"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" update.

[Jerry]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAIznii13BQ[/YOUTUBE]​

Well, here it is kids:

Supreme Court limits student speech in "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case

MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Writer

(AP) - WASHINGTON-The U.S. Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long (4.3-meter) "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 in a 5-4 ruling.

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.

Conservative groups that often are allied with the administration are backing Frederick out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose homosexuality or abortion.
<snip>

So kids, quit being so stupid with your rights so that they won't be open to government infringement in the future.

Here is the actual case: Morse v. Frederick

(a) Frederick’s argument that this is not a school speech case is rejected. The event in question occurred during normal school hours and was sanctioned by Morse as an approved social event at which the district’s student-conduct rules expressly applied. Teachers and administrators were among the students and were charged with supervising them. Frederick stood among other students across the street from the school and directed his banner toward the school, making it plainly visible to most students. Under these circumstances, Frederick cannot claim he was not at school. Pp. 5–6.

[.........]

(c) A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment , restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use..............Two basic principles may be distilled from Fraser. First, it demonstrates that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.”.............Second, Fraser established that Tinker’s mode of analysis is not absolute, since the Fraser Court did not conduct the “substantial disruption” analysis. Subsequently, the Court has held in the Fourth Amendment context that “while children assuredly do not ‘shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate,’ … the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school,”

<snip>

 

[zero18]

I strongly disagree with this court decision. From my understanding, this was done at a public school. As a public school it is considered government property so therefore the student's freedom of speech should be protected.

 

[bhkad]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAIznii13BQ[/YOUTUBE]​

Well, here it is kids:

Supreme Court limits student speech in "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case


So kids, quit being so stupid with your rights so that they won't be open to government infringement in the future.

And I'd love to know whether Master Frederick now thinks the whole thing was worth the time effort and expense.

I strongly disagree with this court decision. From my understanding, this was done at a public school. As a public school it is considered government property so therefore the student's freedom of speech should be protected.

By the way, the young man was across the street from the school when holding up the banner.

 

[Jerry]

By the way, the young man was across the street from the school when holding up the banner.

While you were posting I was making some edits, and if you would kindly now review the final OP you will note in the snips of the SCOTUS ruling I've provided it is made clear that the students were, in fact, under the jurisdiction of the school at the time.

 

[Harshaw]

As I posted in another thread . . .

That a school may prohibit student speech or expression which encourages illegal activity is long-standing, settled law. That was never in doubt here.

The only question involving free speech that the Court ruled on was whether or not the banner in question could be reasonably interpreted as encouraging illegal activity, i.e., drug use. They ruled that it could.

In short, the Court analyzed novel facts and applied existing, settled law to them. No new ground was broken here; no restrictions on free speech which didn't already exist.

The three dissenting Justices disagreed as to the message of the banner, not as to the well-established restriction itself.

Justice Breyer did not join either the majority or the minority on that point; he thought the free speech question should not have been decided at all, because the case didn't warrant it. He DID mention, however, in a footnote, that in analyzing the merits of the case, he thought the crux of the dissenters' argument was wrong.

 

[Cold Highway]

Schools always had the right to censor its students speech its nothing new.

 

[rathi]

The key to the whole argument was whether the kid was under the schools jurisdiction or not. When this first came up, I argued that he was not. The supreme court apparently disagrees. This broadens the schools authority to things that take place off the grounds and aren't normally covered like field trips.
Although I dislike the increasing power of schools to take disciplinary actions for things that are off campus, I am not that worried about the outcome of this guys actions.

 

[RightinNYC]

I strongly disagree with this court decision. From my understanding, this was done at a public school. As a public school it is considered government property so therefore the student's freedom of speech should be protected.

Actually, the courts have consistently held the exact opposite. Speech that would normally be protected in the public square has repeatedly been left open to regulation in public schools.

 

[RightinNYC]

While you were posting I was making some edits, and if you would kindly now review the final OP you will note in the snips of the SCOTUS ruling I've provided it is made clear that the students were, in fact, under the jurisdiction of the school at the time.

Well, no, you've provided the parts of the ruling that claimed that the student was under school jurisdiction.

 

[Captain America]

Schools always had the right to censor its students speech its nothing new.

I went to a public school. I graduated high school in 1975. We were not allowed to wear tee-shirts with any rock band logos or any slogans whatsoever unless it said something like "Jesus Saves" or "Lakewood Outreach Center." Our hair had to be cut above the eyebrow and above the ears and above the collar. Girls were not allowed to wear pants unless it was a "pant suit" (don't ask....ugly polyester things...:3oops: ) Girls had to wear skirts. And they could not be more than 3 inches above the knee. No cleavage could be shown whatsoever. Failure to comply resulted in expulsion and corporal punishment (beat with a paddle.)

Conservatism at it's finest. Yessir, our teachers and principals would have made any self-respecting rightwinger very proud. We couldn't dress ourselves. We couldn't express ourselves. It was rule by oppression. The true American way (according to some waterlogs here.:roll: )

That being said, in all fairness we should also note that there were no drive-by shootings, school massacres, crackhead ghetto rapper wannabes or many of the other problems facing our kids and teachers in our schools today . So maybe there is something to be said for the jackboot mentality afterall. I dunno.


Back in those days, the kids did respect their teachers and we did learn. You could also look across our school parking lot and see countless shotguns and rifles proudly displayed in the student's trucks, resting in their gun racks, on any given day. (School let out for opening day of deer season.)

I did not have to walk six miles in the snow, uphill, both ways. So I guess I was lucky in thnat regard. :rofl

 

[Kasmos]

Back in those days, the kids did respect their teachers and we did learn. You could also look across our school parking lot and see countless shotguns and rifles proudly displayed in the student's trucks, resting in their gun racks, on any given day. (School let out for opening day of deer season.)

Ah, but I think the question begs to be asked, did you pay attention in school and respect your teachers for fear of punishment? I personally do not think that is the best way at all to teach children anything (although I'm not degrading your school or anything Cappy). Those that want to learn will learn without all the restrictions and guidelines, those that don't care or don't want to learn will be trouble makers and cause problems. "Forcing" the trouble makers into doing anything for fear of punishment isn't going to accomplish anything in my opinion.

I personally believe schools that have strict dress codes and many regulations are not doing any good in our society anyway, but again, that's just my opinion. To me, it's more important to let kids express themselves than force them to be a certain way.

 

[RightinNYC]

I think its very interesting to compare the different decisions the court handed down on Monday and look at the different rationales behind each of them.

Ex.

In this case, the court held that the speech could be limited.

In the campaign finance case, CJ Roberts said "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

Something worth thinking about.

 

[Captain America]

Ah, but I think the question begs to be asked, did you pay attention in school and respect your teachers for fear of punishment? I personally do not think that is the best way at all to teach children anything (although I'm not degrading your school or anything Cappy). Those that want to learn will learn without all the restrictions and guidelines, those that don't care or don't want to learn will be trouble makers and cause problems. "Forcing" the trouble makers into doing anything for fear of punishment isn't going to accomplish anything in my opinion.

I personally believe schools that have strict dress codes and many regulations are not doing any good in our society anyway, but again, that's just my opinion. To me, it's more important to let kids express themselves than force them to be a certain way.

I am inclined to agree with you 100% all the way. And yes, the respect was born out of fear, partially, that was implanted in early elementry and carried us all the way through high school. Some of my teachers deserved repect and respect was given freely. Some of my teachers did not deserve respect but it was given regardless for fear of reprisal.

I hated the dress code. I hated the jackboot-crewcut-hair principal we had who was a redneck dick. I hated the coaches who would lift us off the ground with their paddles when we would come from the showers, butt naked, to "toughen us up." I remember some kids challenging each other to see how many of the coaches swats they could endure before tearing up. Some kind of machismo/peer pressure thing. Our coaches were some sick phuq's. I hated my beehive hair English teacher who preached her stupid Pentacostalism in class. I hated Ms. Elsie Haltom, in the fourth grade, who made Mike Harris (a Jehovah Witness) sit in the hallway, on his hands, while the rest of the class said the pledge and morning prayer (JW's weren't supposed to say the pledge.) She would make fun of his religion and put down his parents everyday in front of the whole class because of their religious views. That poor little boy. He was the nicest kid too. I hated Ms. Malcomb for chasing me around the desk in the forth grade because she didn't like my "Beach Boy" haircut and decided to cut my hair for me. She ended up stabbing me in the forehead with her scissors. I hated Ms. Flowers for sending me to the principal, who hit me on the butt 5 times with a board. It raised me off the ground. I remember the excruciating pain. 5 times. Just because I loaned Lisa Coursen a pencil during a math speed quiz. We weren't s'posed to talk. Her lead had broken. She was crying. I had a crush on her. I loaned her my pencil when I was done. I got beat for it.

No sir, you can degrade my school district all you want. I was merely pointing out that we didn't have drive-by's, gangs, guns, and all that other crap. So, even though I might have hated it, it worked. What we're doing now, although it feels all nice, warm and fuzzy, does not work. The dicipline in way too many public schools is not only non-conducive to a learning environment, it can be downright deadly.

One has to ask, which is worse? Paddles and haircuts or guns and knives?

Food for thought.

 

[zero18]

By the way, the young man was across the street from the school when holding up the banner.

Being across the street doesn't mean he loses his first amendment rights.

 

[zero18]

Schools always had the right to censor its students speech its nothing new.

Of course its nothing new. Doesn't make it right. Public schools are govt facilities and therefore the Constitution applies to them.

 

[zero18]

The key to the whole argument was whether the kid was under the schools jurisdiction or not. When this first came up, I argued that he was not. The supreme court apparently disagrees. This broadens the schools authority to things that take place off the grounds and aren't normally covered like field trips.
Although I dislike the increasing power of schools to take disciplinary actions for things that are off campus, I am not that worried about the outcome of this guys actions.

I remember my high school would suspend kids for bus stop fights. Obviously the bus stop wasn't the school's property, but somehow they make it their jurisdiction.

 

[RightinNYC]

Of course its nothing new. Doesn't make it right. Public schools are govt facilities and therefore the Constitution applies to them.

Again, that's not the case.

Justice Thomas's dissent lays out a really interesting history of why free speech is not guaranteed to students when they're under the jurisdiction of the public school system. While none of the other Justices go as far as he does in his argument, they all agree with the basic premise that schools can in fact restrict speech.

The history of public education suggests that the First Amendment, as originally understood, does not protect student speech in public schools.

If students in public schools were originally understood as having free-speech rights, one would have expected 19th-century public schools to have respected those rights and courts to have enforced them. They did not.

In my view, petitioners could prevail for a much simpler reason: As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools.