'Bong Hits for Jesus'

[ONE FM]

By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court ruled against a former high school student Monday in the "Bong Hit 4 Jesus" banner case -- a split decision that limits students' free speech rights.

Joseph Frederick was 18 when he unveiled the 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002.

Principal Deborah Morse confiscated it and suspended Frederick. He sued, taking his case all the way to the nation's highest court.

The justices ruled 6-3 that Frederick's free speech rights were not violated by his suspension over what the majority's written opinion called a "sophomoric" banner.

"It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority.

Roberts added that while the court has limited student free speech rights in the past, young people do not give up all their First Amendment rights when they enter a school.

Roberts was supported by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito. Breyer noted separately he would give Morse qualified immunity from the lawsuit, but did not sign onto the majority's broader free speech limits on students.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "This case began with a silly nonsensical banner, (and) ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message."

He was backed by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

At issue was the discretion schools should be allowed to limit messages that appear to advocate illegal drug use. "Bong," as noted in the appeal filed with the justices, "is a slang term for drug paraphernalia."

The incident occurred in January 2002 just outside school grounds when the Olympic torch relay was moving through the Alaska capital on its way to the Salt Lake City, Utah, Winter Games.

Though he was standing on a public sidewalk, the school argued Frederick was part of a school-sanctioned event, because students were let out of classes and accompanied by their teachers.

Morse ordered the senior to take down the sign, but he refused. That led to a 10-day suspension for violating a school policy on promoting illegal drug use.

Frederick filed suit, saying his First Amendment rights were infringed. A federal appeals court in San Francisco agreed, concluding the school could not show Frederick had disrupted the school's educational mission by showing a banner off campus.

Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr argued for the principal that a school "must be able to fashion its educational mission" without undue hindsight from the courts.

Morse, who attended arguments in March, told CNN at the time: "I was empowered to enforce the school board's written policies at that time aimed at keeping illegal substances out of the school environment."

As for Frederick, he is halfway across the globe, teaching English to students in China.

Now 24, he told reporters in March that he displayed the banner in a deliberate attempt to provoke a response from principal Morse, by whom he had been disciplined previously. But Frederick claimed his message of free speech is very important to him, even if the wording of the infamous banner itself was not.

"I find it absurdly funny," he said. "I was not promoting drugs. ... I assumed most people would take it as a joke."

[Funkenstein]

And this is why we don't let the terrorists win.

[Roos]

Originally Posted by ONE FM

As for Frederick, he is halfway across the globe, teaching English to students in China.

Now 24, he told reporters in March that he displayed the banner in a deliberate attempt to provoke a response from principal Morse, by whom he had been disciplined previously. But Frederick claimed his message of free speech is very important to him, even if the wording of the infamous banner itself was not.

"I find it absurdly funny," he said. "I was not promoting drugs. ... I assumed most people would take it as a joke."

What a fucking moron. I think some people just missed out on the common sense section of the human assembly line.

[troubled hollywood starlet]

yeah what a douche. just be cool about it, don't advertise 'hey i smoke pot' from the rooftops (or the sidewalk, in this case).

[amigo7dfw]

nice little read if anything.

[PETA]

proof that some children would benefit from a serious beating

[transparentaura]

That this court even heard this case is freaking ridiculous. However you spin it, whatever position they contorted themselves into to view this from the vantage point of their ass swaddled heads. This is grasping for weak exceptions to free speech, for which there is damned few and damned serious exceptions. This does not come close to qualifying. Promoting drug use? gimme a fucking break. talk about wet finger in the wind politicizing. This court is a joke. They should stick to overruling the florida courts. that seems to be their forte.

[MattM]

420

yo

[PETA]

Originally Posted by transparentaura

That this court even heard this case is freaking ridiculous. However you spin it, whatever position they contorted themselves into to view this from the vantage point of their ass swaddled heads. This is grasping for weak exceptions to free speech, for which there is damned few and damned serious exceptions. This does not come close to qualifying. Promoting drug use? gimme a fucking break. talk about wet finger in the wind politicizing. This court is a joke. They should stick to overruling the florida courts. that seems to be their forte.

Free speach? Was that what the kid was trying to do? Get his message heard? Was he trying to promote smoking weed for Jesus or do you think he was just trying to be a smart ass? If you think he was really trying to get the word out about bongs and Jesus then you're in the realm of speach. If you're rational and you think he was being a smart ass then you've got a disruptive punk in need of a swift boot to the ass. The case was couched in the facts surrounding it... this was a kid, at a school event... disrupting it. Don't think that rule in thise case extends to adults - because it is specifically framed in terms of the age of the "speaker" and the situation in which the "speach" was "uttered."

[Nyteshade]

Originally Posted by transparentaura

That this court even heard this case is freaking ridiculous. However you spin it, whatever position they contorted themselves into to view this from the vantage point of their ass swaddled heads. This is grasping for weak exceptions to free speech, for which there is damned few and damned serious exceptions. This does not come close to qualifying. Promoting drug use? gimme a fucking break. talk about wet finger in the wind politicizing. This court is a joke. They should stick to overruling the florida courts. that seems to be their forte.

Remember when you were in school and t-shirts that displayed or promoted drugs/alcohol/nudity weren't allowed at school and school functions? Just because he put it on a banner makes it protected free speech?

[transparentaura]

Originally Posted by xian

Free speach? Was that what the kid was trying to do? Get his message heard? Was he trying to promote smoking weed for Jesus or do you think he was just trying to be a smart ass? If you think he was really trying to get the word out about bongs and Jesus then you're in the realm of speach. If you're rational and you think he was being a smart ass then you've got a disruptive punk in need of a swift boot to the ass. The case was couched in the facts surrounding it... this was a kid, at a school event... disrupting it. Don't think that rule in thise case extends to adults - because it is specifically framed in terms of the age of the "speaker" and the situation in which the "speach" was "uttered."

It was a ridiculous banner-statement- "speech". Whats so hard to understand about content being irrelevant? He could have sang the lyrics to "Everybody Wang Chung tonight" and that would be offensive to even me. But what is your argument for banning it? Is bong hits for jesus more dangerous than "Soldier of Fortune" magazine? or do they have lawyers? Why is it all these so called conservatives that whine about the "Nanny State" need to be protected against an adolescent stoner with a mischieveous streak?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by transparentaura

It was a ridiculous banner-statement- "speech". Whats so hard to understand about content being irrelevant? He could have sang the lyrics to "Everybody Wang Chung tonight"

But he didn't say that and that probably would not have been disruptive to the organized school event... maybe it would have... if so the school gets to put an end to the disruption

Originally Posted by transparentaura

and that would be offensive to even me.

It wasn't offensive - it was disruption - advocacy of illegal behavior

Originally Posted by transparentaura

But what is your argument for banning it? Is bong hits for jesus more dangerous than "Soldier of Fortune" magazine? or do they have lawyers? Why is it all these so called conservatives that whine about the "Nanny State" need to be protected against an adolescent stoner with a mischieveous streak?

organized school event, minor, disruption - the adolescent stoner needs a fucking kick in the ass not a big sucker and a pat on the head for being such a clever bee in the bonnet of the school. Children do need Nannies as this jackass demonstrated in spades.

[transparentaura]

Originally Posted by xian

But he didn't say that and that probably would not have been disruptive to the organized school event... maybe it would have... if so the school gets to put an end to the disruption



It wasn't offensive - it was disruption - advocacy of illegal behavior



organized school event, minor, disruption - the adolescent stoner needs a fucking kick in the ass not a big sucker and a pat on the head for being such a clever bee in the bonnet of the school. Children do need Nannies as this jackass demonstrated in spades.

What everyone is leaving out is that this didn't take place in the school. It was at a public event. He did not endanger anyone i.e: yelling fire in a crowded theater. No one was compelled to take bong hits against their will. Christ, What if Ann Coulter was arrested every time she made a statement advocating an illegal (and violent) act?
Everybody needs to fucking chill and remember they were kids once. I bet a couple of y'all had a pot leaf t-shirt once, if not, how many have said somebody "ought to be shot" . Bong hits for Jesus is a silly statement, and if indeed the kid needed a "kick in the ass" Well... Thats his parents job, not the Supreme fucking Court. I hear a lot of talk about being against "Big Government" yet it seems that people want to ban every thing that offends them. I still cannot believe that with all the cases needing to be heard by the courts they hear this piece of shit.

[PETA]

let me premise my comments... read more of the decision... a chicken shit decision in my opinion

Originally Posted by transparentaura

What everyone is leaving out is that this didn't take place in the school. It was at a public event.

With all of his classmates in attendance? It was a school event. When you were on a field trip.... did that relieve your school of its duty to keep track of you? If not then why should it relieve them of their duty to smack you upside the head for taunting homeless people.... unfurling banners... cheering for satanic political candidates.... blah blah blah

Originally Posted by transparentaura

He did not endanger anyone i.e: yelling fire in a crowded theater.

red herring - not a rational issue raised (the restriction of his speach wasn't based on imminent harm)

Originally Posted by transparentaura

No one was compelled to take bong hits against their will.

Who is arguing that compelling some one to do drugs is legal or that the constitution would protect such a horrible act? We are talking about speech not extortion.

Originally Posted by transparentaura

Christ, What if Ann Coulter was arrested every time she made a statement advocating an illegal (and violent) act?

If she was a child, at a school event and unfurled an 18' banner advocating that unlawful act? I'd be all about the principle kicking her ass six ways from Sunday. You are comparing non-analogous acts.

Originally Posted by transparentaura

Everybody needs to fucking chill and remember they were kids once.

Godamn right... and recognize that we needed our asses kicked for being idiots..... not coddled and given a pass by the Supremes for it.

Originally Posted by transparentaura

I bet a couple of y'all had a pot leaf t-shirt once, if not, how many have said somebody "ought to be shot" . Bong hits for Jesus is a silly statement, and if indeed the kid needed a "kick in the ass" Well... Thats his parents job, not the Supreme fucking Court. I hear a lot of talk about being against "Big Government" yet it seems that people want to ban every thing that offends them. I still cannot believe that with all the cases needing to be heard by the courts they hear this piece of shit.

This kid wasn't in the family home

the principle stood in loco parentis*.... and acted approprioately as such... so by your own argument he should have done exactly what he did.... what if the banner advocated killing Muslims? Raping toddlers? Voting for Dick Cheney? Joining the North American Union? How about denying that WTC7 wasn't a conrtolled demolition? Burning down the school. Should the principle have winked and said, "that rascally teen - look at him expresing himself. It makes me tingle inside at the creativity and self esteem represented" or should he kick the kids ass?

The point is that when kids, under the state enforced obligatory protection of a teacher/principle etc try to pull that kinda shit - we need to protect the authority that slapped the stupid kid upside the head. Yes, I know - you disagree - and you're fucking silly for doing so. We cannot permit the inmates to run the asylum which is what you are advocating by couching it concerns that the 1st Amendment is being trampled on... it isn't.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis