Supreme Court hears "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

03/22/2007 12:53:09 AM · #26

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

I find it interesting that this community does not find this case important enough to debate a little. Art and photography fall under the First amendment protections. If one class of citizen loses their right to free speech it will trickle down.

The right to free speech is the most important right we have. I guess that's why the founding fathers put it 1st! Look at what happened in 1968 at the DNC in Chicago or 1970 at Kent State.

I don't think the real debate here is about free speech. To me, the debate is about how far stupidity can go and how much it can cost.

There is some debate about a free speech infringement here. I have read about 50 articles on this case now and I can't determine the detail of whether or not this was a school event. This is the core of the entire argument, it seems. Some articles say it was sanctioned as a school event and others seem to ignore that thought. Without the facts of that particular matter, I believe the free speech issue can't really go any further.

If this was not a school sanctioned event, the kid had the right to do whatever he wanted to do with that banner. I, however, believe that his principal probably confiscated the banner and suspended the kid because it WAS a school event. Why else would she do it?

Let's assume for a moment that it WAS a school sanctioned event. The facts that I do know are that school was postponed for this event and students were invited to come out as a school group and attend. This, I believe, constitutes a school event.

If we establish this event as a school sanctioned event, I believe the kid's right to free speech was not taken away. He violated a school policy. If he had done this at a school football game or some other event on school grounds, would the result have been any different? Would his punishment have been acceptable then? The court is gonna have to decide whether or not the kid's attendance at this parade was as part of a school event or not. If they determine it was, he has no case. If they determine it wasn't, he's been cheated of his right to free speech.

I'd like to speculate what will happen when the ruling comes out this summer...

1. The court says the kid's right to free speech was violated. The court will decide that the event was not definitively sanctioned as a school event, so the principal believed it to be a school event. The principal will be granted immunity from a civil law suit.

2. The court will determine that the event was school-sanctioned and the kid's case will be dismissed, be done, and over with.

I do not believe that the prosecution will 'win' this case by any means. If their sole objective is to win a free speech case, they may win. I believe their objective is to sue the principal and the school system in general for punitive damages though. I can't see this happening.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

03/22/2007 01:15:12 AM · #27

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I find it interesting that this community does not find this case important enough to debate a little. Art and photography fall under the First amendment protections. If one class of citizen loses their right to free speech it will trickle down.

The right to free speech is the most important right we have. I guess that's why the founding fathers put it 1st! Look at what happened in 1968 at the DNC in Chicago or 1970 at Kent State.

I don't think the real debate here is about free speech. To me, the debate is about how far stupidity can go and how much it can cost.

There is some debate about a free speech infringement here. I have read about 50 articles on this case now and I can't determine the detail of whether or not this was a school event. This is the core of the entire argument, it seems. Some articles say it was sanctioned as a school event and others seem to ignore that thought. Without the facts of that particular matter, I believe the free speech issue can't really go any further.

If this was not a school sanctioned event, the kid had the right to do whatever he wanted to do with that banner. I, however, believe that his principal probably confiscated the banner and suspended the kid because it WAS a school event. Why else would she do it?

Let's assume for a moment that it WAS a school sanctioned event. The facts that I do know are that school was postponed for this event and students were invited to come out as a school group and attend. This, I believe, constitutes a school event.

If we establish this event as a school sanctioned event, I believe the kid's right to free speech was not taken away. He violated a school policy. If he had done this at a school football game or some other event on school grounds, would the result have been any different? Would his punishment have been acceptable then? The court is gonna have to decide whether or not the kid's attendance at this parade was as part of a school event or not. If they determine it was, he has no case. If they determine it wasn't, he's been cheated of his right to free speech.

I'd like to speculate what will happen when the ruling comes out this summer...

1. The court says the kid's right to free speech was violated. The court will decide that the event was not definitively sanctioned as a school event, so the principal believed it to be a school event. The principal will be granted immunity from a civil law suit.

2. The court will determine that the event was school-sanctioned and the kid's case will be dismissed, be done, and over with.

I do not believe that the prosecution will 'win' this case by any means. If their sole objective is to win a free speech case, they may win. I believe their objective is to sue the principal and the school system in general for punitive damages though. I can't see this happening.

The reports I have read indicated that the event was sanctioned by the school only in that classes were postponed to allow attendance at the event, however, attendance was NOT mandatory and the event was also NOT on school grounds, but on a public street and also open to the public. It was the 2002 Olympic relay torch passing through Juneau, a significant event, yes, but not really a "school" event.

I don't know exactly why the principal would confiscate the banner and suspend the student, only she can answer that. My thoughts are that she acted out of A) Anger and B) out of a feeling that her authority had been challenged and she should answer. The fact that she may have been trampling on free-speech likely never crossed her mind until much later, possibly after having been served with papers in the original case. Maybe she considered it a school event, even though it really was not.

Message edited by author 2007-03-22 01:17:12.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

03/22/2007 01:20:44 AM · #28

And to me at it's core is the right to free speech. To inhibit in any way a persons right to say what they want is a very slippery slope. His banner was not disruptive & it could be interpreted as political speech.

To give an inch is to take a mile.

On the point about the principal, I to think she will be granted immunity in this instance.

But again to think this case at it's core is not about free speech is naive. If it's not about the first amendment why is the SC hearing the case...

Message edited by author 2007-03-22 01:27:09.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

03/22/2007 08:58:55 AM · #29

Another free-speech in school case.

03/22/2007 05:57:39 PM · #30

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

His banner was not disruptive & it could be interpreted as political speech.

This is the whole point that I can't agree with. His banner WAS disruptive. It was INTENDED to be disruptive. This kid has admitted over and over that his intent was to annoy the principal, with whom he has been feuding for a long time. I can give you links to plenty of additional information on this in the form of news stories and blog posts.

His original intent was NOT to challenge free speech. That was an afterthought... probably not until he was approached by a lawyer offering him the opportunity of a civil suit against the principal.

As I stated in my last post, I do believe that there is a possibility that the supreme court will rule that free speech was violated. I won't rule that out at all.

I think it's sad that a personal vendetta between a student and a school principal has escalated to this level. It's also costing taxpayers a lot of money for something that has been escalated into something that it was not originally designed to be.

03/22/2007 06:08:10 PM · #31

According to the ruling in Tinker the banner has been deemed not disruptive. Regardless of his intent it is still speech and his right to say it was infringed upon.

03/22/2007 06:15:49 PM · #32

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

According to the ruling in Tinker the banner has been deemed not disruptive. Regardless of his intent it is still speech and his right to say it was infringed upon.

Where would you draw the line in a case like this? Could that banner have said absolutely anything and still been ok to display?

What if it said "I screwed your mama last night"? That wouldn't be any more or less disruptive than what it actually said. What would it have had to say in order for it to be considered disruptive, inappropriate, or otherwise not suitable as 'free speech'?

03/22/2007 06:16:55 PM · #33

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
According to the ruling in Tinker the banner has been deemed not disruptive. Regardless of his intent it is still speech and his right to say it was infringed upon.

Where would you draw the line in a case like this? Could that banner have said absolutely anything and still been ok to display?

What if it said "I screwed your mama last night"? That wouldn't be any more or less disruptive than what it actually said. What would it have had to say in order for it to be considered disruptive, inappropriate, or otherwise not suitable as 'free speech'?

That is the difference "Hate speech" is not protected.

ETA: "Bong hits for Jesus" is not hate speech.

Message edited by author 2007-03-22 18:17:56.

03/22/2007 06:21:21 PM · #34

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

That is the difference "Hate speech" is not protected.

ETA: "Bong hits for Jesus" is not hate speech.

I know your opinion about free speech. What is your opinion about what the outcome of this case should be?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/22/2007 06:28:43 PM · #35

Good question! I feel that the the ruling should be that the kid should win. BUT I also think that the principle should be granted immunity and should not have to pay.

I don't think the principle was right in her actions but I also understand that if they were to rule that she is liable for damages that it would open up pandora's box on testing the SC ruling. So in that regard I believe school administrators need some protection under the law as well.

It is a difficult case and I for one am glad I am not a SC justice.

Message edited by author 2007-03-22 18:29:31.

jonnienye

Canon EOS-40D

03/23/2007 03:51:19 AM · #36

and dont forget,jesus shaves....lol

NVPhoto

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/23/2007 02:58:30 PM · #37

I for one think the principal should be held liable and have to pay. School administrators need to weigh the possible damages that their personal vendettas carry. Every school has a few students that the principal is out to get. If the principal never suspended the student this would not have escalated. She could have just verbally reprimanded the student and end of story because really how offended could "bong hits 4 jesus" really made her. Obviously this student wasn't just going to take any punishment quietly and she should have recognized that because as stated before they were out to get each other. Suspensions now carry heavy consequences. They can effect your athletic standing to participate in school sports, colleges sometimes have problems w/ suspensions on a transcript and not to mention missed work which could effect their GPA.

The banner wasn't that offensive, probably made some people laugh, but otherwise absolutely harmless. Its when administrators overstep their jurisdiction and all hell breaks loose.

Reminds me of my high school principal who heard of a party over a weekend where lots of drinking went down. Called suspected participants into his office to give up names of other party goers. He threatened to kick people off sports teams and school clubs if they didn't cooperate. Boy did he overstep his boundry. He was fired before the year ended due to the parents outrage.

06/25/2007 06:28:43 PM · #38

The supreme court ruled in favor of the school and teacher today. I'm glad to see that stupidity lost and reason/good intentions won.

06/25/2007 06:31:48 PM · #39

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

The supreme court ruled in favor of the school and teacher today. I'm glad to see that stupidity lost and reason/good intentions won.

It is Bullshit and a sad day for the First amendment.

Message edited by author 2007-06-25 18:33:24.

06/25/2007 06:32:42 PM · #40

It was 5-4 so it was close.

WASHINGTON â�� A high school student's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner got slapped down by the Supreme Court in a decision Monday that restricts student speech rights when the message seems to advocate illegal drug use.

The court ruled 5-4 in the case of Joseph Frederick, who unfurled his handiwork at a school-sanctioned event in 2002, triggering his suspension and leading to a lengthy court battle.

"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Chief Justice John Roberts said. But the school principal who suspended him "thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one," Roberts said in the majority opinion.

In a concurrence, Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy said the court's opinion "goes no further" than speech interpreted as dealing with illegal drug use.

"It provides no support" for any restriction that goes to political or social issues, they said.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the ruling "does serious violence to the First Amendment."

06/25/2007 06:32:55 PM · #41

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the ruling "does serious violence to the First Amendment."

06/25/2007 06:41:09 PM · #42

Justice John Paul Stevens swearing in the DEVIL! Must have just killed him to do it!

Man we are giving up our freedoms right and left and it seems most sheep are ok with it...

Sad Very Very Sad :-/

Message edited by author 2007-06-25 18:41:25.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

06/25/2007 06:52:32 PM · #43

Link to the SC ruling

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/25/2007 06:56:12 PM · #44

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Link to the SC ruling

"At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event".

06/25/2007 06:59:46 PM · #45

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Link to the SC ruling

"At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event".

Wrong buddy read all the data in this thread.

06/25/2007 07:00:30 PM · #46

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

It was not on school grounds.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

06/25/2007 07:02:46 PM · #47

Originally posted by milo655321:

For those interested, here is the transcript of yesterday's oral arguments.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/25/2007 07:03:34 PM · #48

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Link to the SC ruling

"At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event".

Wrong buddy read all the data in this thread.

I read the thread and the links posted in it. Granted I haven't done my own research on it however even if I have that still doesn't replace being in the court room hearing the case be presented.