free speech takes a hit

Danzig · #1 06-25-2007, 11:21 AM

The U.S. Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.

Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.

His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating drug use.

"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts said. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."

-----glad my kids will be out of public school soon!! so now the public school system is to be allowed to trample the constitution...well, not like that gets taught in our system anyway, along with geography.
locker searches (unreasonable search and seizure), drug testing of athletes(the same...) and now this.

ArlJim78 · #2 06-25-2007, 11:41 AM

don't see any problem with it at all really.

this guy is free to take his message to the people most anywhere really.
in this case there isn't even a message that he was trying to express, it was merely a stunt.

that someone at the school thought it was inappropriate for a school sponsored function seems rational.

I don't see the threat to free speech coming from this.

somerfrost · #3 06-25-2007, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

don't see any problem with it at all really.

this guy is free to take his message to the people most anywhere really.
in this case there isn't even a message that he was trying to express, it was merely a stunt.

that someone at the school thought it was inappropriate for a school sponsored function seems rational.

I don't see the threat to free speech coming from this.

I suspect if the banner read, "Clap Hands For Jesus", it would have been fine...and therein lies the problem! I guess requesting Jefferson Airplane's White Rabbit at the prom would be a no no as well?

ArlJim78 · #4 06-25-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I suspect if the banner read, "Clap Hands For Jesus", it would have been fine...and therein lies the problem! I guess requesting Jefferson Airplane's White Rabbit at the prom would be a no no as well?

I'm not sure if that is even allowed these days, I think that would also not be allowed because of possible insensitivity to other religious groups.

Just seems kinda silly that this issue took up the time of the supreme court.

Downthestretch55 · #5 06-25-2007, 02:25 PM

Though I don't advocate drug use, it seems the issue was that this kid wasn't on "school property" but was at a "school sanctioned event".
I wonder what the ruling would have been if the banner read "waterboarding for Jesus".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...734501,00.html

Downthestretch55 · #6 06-25-2007, 03:13 PM

I'll add this. I find this decision today by the Supreme court to be of much greater concern, as it clearly is in violation of the "establishment clause" in the Constitution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

somerfrost · #7 06-25-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

I'll add this. I find this decision today by the Supreme court to be of much greater concern, as it clearly is in violation of the "establishment clause" in the Constitution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

I agree DTS...I can just imagine how many federal dollars Bush will send to Wiccan food banks...lol! Seriously though, this is a blatant disregard of the Constitution and another step toward a right-wing Christian theocracy.

Downthestretch55 · #8 06-25-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I agree DTS...I can just imagine how many federal dollars Bush will send to Wiccan food banks...lol! Seriously though, this is a blatant disregard of the Constitution and another step toward a right-wing Christian theocracy.

Somerfrost,
Sad but true.

ArlJim78 · #9 06-25-2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I agree DTS...I can just imagine how many federal dollars Bush will send to Wiccan food banks...lol! Seriously though, this is a blatant disregard of the Constitution and another step toward a right-wing Christian theocracy.

the executive order that set up this initiative forbids this kind of discrimination.

"(c) No organization should be discriminated against on the basis of religion or religious belief in the administration or distribution of Federal financial assistance under social service programs; "

somerfrost · #10 06-25-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

the executive order that set up this initiative forbids this kind of discrimination.

"(c) No organization should be discriminated against on the basis of religion or religious belief in the administration or distribution of Federal financial assistance under social service programs; "

I'm sorry...I'll believe that when I see it! Wasn't it Bush who said Wiccan soldiers had no right to practice their beliefs while in the service?

Edit: I just looked it up...I was right! Bush is on record as stating that Wicca is NOT a religion in his view!

ShadowRoll · #11 06-25-2007, 07:42 PM

While I am a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, this decision isn't very surpising, nor is it very threatening. The Court was engaged in balancing the rights of a student versus the interests a school has in supervising students (such as dissuading drug use). No big deal, they've often limited the freedom of speech when balancing it against other legitimate competing interests. I don't see this particular development (though there are others which are more ominous) as being a sign that we're slipping into a totalitarian state.

What I absolutely can't agree with, ArlJim, is your suggestion that this issue was too silly to take up the Court's time. I can think of few things more proper for the Court to ponder than the First Amendment, which, among other things, is the reason that I, and you, can express our respective opinions on this web site. Plus, the fact that this was a 5-4 decision seems to weigh against your belief that this was a silly issue.

trifecta124 · #12 06-25-2007, 08:17 PM

The kid is a dumb-ass.....Free speech is one thing, being a moron is something else. I'm happy with the decision. Too much crap is coming out of peoples mouths today.

timmgirvan · #13 06-25-2007, 08:19 PM

Seriously, if the Wiccans turned in the paperwork,I'm sure they would be dealt with fairly! I was in a little church long ago, and we approached the Vons company about charitable groceries for some families. And,although the Company was run by a family of Catholics, they still gave a station wagon full of groceries to our request!

somerfrost · #14 06-25-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trifecta124

The kid is a dumb-ass.....Free speech is one thing, being a moron is something else. I'm happy with the decision. Too much crap is coming out of peoples mouths today.

How can I say this diplomatically? How about...one man's crap is another man's freedom of expression...

somerfrost · #15 06-25-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Seriously, if the Wiccans turned in the paperwork,I'm sure they would be dealt with fairly! I was in a little church long ago, and we approached the Vons company about charitable groceries for some families. And,although the Company was run by a family of Catholics, they still gave a station wagon full of groceries to our request!

If Bush feels (and I'm going by his own words) that he can determine whether another person's beliefs are valid or not then how can you expect him to treat Wicca or other pagan religions fairly?

timmgirvan · #16 06-25-2007, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by somerfrost

If Bush feels (and I'm going by his own words) that he can determine whether another person's beliefs are valid or not then how can you expect him to treat Wicca or other pagan religions fairly?

Somer : do you honestly believe that Bush himself goes over the list. Do you,in fact, know if any Wiccan Organization has been turned down,or for that matter requested such aid? I'm not looking to argue,but let's not put the cart before the horse!

Danzig · #17 06-25-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by somerfrost

How can I say this diplomatically? How about...one man's crap is another man's freedom of expression...

by no means was i suggesting that the kid in any way had any profound thing to say. BUT, it is his right to say it. freedom of speech and expression should not stop at the schoolhouse door--he didn't yell 'fire' in a crowded cafeteria.

what he had on his sign may have been stupid, but it was his right to say it (or write it).

ArlJim78 · #18 06-25-2007, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowRoll

While I am a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, this decision isn't very surpising, nor is it very threatening. The Court was engaged in balancing the rights of a student versus the interests a school has in supervising students (such as dissuading drug use). No big deal, they've often limited the freedom of speech when balancing it against other legitimate competing interests. I don't see this particular development (though there are others which are more ominous) as being a sign that we're slipping into a totalitarian state.

What I absolutely can't agree with, ArlJim, is your suggestion that this issue was too silly to take up the Court's time. I can think of few things more proper for the Court to ponder than the First Amendment, which, among other things, is the reason that I, and you, can express our respective opinions on this web site. Plus, the fact that this was a 5-4 decision seems to weigh against your belief that this was a silly issue.

Free speech is denied all the time. In school the teacher tells you to shut up. Another teacher says take down that sign. No big deal. free Speech is of course very important but I'm not one that views this particular matter as a big deal.
This isn't Solzhenitsyn being sent to the gulag for expressing his views. this is a teacher telling Freddie to take down his bong-hits sign. Another teacher in the same situation might have done it differently and allowed the sign to stay up. fine, again no big deal. I see it as a local matter more to do with taste and decorum, not a subject worthy of a titanic supreme court struggle.

ArlJim78 · #19 06-25-2007, 11:55 PM

what I don't get about this issue is that in our society this kid has thousands of ways to speak his mind about any subject, including "bong-hits 4 jesus", without being bothered or hindered by anyone, and the moment one of those avenues is denied we are all on the brink of losing our right of free speech and we must seek relief from the supreme court?
I really don't get it.

somerfrost · #20 06-26-2007, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

what I don't get about this issue is that in our society this kid has thousands of ways to speak his mind about any subject, including "bong-hits 4 jesus", without being bothered or hindered by anyone, and the moment one of those avenues is denied we are all on the brink of losing our right of free speech and we must seek relief from the supreme court?
I really don't get it.

From reading the article, the kid was suspended...so he wasn't just told to take the banner down, he was kicked out of school...that's more than telling a noisy kid to be quiet!