more vivid illustration, I'd say the female form of "player" is "skank", to use a word that the 'Gym hopefully won't frown on).

In the case of "Bong Hits For Jesus," you're basically nailing the conservatives on two below-the-belt (to them) points. Firstly, you're insulting their religion. Any validity of said religion is immaterial—they see Jesus as their christ, and they cannot tolerate any perceived disrespect towards him. The second point is the promotion of a drug that they aren't making money on. Though I have no doubt that "Smoke Up For Allah" would receive punishment in the same scenario, "Bong Hits For Jesus" would invariably receive a worse treatment. In this way, it ties in with the conservative bias that's the driving force of the case. The only challenge to this message is the promotion of drugs, but even that goes out the window because he wasn't at school at the time, and he wasn't doing anything illegal to begin with. It'd be like suspending someone because you heard them say something off-colour outside of school grounds.

In short, it's just conservative meddling when really, nothing was done wrong. People seem to think that they have a right to not be offended, or that they have a right to not see/hear anything they disagree with. Such "rights" would actually directly conflict with the right to freedom of speech. If it's not actively hate speech of some kind, or threatening, or whatnot, then if you don't like it you can just suck it up.

This kind of stuff is just another reason to get rid of the minimum voting age.

So you're for injecting votes by people who are either too young to understand politics, or who'll just vote how their parents tell them to vote, into your election system? That'd be a terrible decision. It's not "ageism" to put a cutoff point for voting just as much as it's not "ageism" to say that you can't drink or drive or watch porno or buy lottery tickets or smoke or whatever the heck else before a certain age either (no matter how many underage people do some of those things).

 

[moza]

Not really. "Freedom of speech" means just that: freedom of speech. Within certain parameters (unless you mean it, you can't yell "fire" in a theatre, or "mayday" over the radio, and so on), and of course barring the obvious restrictions (threats are a big no-no), it's saying that what you have to say won't be suppressed. It means that, among other things, you have the right to challenge authority or to speak negatively against the government (example: "Stephen Harper is a terrible Prime Minister!"), things that in other countries could get you jailed or killed. It's not to say, "You must challenge authority simply because you have the right to." There's little need for that in this day and age.

Freedom of Speech means I can say whatever I want, when I want. Yelling fire in a theater is something I could do, but the consequences would make me think twice about it.

In the 70's, wasnt the big thing to challenge authority? jw

 

[Phazon Elite]

Regarding the specific case, I'm glad the administrator or whoever got after the little brat. Stuff like that is NOT funny.

(Just for reference, I'm far from a Christian or anything like that. I just respect The Man enough to not imply that he'd wander around high)

 

[Cyrus]

Again...everything we've said really doesn't deal with free speech: I believe almost everyone on this post thinks that what "Mr. Frederick" did was indecent, but I also think that many of us support his right to be stupid and offensive! It's not what he did that got him into trouble, it's where and when he did it. The case was ultimately decided based on the definition of whether this was a school field trip or not.

So in establishing an opinion on this, let's think about what facts we know:

-Free speech never ends...unless when you disrupt the purpose of a public institution (which, through extrapolation, disrupts others' rights to free speech).

-Every court that has dealt with this issue defined the torch running as an official school field trip, including the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is infamous for its radically liberal rulings (and was in favor of "Bong Hits 4 Jesus").

-School-sanctioned events are part of the learning experience a student goes through; the Olympic running was no different than being out of class, as defined by every court involved.

-Anything that clearly disrupts the experience takes away from the learning (this case is a perfect scenario...the students were supposed to enjoy the historic Olympic torch running, but now only remember "Bong Hits 4 Jesus").

-Mrs. Morse, as a monitor of the "field trip," had to make sure that all students of the district were to be on best behavior, and Joseph Frederick was NOT on his best behavior by unveiling an offensive message that took away from the torch running.

-Joseph Frederick was not on his own; he was merely late for class, and because the torch running was a school-sanctioned event, once he arrived to meet up with fellow students, he had an "unexcused tardy."

So with all of those facts in mind, it's safe to form an opinion. Although I'm a big advocate of free speech, this was a clear disruption, and the courts were right to rule in Deborah Morse's favor IMO.

As for the "Conservative Right," I see where you could get that, but an initial five day suspension for an already troublesome student isn't too ridiculous. The ridiculous person was Joseph, for suing a woman for just doing her job the best way she could.

 

[PokéMart]

we, the students, had the sole responsibility of producing a school newspaper

Yeah, that's the key right there--once editorial control is established (by policy or by practice), it cannot be taken away. Since students always produced the paper, what your school did was 100% illegal.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Who do they think is going to enforce these restrictions?? Government will have to enforce it!

I agree with what you're saying, but I disagree with the specifics--I think conservatives, as a whole, believe that private parties will enforce it (e.g. the schools, in this case).

But the problem with that is it leads to opression and discrimination. Private parties do not act in the best interest of the population of the party, they act in the best interest of the powerfull within the party.

From a liberal standpoint, I think that one of the main purposes of government should be to ensure that people are not opressed or discriminated against.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Get the government out of education and the problems will go away.

If we got rid of public schools, the enitre concept of the meritocracy falls, and the wealthy become even more empowered than they already are.

This story makes me think: what kind of private school would attempt to forcibly restrict its student's behavior outside of school grounds?

Would they? That's a good point.
But they can.

Government schools, however, get away with whatever they want.

Only because we allow them to. The problem is that there's no outcry against this behavior. Parents, for the most part, WANT their kids to be controlled by the school. They want good little boys and girls who never "get into trouble" or challenge authority.

Why? Who knows. Maybe it's just less trouble not to stir the pot.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Not really. "Freedom of speech" means just that: freedom of speech. Within certain parameters (unless you mean it, you can't yell "fire" in a theatre, or "mayday" over the radio, and so on), and of course barring the obvious restrictions (threats are a big no-no), it's saying that what you have to say won't be suppressed. It means that, among other things, you have the right to challenge authority or to speak negatively against the government (example: "Stephen Harper is a terrible Prime Minister!"), things that in other countries could get you jailed or killed. It's not to say, "You must challenge authority simply because you have the right to." There's little need for that in this day and age.

I disagree strongly on several points:

First, clearly I do not mean "what it means" in a literal, dictionary sense, although I appreciate you clarifying that, I guess.

If you have the right to do something, but fail to do so, there's no point in having the right at all. I have the right to vote, but I don't?

If I don't vote, I am rejecting the merit of that right. I'm saying that voting isn't important.

Aside from that, what I said is that it means we often should challenge authorty--and we often should, because authority is often wrong.

Remember that under a conservative viewpoint, women are supposed to be the reserved homemaker types.

That's a christian viewpoint that has nothing at all to do with conservatism.

Men going out and "doing" something with their body is frowned upon, but women doing the same thing is downright unforgivingly reprehensible.

See above.

In the case of "Bong Hits For Jesus," you're basically nailing the conservatives on two below-the-belt (to them) points. Firstly, you're insulting their religion. Any validity of said religion is immaterial—they see Jesus as their christ,

Who is "they" and what is "their religion" ?

it ties in with the conservative bias that's the driving force of the case.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

-Joseph Frederick was not on his own; he was merely late for class, and because the torch running was a school-sanctioned event, once he arrived to meet up with fellow students, he had an "unexcused tardy."

There seems to be disagreement on that--what I read in the oral arguments states that he never came to school that morning.

 

[Cyrus]

There isn't a disagreement, Jim: my point is that he was late to school, so he went DIRECTLY to the ceremony, ie directly to the "school-sanctioned event."

School-sanctioned events are the same as being in class for most districts, so as far as the rules go, he was still at "school" per se. Even if it was not recorded, it was still a school function, and he showed up to it.

 

[PokéMart]

School-sanctioned events are the same as being in class for most districts, so as far as the rules go, he was still at "school" per se. Even if it was not recorded, it was still a school function, and he showed up to it.

The problem here is that I'm not sure how the court can say that a public event held in a public venue (the street) is a field trip.

From the oral arguments, this is a major issue--the school might say he was late and he went directly to the location of the "field trip," but even if you define this as a school sponsored event, how do we resolve the fact that students were not required to attend and that it was open to the public.

 

[Cyrus]

how do we resolve the fact that students were not required to attend and that it was open to the public.

A: Resolved because if you choose to attend the event, then you're under the district's care. It's a very messy issue, but because he arrived late and went to the optional trip, then he puts himself under the district's jurisdiction, as a student expected to follow the rules.

B: Many things are open to the public, yet students are still expected to have good behavior. A perfect example of a school-sponsored event is a football game: kids can get wild and crazy, but...not "too" wild and crazy. The torch-running being off school grounds does not disqualify my example, because the important thing is whether or not it was school-sponsored.

Ultimately it does end up being defined as a field trip, because the fact is that almost all field trips are to public domain outside of the school. This was a school-sponsored, and certainly a school-monitored activity (as seen by the principal's actions). If you acted up at, say, the museum or historic Washington D.C., of course you'd get punished! This is no different, and I may be taking a minority stance here, what with the unpopularity of Sam Alito/John Roberts (and especially that of the man who nominated them), but I really think the court [barely] ruled correctly on this one.

Did you hear, btw? Just today there were even more groundbreaking supreme court decisions...once again, 5-4 votes each. Even though I get the impression the court is perfectly sane, I agree with Lawman: Bush's legacy will definitely be a divided court.

 

[Marril]

If you have the right to do something, but fail to do so, there's no point in having the right at all. I have the right to vote, but I don't?

This is an extremely limited and highly immature statement. If you personally don't exercise the right, that doesn't mean the right isn't there for others to exercise. Your statement only applies if the right is universally ignored. I can't fathom how hectic, cluttered, and unfulfilling a life would be if you exercised literally every right/privelege you have just because it's there to be exercised.

If I don't vote, I am rejecting the merit of that right. I'm saying that voting isn't important.

Again, you're being far too limiting in your statements. If you don't vote, you may be saying that voting isn't important, or you may be saying that there's nobody worth voting for, or you may be saying that there are more important things to do than vote (as opposed to voting being plain unimportant).

Aside from that, what I said is that it means we often should challenge authorty--and we often should, because authority is often wrong.

If you challenge authority and get it changed to how you see fit, then in essence you are being (either directly or through proxy) the authority. By your own statements, you're likely to easily be wrong yourself. First you rebel against The Man, and then you become The Man...

That's a christian viewpoint that has nothing at all to do with conservatism.

When I look up "conservatism," the first sentence I see in essence says that conservatism is a political philosophy which favours traditional values, "[referring] to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs." (Emphasis mine). Religion is important to conservatism, and a lot of conservatives in North America are, drum roll please, Christians. Although conservatism in a broad sense is attached to no particular religion, the conservatives relevant to this discussion are quite safe to assume to be Christian.

Who is "they" and what is "their religion" ?

If you'd read my statement at all, you'd see that "they" are the conservatives, and "their religion" is Christianity.

 

[ryanvergel]

A: Resolved because if you choose to attend the event, then you're under the district's care. It's a very messy issue, but because he arrived late and went to the optional trip, then he puts himself under the district's jurisdiction, as a student expected to follow the rules.

B: Many things are open to the public, yet students are still expected to have good behavior. A perfect example of a school-sponsored event is a football game: kids can get wild and crazy, but...not "too" wild and crazy. The torch-running being off school grounds does not disqualify my example, because the important thing is whether or not it was school-sponsored.

Ultimately it does end up being defined as a field trip, because the fact is that almost all field trips are to public domain outside of the school. This was a school-sponsored, and certainly a school-monitored activity (as seen by the principal's actions). If you acted up at, say, the museum or historic Washington D.C., of course you'd get punished! This is no different, and I may be taking a minority stance here, what with the unpopularity of Sam Alito/John Roberts (and especially that of the man who nominated them), but I really think the court [barely] ruled correctly on this one.

Did you hear, btw? Just today there were even more groundbreaking supreme court decisions...once again, 5-4 votes each. Even though I get the impression the court is perfectly sane, I agree with Lawman: Bush's legacy will definitely be a divided court.

Pick a better example. That example you provided is ON school grounds. This argument is for a situation off of school grounds.

I agree with Marril on the idea that not exercising a right does not remove its merit. You can apply that same logic to any right I have but choose not to exercise, such as owning a gun or assembling in public and see that the same logic applied to different instances of the same idea (a right not exercised) falls apart- making the argument fall apart.

And I like the statement of "If you challenge authority and get it changed to how you see fit, then in essence you are being (either directly or through proxy) the authority. By your own statements, you're likely to easily be wrong yourself." Very true. If you challenge the authority, and you are right and win out, you are the authority. If by your own admission authority is normally wrong, then you are normally wrong, and chances are the very thing you just instated was wrong. So that would make the prior authority right (or at least more right) making authority more often correct than wrong. OOPS! Paradox!

 

[Cyrus]

The reason I chose the football example was to illustrate A: a generic school-sponsored event open to the public, and B: a situation where kids are likely to act up, but shouldn't act up "too much." Examples of school-sponsored events not on school grounds would be trips to the museum, elementary school nature observations (aka "go out and play in the field/woods" day), etc.

I understand both sides of the "other" issue. Jim's right in that it's "like" not having the right at all if you choose not to use it, but Marril is ultimately correct...our first amendment rights make it so that we can use all of our other rights in creative ways: by not owning a gun, we can "voice" our discontent with weapons, by "not" voting, we make a statement that we're discontent, etc.