Supreme Court: No pro-drug speech in schools

This is a truly stupid, irrelevant case, so, naturally, the liberalpress seizes on it.

A much more important question is how do you liberal defenders of the Bill of Rights feel about Democratic attempts to rein in rightwing talk radio?

This is ridiculous! He made no reference to drugs. End of discussion. Another brilliant decision for the fascist swine and all thanks to the 51% who don't know what it means to be free or American. Free speech can't be restricted because it make some people uncomfortable.

Shermie, you just can't keep your pro-racist, anti-Arab beliefs to yourself can you?

If the Republican's want to know why their party is going down the crapper just read Sherman's above post for the answer.

Shermie, you deluded little Republibot. That right wing radio crap was planted by Drudge after OK Sen. Inhofe claimed he heard Pelosi and Clinton talking about it in the elevator...3 years-ago. You 25 percenters are truly brain dead.

A much more important question is how do you liberal defenders of the Bill of Rights feel about Democratic attempts to rein in rightwing talk radio?

Posted by: S. Sherman | June 25, 2007 2:55 PM

What are you talking about? Trent Lott is the one who is upset with Rush, et.al.

S. Sherman exposing the vast liberal conspiracy. Get real. Bong hits for S. Sherman & the Supreme court.

I don't think this case was stupid or irrelevant. The fact that there is now a drug exception to a studen't free speech is chilling. When will this exception be applied to the public at large? Will someone walking down the street gleefully chanting something to the effect of "Lets all get high" now be able to be arrested and charge. Is the example ridiculous? Sure it is, as were the facts in this case. Was the banner offensive? Almost certainly to some and not to others. You see that's the point. These types of issues are community isssues. What is acceptable in one place may not be acceptable in another. Parents and teachers teach their kids these unwritten codes of society and expect them to abide by them becuase it's merely the right thing to do. Once there is a law formalizing this rule then free speech has been curtailed. So again now there is a "drug" exception to a student's free speech. Ask yourself this one question: what's next?

Oh and before I'm attacked by the right, yes I would always back the expression of free speech regardless of ideology.

In 1978, at Thornridge H.S. in Dolton, all soph's were required to give a "demonstration" speech (dumb, yet required). One of my classmates did a speech on how to roll a joint. After discussions, the Board allowed the speech. They checked to ensure that he had brought "pseudo-weed" which he did (probably went well in pasta sauce. Freedom of speech won out over paranoia. I see more ads on T.V. that promote violence, sex, alcohol/drugs, etc. in ONE hour of television than the number of kids this banner may have ever "swayed" into drug use. Yet another example of the hipocrisy and idiocy that is so prevelent in our elected leaders today. Go kid go, speak up for your rights.

Wanna try something fun? Replace "BONG HITS" with "PRAISE" and see what the ACLU thinks about a student's right to free speech in a public school.

One more example of the monstrous disaster that is the Cheneybush regime. Sadly, since it's the Supreme Court, this is a legacy of bigotry and theocratic government that will damage us for decades. If only we could kick them out as soon as the Chenebush regime is finished, there could be hope. Alas, we can't.

Get used to these 5-4 decisions people - thanks to GWB and his right wing cronies stacking the courts. Slowly but surely, all of our personal freedoms will be eaten away thanks to Alito, Thomas, etc.

Hope you enjoy this, Shermy, Johnny D., Paulo and Bruce - thanks to brain dead Republicans like you, the rest of us will suffer.

Neal Frank,
Shermie, you deluded little Republibot. That right wing radio crap was planted by Drudge

No, I was referring to what Dianne Feinstein said on Fox News Sunday. I heard it with my own ears. I also read the report put out by John Podesta last week.

The Democrats plan to attempt to silence rightwing talk radio. That is a FAR bigger threat to free speech than this stupid "Bongs for Jesus" case.

You know, it's really amusing to see the wingnuts constantly complain about the 'Liberal Press'. Funny that. Tribune Co. is a Fortune 500 company. The NY Times is an enormous corporation. The networks are all owned by huge multinational corporations.

So I ask the following question: How many of you employees would feel comfortable reporting against the corporate grain? In other words, is it smart career wise to take a whack at your corporate masters or is it better to keep your mouth shut?

I think this ruling leaves too much of an open door. Maybe the republicans stuffing the justice department and supreme court justices has taken over.
"crack down on such speech that appears to invite other students to participate in dangerous or damaging behavior, in this case pot smoking."
As written what about drinking, premarital sex? Can the religious right finally get their way? I find it a scary opinion.

If the banner had promoted "bong hits" without a reference to Jesus, then the principal would have been absolutely right to suspend the student.

But the reference to Jesus, in my opinion, brings it under the umbrella of religious speech, which is competely protected. After all, Christianity has, from time to time, advocated civil disobedience. Just this weekend, Rev. Jesse Jackson and Fr. Michael Pflagger were arrested for trespass in connection with a protest at a gun shop.

If someone advocates the use of illegal drugs to become closer to Jesus or any other deity, then that is protected speech.

This may have started as an absurd an irrelevant thing, but the supreme court decided to hear it and then ruled to make an exception to free speach for things that can be claimed to promote drug use. And the kid wasn't even in school at the time the banner was unfurled.

So if a kid plays music that mentions drug use, is that grounds for expulsion too? What if a kid mentions in a shool report that the US presence in Afghanistan has helped the heroin trade? Is that grounds for expulsion too?

And as Dean suggests, can this ruling be applied outside of school?

For years the right has been whining about "activist judges". Now it's clear that they just wanted some of their own. But instead of protecting the rights of the people, thses activists seek to further erode individual rights.

The pattern of the Roberts court is clear: it is the most highly politicized court in decades. This should not be surprising, since that has been an open goal of Republicans from the start. Right-wingers talk "strict construction," but they walk "activist, politically motivated decisions."

Just Say No 4 Satan

I guess that one would pass muster?

shermie your nuts
89% of the talk programs are rightwing running over 2500hrs per week of your righwing nonsense. this is typical righwing talk-- allude that your a poor "victim" at the mercy of the dreded "liberals". yet it is you neocons that actively try to remove any liberal voice because you fear the truth. you live and believe in the lies and if you believe long enoough, to you it is truth. this is how the nazis duped an entire country to follow despots. tune in and listen to some "liberal" information. you need the education

"He made no reference to drugs."
Don't be so stupid, it might be catching. Of course he was referring to drugs and drug use. Don't you know what a bong is?

"The fact that there is now a drug exception to a studen't free speech is chilling."
Ok, here we get to the real heart of the matter. Are any limitations on free speech good?

Well, duh, yes. The old, shouting-fire-in-a-theater idea is a proper restriction on free speech, and hopefully everyone would agree. If not, I'll ignore you because you're obviously a moron.

The question then arises whether people should be prohibited from promoting drug or alcohol use to students on school property.

People don't want Budweiser to be allowed to put ad banners in high schools. Likewise, a person can't come onto school property and start handing out drug paraphernalia. Likewise a student can't stand up on a table at lunch and start telling all the kids to drink alcohol and shoot up crack. Notice, all these are at school; things change when you're away from a govt approved forum.

If a school allows that behavior on a school, then it is very reasonably assumed that the school condones or approves the behavior and message. The event happened during what was essentially a school-promoted and supported activity. Legally and realistically that's just about the same as standing up in the middle of the cafeteria.

If you don't think kids should hold up signs promoting illegal drug use during lunch at the school, then it follows that you don't want kids holding up those signs at any school activities. SCOTUS got this one right on.

I wonder what Principal Morse and the Supreme Court have been smoking to make them believe the kid was advocating illegal drug use. The Court's (and, presumably, the Principal's) cramped parsing style makes half the sentence irrelevant in determining the sign's meaning, or even if it had any concrete meaning. The Court was correct in stating the phrase "Bong hits . . ." by itself, might be considered advocacy. But nobody just reads just the first two words in a sentence. If one adds the . . . for Jesus" part, it becomes as absurd as "Cheese for Chertoff," or "Doobies for Dubya." Nobody in their right mind could believe that unfurling this banner, with this message, across the street from the school, would constitute “advocacy” of a sort that would incite all kids within eyeshot to spontaneous whip out their stashes and light up under the watchful eye of school officials. This is especially true when one considers that possession of marijuana within 500 feet of a school is a felony that carries a stiff penalty under Alaska law. Kids may be silly at times, but they aren’t anywhere near as stupid as a lot of people think.

This case should disturb everyone. It is another inroad into the principle underlying the First Amendment that it is impermissible to ban the content of speech unless the speaker is both advocating a breach of the law and “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” (See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 448 (1969) .) The First Amendment otherwise says that a government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy. (Ibid.) Only in a haze of drug induced dementia could anyone see what the kid did as “advocacy,” much less as “advocacy” that was both intended or likely to produce imminent lawless action. The only imminent and lawless action that occurred was when the principal, without any warning, snatched the sign away from the kid.

Don’t take comfort in the notion that the censorship was only directed at a school kid, so that it doesn’t affect the rest of us. Until this decision came along, school kids had essentially the same rights as anyone else to express themselves in non-vulgar terms, even on school grounds, unless it could be shown “that the student’s activities would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.” (See Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513-14 (1969) .) If Tinker were still the standard, then the Principal and the School District wouldn’t have had a chance. This wasn’t a school function; it was merely an authorized activity. There was no “work and discipline of the school” to disrupt. The likelihood of any schoolwork or discipline being disrupted in any other sense is as fanciful as the idea that the sign constituted advocacy.

And, yes, I know, many people find the contents of the sign unpalatable for suggesting that it is okay to either involve Jesus in some absurdity or blaspheme him by associating him with drugs. I not only sympathize with this view, I completely agree with it. But we have to look beyond the unpalatable activity to understand what kind of danger the case poses for those whose spiritual convictions impel them to share their faith, especially in schools. The case takes away the sure footing advocacy had under the First Amendment, since it is now permissible to abridge advocacy that does substantially less than advocate criminal activity, much less imminent criminal activity; and it is now okay to abridge speech that doesn’t materially or substantially disrupt the work or discipline of a school. Just imagine what power this case could give to a creative school system, manned by NEA types, to abridge spiritual advocacy.

If you think this isn’t a problem yet, then I’ve got some news for you. Some high-school and college campuses have already begun discouraging Christian advocacy on the ground that it is “intolerant” of other religions and of the rights of conscience of atheists. If the case is viewed as banning speech that is mildly disruptive, then it can be used to ramp down the rights of those seeking to spread the gospel in schools. Even if the case doesn’t give a lot of ammo to those who would put spiritual advocacy out of schools, it is certainly a step in that direction.

The bottom line: there is plenty in this decision to disturb anyone who cares.

The idea that the courts’ ruling is a slippery slope is just paranoid. This adult (and I use that term loosely) was at a school function; there is a precedent that schools enforce rules of behavior, even outside of campus (during school hours). When I was a kid I hated it, but as an adult I respect and understand it. Educational facilities teach but they are also an important venue for a lesson in social graces. The school is the authority and must enforce standards, otherwise what’s to stop students from doing whatever they want, in the name of free speech? I can’t wait until somebody takes a dump in main hall and defends it as their first amendment right.

The logic of those defending the supposed free speech of this stupid kid is inconsistent. Parents are given little say so in the public teaching of sex education. They are told that it is the school’s duty to act on behalf of the parent for the sake of the students’ future. Yet this argument is thrown out with respect to holding this 18-year-old snot to a standard. This is because our society is increasingly moving toward having no standards for fear of offending other cultures and because nowadays anything goes. It is particularly amusing (and sad) that today many are so intent on not offending anybody yet mock those who find the sign offensive. I have a strong feeling that had this kid replaced “Jesus” with another religious figure that everybody would be up in arms about the need to discipline this kid for hate-speech or lack of cultural diversity.

As for the argument about drugs being an issue in today’s society…I agree. But I hardly believe that the sign was a political statement. The ACLU will stop at nothing to. Like the kid said, he did this to get on TV. He succeeded. I hope he will understand the implications of his actions now that he is a teacher himself.

As with freedom, there are limits. This is no different. It has nothing to do with the right or left, it is a matter of humanity. Standards, morals and values are among the many things that separate us from animals.

Irrelevant, huh? yeah, the US Supreme Court grants cert. on irrelevant issues. You knuckledraggers have been tricked and scared such that if an issue doesn't involve spooky "terrorists" or your right to bear arms you don't know what's important.

The case isn't stupid or irrelevant, but there is something wrong when it's this heavily discussed, while there is barely mention on Chicagotribune.com of the Court's ruling today that weakened McCain-Feingold. I wish people would start to realize that the pervasiveness of money in campaigns and politics is a slightly bigger issue than a high school's overreaction to some kid's banner.

The significance of this decision has less to do with free speech than it does with liability individuals in positions of authority may face for abridging it. The Ninth Circuit ruled the Principal could be personally liable for damages should the student sue her for infringing his speech. Now, for a teacher or administrator at a school assembly to have to personally endure civil liability for enforcing a school's anti-drug policy would be ridiculous. But, you people shouldn't be so surprised: The State is in charge of educating our children. The Ninth Circuit couldn't just tell the student and his parents, "If you don't like the teacher or the rules, attend a different school." No. Without school choice, with centralized education, these are the sorts of ridiculous scenarios the courts will have to arbitrate.

The comment by the ACLU about the case carving out a "drug exception" to the First Amendment is disappointingly disingenuous. Certainly that ACLU lawyer knows the law, and understands that the ruling turned on whether Morse's restriction on Frederick's speech was for a legitimate pedagogical purpose, or whether the restriction was aimed at a political point of view. The above excerpt from the ruling explains the majority's reasoning as to what it was about the speech that gave Morse a legitimate pedagogical purpose in restricting it.

The ruling therefore seems to be thoroughly in line with past decisions, namely the Hazelwood case, which now is extended to student activities that occur off-site but are part of school-sponsored events. Censorship of a school newspaper article promoting drug use would have been thoroughly permitted before this latest case, under Hazelwood.

I support the ACLU but was disappointed to see it characterize the law and the decision in such a misleading way.

I'm appalled that anyone anywhere can agree that this kid had a right to sue the school and cost the hardworking taxpayers of a school district millions - it's every bit as bad as the jerk judge who sued the dry cleaners for 60 million - EVERY BIT AS BAD - the only difference is that it is a hard working lady principal who was deliberately targeted for emotional abuse instead of a hard working asian couple AND it was the tax payers of that school district who were victims of extortion by another abuser of the American legal system - that judge was a punk who deserves to be disbarred and deserved to lose his case and should pay all of the legal fees back - this kid is no less of a punk and he deserved to lose as well - if there were any fairness, he should have his paycheck garnisheed for the rest of his life and all should go to that school district where they are trying to educate young minds while kids like this punk try to disrupt their important objective. What a jerk - and it is NOT a first amendments rights case AT ALL - the kid didn't lose a thing by being punished and he was stupid enough to clearly mention well known drug paraphernalia in his attempt to embarass the school - he wanted to embarass the school and he did - he got away with it and received no punishment whatsoever but a vacation - if he had been fined or thrown in the gulag or beaten or suppressed in some manner outside of the school setting, then maybe it would be a first amendment case but he got away with his prank with less than a slap on the hand and then he sues the school ??? what a joke - NOONE could agree with this punk unless they agree that our entire legal system is a nothing but a playtoy for the unaccountable - just as bad as the judge who sued the humble owners of the dry cleaners - abusive punks - those who defend this abuse are merely enablers of the cruel and narcisistic and have no compassion for the working class at all - THOSE WHO DEFEND THESE ABUSERS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN ENABLERS TO THOSE WHO ARE CRUEL TO PEOPLE WHO TRY TO MAKE AN HONEST LIVING AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE (IN A POSITIVE WAY) - FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR CHILDREN, STOP LETTING YOURSELVES BE USED SO DAMMMM EASILY !!!!!! AT LEAST TRY TO SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THE TEACHERS / TAXPAYERS AND WORKING CLASS FOR A CHANGE !
STOP BEING PAWNS AND APOLOGISTS FOR SOCIOPATHS !
tom - little t

Chilling, is the word that first comes to mind.

On a side note, is it just me or does it seem that Clarence Thomas never asks questions, never writes opinions and never votes different than Scalia? Never, may be an exaggeration, but I'll bet, almost never, applies to all of the above.

John W,

We have agreement.

Here is some actual free speech being repressed while the vapid, destructive, campaign commercial free speech has been elevated to the level of Churchill's 'blood sweat and tears' address.

The fact of the matter is that even if they were advocating the use of pot, that speech is, or was, protected by the first amendment.

Bruce, John D, Paulo, etc. will disagree.

Harry Bosch,

You are wrong, and your suggestion that the Hazelwood case is controlling is flat wrong. The Hazelwood decision is so factually and legally distinguishable as to have no valid application.

The Court in Hazelwood came to the unremarkable conclusion that schools may “refuse” to lend their names and resources to the dissemination of school-sponsored student speech as long as its editorial control is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. (See Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 272-73 (1988).) Central to its holding were the facts that the speech occurred at school; the school newspaper, from which the “speech” was edited, was not a public forum due to the school’s editorial control; and being forced to promote student speech in a school sponsored activity is different from intolerance toward, or punishing, a student’s speech. (Id. at 269-73.) The Court also took pains to say that schools can suppress speech on campus “even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.” (Id. at 266.)

In contrast, this case involved a public event in a public forum, and the kid’s participation was not part of the school curriculum. His appearance there was authorized by the school, but not required nor representative of the school itself. The banner the kid displayed was not part of a course of study. Furthermore, unlike Hazelwood, the instant case actually involved punishment and affirmative suppression of speech, as opposed to the refusal to endorse speech. The only fact the current case had in common with Hazelwood was that both involved school kids. According to the reasoning of Hazelwood, the kid should have prevailed for being punished for speech in a public forum unrelated to school activities.

In short, this case is a leap backwards from Hazelwood. Now, schools are permitted to censor and punish public speech with which they disagree just because the speaker is a school kid. That is plainly wrong.

"Cheese bites for Moses!"

"Gin sips for Allah!"

"Cigarette puffs for Buddha!"

Ray,
you live and believe in the lies and if you believe long enoough, to you it is truth.

Are you saying I am lying when I say that I heard Dianne Feinstein say that Congress is going to look into restricting talk radio?

Are you saying I am lying when I say that a group led by Clinton insider John Podesta has issued a proposal for restricting talk radio?

What exactly is this "lie" you say I believe in?

"He made no reference to drugs."
Don't be so stupid, it might be catching. Of course he was referring to drugs and drug use. Don't you know what a bong is?

Posted by: Jerry Webber | June 25, 2007 5:22 PM

Actually Jerry, I do know what a bong is. As you must not know, many substances (both legal and illegal) are consumed in bongs. Since the subject was a senior (and of age to consume tobacco), he may have been referring to smoking tobacco from a bong (probably not but people can write whatever they want to remember?!). Bongs are not illegal and they don’t hurt anybody. In FACT, pot does not hurt anybody (anymore than alcohol, tobacco, or polluted Chicago air/water). Get a clue. People who can’t hack being uncomfortable when they disagree with something (when it has no effect on them) need to move to China.

They should have made the sign say "pederast republican catholic crack heads for Jesus". Perhaps that would have been more accurate – maybe even a catch phrase for the RNC in 2008!

"He made no reference to drugs."
Don't be so stupid, it might be catching. Of course he was referring to drugs and drug use. Don't you know what a bong is?

Posted by: Jerry Webber | June 25, 2007 5:22 PM

Actually Jerry, I do know what a bong is. As you must not know, many substances (both legal and illegal) are consumed in bongs. Since the subject was a senior (and of age to consume tobacco), he may have been referring to smoking tobacco from a bong (probably not but people can write whatever they want to remember?!). Bongs are not illegal and they don’t hurt anybody. In FACT, pot does not hurt anybody (anymore than alcohol, tobacco, or polluted Chicago air/water). Get a clue. People who can’t hack being uncomfortable when they disagree with something (when it has no effect on them) need to move to China.

They should have made the sign say "pederast republican catholic crack heads for Jesus". Perhaps that would have been more accurate – maybe even a catch phrase for the RNC in 2008!

Any country that prohibits someones speech anywhere is not America and the people who support it are not truely Americans.

This is not the country that people died in war to protect. That was a free country, a liberal country who believed in liberty.

Sherman,

What Ray is saying is that you and Bruce are paranoid rightwing watercarriers who wouldn't know the truth if it hit you right between the eyes:o)

the government knows what best for us. so all you fellow communists get in line and celebrate this decision. suppresion of freedom can benefit us all.

"He made no reference to drugs."
Don't be so stupid, it might be catching. Of course he was referring to drugs and drug use. Don't you know what a bong is?

Posted by: Jerry Webber | June 25, 2007 5:22 PM

Jerry, ever here of a beer bong??? Freedom of speach, just watch what you say!!!

Regardless of whether the message was meaningless or had an agenda the continued connotation that "Drugs" = "Bad/wrong" is definitely political. A far more sterile examination of Drug use and its benefits/consequences would stop this political polarization. Most anti-drug messages are simple and based on vague generalizations and fear mongering. The issue is further sensationalized by the very public stupidity of a minority of Drug use.

But aside from that, take a moment to look at who profits from Pot's continued illegal status. Big Pharma would stand to lose substantial sales in prescription drugs for pain management. Legal Marijuana would be a huge loss to many companies that make Billions of dollars every year. They aren't protecting our kids from drugs with these laws they're protecting Business interests.

Don't let the political messages blind you to alternate reasons for our laws.

Another, in a long list of Supreme Court decisions that goes against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Courts need to make a return to common sense. Stop Lobbyists from patrolling the Senate and Congress chambers with pockets full of money and Political support from their backers, making deals behind all of our backs! Instead of being a lifetime position, the Supreme Court should have it's members voted for. It's time to replace these "tired old Geezers" with some new and fresh thinking!

American Justice is a joke! It's the best justice money can buy! The Constitution is a joke and the Bill of Rights is a useless document! When are the American people going to get tired of the lack of common sense. All the money wasted on this trivial nothing when it could have been used to feed the millions of American children who go to bed hungry every night!

We need a good Revolution to throw all these jackasses out and get people in there that will do something for the whole country, not just the special Interest Groups!

Remember! Absolute power corrupts! Our Court system and Politics prove that!

Sincerely

Actually, folks the courts have ruled in the past that schools can inhibit free speech. Schools can tell kids what they can wear, what they can do and what they can or can't say. If a principle does not like a sign a student displays, the principle can tell the student to take it down. Just like if a principle doesn't want a student to say, "Thank God," he/she can tell a student to take down "Bongs 4 Jesus."

Weinerdog,
You know, it's really amusing to see the wingnuts constantly complain about the 'Liberal Press'. Funny that. Tribune Co. is a Fortune 500 company.

The fact that The Tribune is a big corporation is proof that its reporters are not liberal? Are you saying that Frank James is afraid to express liberal opinions because they might offend his corporate bosses?

The Democrats plan to attempt to silence rightwing talk radio. That is a FAR bigger threat to free speech than this stupid "Bongs for Jesus" case.

Posted by: S. Sherman | June 25, 2007 4:05 PM

Simple Sherman,

There are only a small number of dopes like you, bruce and jerry that pay any attention to "talk radio". It is nothing but noise. People like hannity, savage et al would endorse heroin use in grade school if they thought it would get them a better contract. They saw the kind of money pillhead rush was making and they want in on the action. All they care about is creating controversy to boost their ratings. Even the commentators themselves aren't dumb enough to belive the nonsense they spout. Only listeners like you fall for that.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I understand the above to prevent the Congress from making a law that establishes an official religion in the United States. I also understand our Congress is not allowed to make any laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion in the United States.

I think the above reads that Congress can not make any law that abridges the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right to peaceable assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievance.

What law are we saying Congress making that abridges our freedom of speech?

I understood the situation to be an 18 year old man, still in high school, made a sign advocating the use of drugs. I believe the sign said something about doing "Bong hits 4 Jesus" and he exhibited the sign while under the care and supervision of school officials and while in the company of his fellow school mates. I believe this 18 year old man, knew and intended the younger children, and the public to see his sign, and receive the message he was advocating an illegal activity.
I believe if my child were under the supervision of school officials, and was hit by a car, I would hold them responsible. I expect the school officials to whom I trust my child's welfare to act responsibly. I would also expect the school officials to prevent my child from seeing pornography while under their supervision even if Larry Flint argues pornography is a form of speech. The same with my children being verbally solicited by students with ties to hate groups such as KKK while under their supervision.
In the decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: "We hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use."

I also believe this situation to be more relative to an organization, partially funded by the United States Government as well as local funds, upholding community standards of conduct.

I am not under the impression the Congress is making a law that a person can not tell others to do "bong hits for Jesus".

I understand the 18 year old man is not being prosecuted for violating a law, and is not threatened with legal action. I understand the school has essentially told him, as an 18 year old man, we do not like the way you are conducting yourself and do not wish to have you in our group for 10 days. Your privilege to free education is suspended for a while.

Anyone agree with me?

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I understand the above to prevent the Congress from making a law that establishes an official religion in the United States. I also understand our Congress is not allowed to make any laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion in the United States.

I think the above reads that Congress can not make any law that abridges the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right to peaceable assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievance.

What law are we saying Congress making that abridges our freedom of speech?

I understood the situation to be an 18 year old man, still in high school, made a sign advocating the use of drugs. I believe the sign said something about doing "Bong hits 4 Jesus" and he exhibited the sign while under the care and supervision of school officials and while in the company of his fellow school mates. I believe this 18 year old man, knew and intended the younger children, and the public to see his sign, and receive the message he was advocating an illegal activity.
I believe if my child were under the supervision of school officials, and was hit by a car, I would hold them responsible. I expect the school officials to whom I trust my child's welfare to act responsibly. I would also expect the school officials to prevent my child from seeing pornography while under their supervision even if Larry Flint argues pornography is a form of speech. The same with my children being verbally solicited by students with ties to hate groups such as KKK while under their supervision.
In the decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: "We hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use."

I also believe this situation to be more relative to an organization, partially funded by the United States Government as well as local funds, upholding community standards of conduct.

I am not under the impression the Congress is making a law that a person can not tell others to do "bong hits for Jesus".

I understand the 18 year old man is not being prosecuted for violating a law, and is not threatened with legal action. I understand the school has essentially told him, as an 18 year old man, we do not like the way you are conducting yourself and do not wish to have you in our group for 10 days. Your privilege to free education is suspended for a while.

Anyone agree with me?

S Sherman,

Exactly what are these restrictions on talk radio going to be?
Re-instituting the 'fairness doctrine' would be a good start.
(Reagan killed it.)

Freedom of Speech, folks? Hell, the losers who run the Chicago LIBune and the Swamp can't even handle freedom of speech! They censor all the time, usually because they can't handle the truth and are afraid of the truth, much less report the truth.

So, I'll try this again: Over the years the courts have ruled that schools, particularly elementary and high schools can in fact put some restraints on speech. Free speech does not exist in schools. If a student says something or holds a sign the school does not like such as Bongs 4 Jesus, Kill Bush, etc., they can do so, just like schools have put the kibosh on any mention of God in schools, even though there is no church/state separation issues.

Come on, Frankie, are you that afraid of the truth? Are you that much of a censor that this information is too much for you to handle???

I understand the 18 year old man is not being prosecuted for violating a law, and is not threatened with legal action. I understand the school has essentially told him, as an 18 year old man, we do not like the way you are conducting yourself and do not wish to have you in our group for 10 days. Your privilege to free education is suspended for a while.

Anyone agree with me?

Posted by: kevin | June 26, 2007 8:52 AM

Kevin- well said. Common sense always seems to make so much, well sense. No parent posting here could with any integrity disagree with you. But, there will be some- unfortunately.

Johnny D,
Try to wrap your mind around these facts. Students can talk all they want about God in a poublic school. The public school cannot lead students in prayer. Freedom of speech is protection against the government restricting speech. Companies like the Tribune do not have to post your mean spirited and violent posts.

FRIVOLOUS - PERIOD - END OF STORY

THE KID WANTED ATTENTION AND REVENGE - HE GOT BOTH AT THE EXPENSE OF SOMEONE WHO TRIES TO TEACH KIDS FOR A LIVING AND THE COST OF HIS PRANK ESCALATION WAS PAID BY TAXPAYERS OF THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT

THIS CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE SPEECH AND NEVER DID - THE KID WAS NEVER OPPRESSED IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY AND TO SUGGEST THAT HE WAS IS AN INEXCUSABLE INSULT TO ALL CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND

IF THE CASE HAD BEEN THROWN OUT BY THE LOWER COURTS AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN -- FOR BEING NOTHING MORE THAN THE FRIVOLOUS ESCALATION OF A PRANK - WHICH WAS QUITE OBVIOUS (THE KID EVEN PRACTICALLY IF NOT TOTALLY ADMITS IT) - THEN WE WOULD HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THIS SILLY EVENT AND THE KID WOULD HAVE NEVER GOTTEN HIS FIFTEEN MINUTES OF FAME AT THE TAXPAYERS EXPENSE -

SORRY FOR THE ALL CAPS BUT I AM VERY VERY ANGRY THAT THOSE LOWER COURTS LET THIS GO WAY WAY WAY TOO - IDIOT JUDGES - THEY HAD NO COURAGE AND NO COMMON SENSE -- THE LOWER COURT RULING WAS EVERY BIT AS STUPID AS IF IN THE OTHER WELL-KNOWN RULING THIS WEEK (THE JERK WHO SUED THE ASIAN COUPLE 60 MILLION FOR A PAIR OF PANTS) THAT JUDGE HAD RULED IN FAVOR OF THE MAN WHO WANTED 60 MILLION DOLLARS FOR A PAIR OF PANTS AND GIVEN HIM WHAT HE ASKED FOR - CAN YOU IMAGINE IF THAT GUY HAD WON IN A LOWER COURT HOW STUPID THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ??? THAT'S EXACTLY HOW STUPID THESE LOWER COURT JUDGES WERE TO GIVE THIS PUNK KID WHAT HE WANTED !!!

YES, I AM ANGRY AT THESE LOWER COURT JUDGES WHO ALLOWED THIS TO GET SO FAR OUT OF HAND THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAD TO COME IN AND FIX THEIR HUGE SCREWUP - THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH !!!!

Beverly Hillbilly Jethro, me mean-spirited and violent? No, just truthful.

Anyway, as ususal you are incorrect. In recent years during commencement speeches if a speaker said anhything like "I thank God for giving me the strength to get through school," that gets censored! It's no a prayer, it's a thank you. It's not mixing church and state or endorsing anything.

Anyway, as usual like all Loons, you ignore the basic fact that courts have always said schools can censor student's speech, even in school newspapers.

Johhny D,
I went to a public school and we had a yearly tradition before graduation called a baccalaureate. Look up the definition. Participation was voluntary and students would praise Jesus for giving them As and school officials would lead us in prayer. The key word is that this function was voluntary.

John D:

Please re-read my posts above, where I give an explanation regarding the First Amendment rights of kids in school.

If you don't want to read them, then please go and read the cases of Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969), which says that school kids do, in fact, have First Amendment, free speech rights in school; Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), which says that kids have First Amendment rights, but that schools don't have to sponsor those rights, and Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) which says that punishing advocacy is inconsistent with the First Amendment when it is not likely to cause an immediate breach of the law. Read these and educate yourself.

Contrary to the assumption you have made in your posts, school kids DO have First Amendment rights. What's more, before the instant ruling, kids would have been protected against the kind of censorship involved. The case was, indeed, a step backward in American Freedom. Everyone should be disturbed by that.

John W- we all have 1st amendment rights. Children do NOT have the right to ignore a teachers request to put the banner down when asked. This Child has said that he had displayed the banner in a deliberate attempt to get a reaction from the principal who had disciplined him before..

Lets imagine how that conversation went at home..Dad I have been kicked out of school for 10 days because I wouldn't put my Bong hits for Jesus sign down? Do you think I should sue the school? At what point is the answer; Yes, Son, lets sue the school. That will help you learn about personal responsibility and being a reasonable person..

Lets play the common sense game for a little while.. where are the adults??

heartburn,

Teachers and school officials do not act in loco parentis for a student at all times. Children have rights even in derogation of whatever school officials think - especially when standing on public property off school premises, and not taking part in any school function.

In other words, a child does - or ought to - have the right to disregard a teacher's request to put down a banner when it's none of the teacher's business.

If the kid did it to get a rise out of the Principal, so what? Since when are school principals sacred cows? If kids have free speech rights, they get to exercise them even if school principals don’t like what they say. If kids can't do this, it means they don't have free speech rights. So, which will it be?

We must not forget that the First Amendment isn't designed only to protect speech that is friendly, popular or inoffensive. We wouldn't need the First Amendment if that is all it did. We have a First Amendment precisely because some people have an urge to shut up unpopular opinions with which they disagree.

Unless you choose to endorse fascist control over children, you have to let them disagree with adults - including teachers and principals - and you have to let them speak their peace.

Parents have the right to restrain their children more than teachers do. That’s where the adults come in. That's where the restraint ought to be in its entirety.

John D:

School commencement speeches have been censored for saying things like, "I thank God for giving me the strength to get through school . . . ," if at all, because of the erroneous idea they somehow tend to establish a religion in violation of the First Amendment's Anti-Establishment clause. Schools are somehow responsible for any student’s speech given at school sponsored events as though they endorse everything students say. That’s a rather silly notion in the abstract, and especially so at a commencement where students have finished school and are there precisely to celebrate that conclusion. I am unaware of any case that analyzes this censorship from the perspective of a Student’s free speech rights – probably because the time for speeches comes and goes before courts can get involved. This is an inconsistency - a hole in the ozone layer of constitutional law, so to speak - that no one has properly addressed.

But this form of censorship does not generally mean that students can be subject to punishment for saying unpopular things off of school property, apart from school functions and not under school control – which was the case in the matter from Juneau, Alaska upon which the Supreme Court ruled.

This is not censorship- this was maintainng control of a school environment. Which was the opinion of SCOTUS.
"It was reasonable for her to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use.in violation of established school policy.and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge, including Frederick, about how serious the school was about the dangers of illegal drug use. The First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers"

I have no problem at all with the content- I do have a problem with the self righteousness of the kid and apparently his parents for letting this get way blown out of proportion. The "adults" in this kids life , and the ACLU are supporting his completely stupid act- no rules, boundaries, do what you want dude- just like me, and be my friend.. Crap!

You maybe make some interesting and valid references, John W. -- but IF you are really trying to elevate this kid (the plaintiff) to the status of a freedom fighter, then you are most assuredly desecrating the memories of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the authors of The Bill of Rights, Abe Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, MLK Jr., Nelson Mandela, RFK, every Allied WW2 enlistee, Cesar Chavez, Rosa Parks, Lech Walesa, Pat Tillman and everyone who has ever stood up to real oppression in America (or anywhere else in the world) - there ARE people who have put their lives on the line to defend freedom and combat TRUE oppression -- furthermore you are enabling an abuser of our legal system.

Please continue to defend the 1st amendment BUT just look at the details of this case. It should be clear (to anyone who can get past their preconceived judgements), this kid is the diametrical OPPOSITE of a hero - and like those few women who cry "rape" when there was none (i.e. Duke Lacrosse team), he (this plaintiff) seriously dishonors the true victims of first amendment oppression wherever and whenever those true violations have occurred and he makes it more difficult in the future for those cases to be taken as seriously as they should be. Furthermore he directly harmed the innocent taxpayers of that community and a woman who had committed herself to trying to run a decent educational establishment for the sake of children. SEE THE DETAILS - HE had a history of deliberately antagonizing this principal (for his own sense of enjoyment - certainly not for the greater good) and SHE had no history of suppressing the 1st amendment rights of any other students (including this one when she tried to keep one trouble maker from embarrasing the school for his own enjoyment by simply pulling a sign down at a school event after he had already expressed himself and then giving him a school vacation with no possibility of significant harm that was clearly in keeping with at least a broad interpretation of the school's legal right to prohibit drug advocacy at a school event).

If this were not so grotesque, it would be funny.

I think a lot of people are defending this kid because they literally got a kick out of the "humerous" and irreverent aspect of the simultaneous diss of Jesus and homage to cannabis - I even find it funny - (just a little - if I look past the blasphemy) - but a lawsuit ???? come on - how the helllllll was he harmed ??????

I hope you are just sticking up for the 1st amendment and not sincerely trying to defend this kid at all -- much less for such motivation as getting a kick out of a lame joke.

Please tell me you are not defending this punk and that you really do agree with this ruling for the sake of this woman (and all school administrators who could be easily bullied and bankrupted by frivolous legal actions when they are simply trying to keep order - soley for the sake of kids who really do want to learn something and make something of themselves).

Please tell me you truly agree with this ruling and are just sticking up for the constitution in "principal". - pardon the pun

p.s. - I do not doubt for a second that if he had said "Bong hits for Mohammed the Prophet" at a school event and the principal did nothing, then some of the same people who are defending this kid now would criticize that principal for allowing a hate crime.

GOOD JOB SUPREME COURT YOU SET THINGS STRAIGHT THIS TIME - NO THANKS TO THE LACK OF COMMON SENSE IN THE LOWER COURTS.

heartburn,

The kid held up the sign across the street from the school on public property, on presumably what would be considered a public forum for an adult, during what was definitely NOT a school sponsored or controlled event. The only reason given to justify the Principal's censorship was the kid was a school student - in which case the actual ruling of the SCOTUS – that you cite - had nothing to do with the facts.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts.

You need to make up your mind as to whether the kid was engaged in expressive behavior or not. If he was, then his actions are entitled to First Amendment protection, regardless of whether you want to also describe them as "completely stupid act- no rules, boundaries, do what you want dude - just like me, and be my friend . . ." behavior.

My personal opinion - founded only on inferences from the facts given in the case – is that the principal exacted revenge against the kid by suspending him for 10 days because he embarrassed her on television during a world-wide event. The business about the need to control school behavior was likely contrived after the fact, and only as a means of defending against the lawsuit. I have no sympathy for the school or the principal for being put through the ringer over this.

Students need to know they have freedom NOW – and not be left to merely discover that they have freedom after graduation. If they are not old enough to handle freedom in high school, they’ll never handle it when they become adults. Training wheels supplied by school officials are a poor substitute.

Frank James is such a weird censor, so we'll try this again. And Frank, use your head for a change, I am trying to make a point with language, OK?
John W., as has been pointed out schools can censor students. For instance, if a student attends a football game and has a sign that says:"F*** the Visiting Team," (now Frankie I've seen your left wing buddies use that word with astericks to name call, I'm using it to make a point, OK?), the school can make the student take down the sign and even suspend the student if so desired. Or if a student wore a shirt that says, "Columbine Killers are My Heroes," that student can be sent home to change clothes.
This is not to say students don't have any rights or even free speech rights. But schools can control language and can even control what is in or not in the student newspaper.

A belated response to whoever it was who said I was flat wrong about the applicability of Hazelwood.

You make a good normative argument as to why Hazelwood ought not to be extended to school-sponsored activities off site, but like it or not, that is exactly what the Court did, by a 5-4 majority. My point was that in doing so, the Court did not create a "drug exception" to the scope of permitted restrictions on student speech. There already was a big, huge exception for any student speech that could be said to disrupt the educational environment. I agree, it's a big hole, but it's not a new hole after this Morse case, and if you look at most post-Hazelwood decisions by the lower courts, you'll see that it's not any bigger of a hole now.

So for the ACLU to say that the case creates a "drug exception" is plain silly, that's all.

also FYI, to John W. - the event may have been off campus but it was during school hours and the attendees were supervised by school administrators clearly making this a school event like a field trip - I could be wrong but I believe I read that transportation was even arranged or coordinated by the school - I do not know about you but when I was in High School , I loved getting out of class to goof off - one reaction the school could have had was just to cancel such events due to people such as this plaintiff who insist on ruining things for everyone -- he got a gift of a cool day away from school and look how he repaid the gift - what a loser !

another question - with the above details in mind, (under the hypothetical assumption that those details are fairly accurate), would you then try to argue that if some kid were hurt by another student at a similar event and the supervisors there refused to help the injured kid, that they could not in any way be held liable for not protecting a kid from a bully during school hours ??? I don't think the plaintiffs even tried to claim to the supreme court that this was not a school event (maybe they made that argument to lower courts but nothing I've read makes it clear that the plaintiff's representatives tried that line of reasoning to the supreme court directly)

I'm not saying kids shouldn't be allowed to joke around but how can anyone argue that they should sue the school and the individual employees of that school everytime a school administrater even slightly hassles a student when they judge a joke to have been taken too far ?? DO THEY REALLY HAVE A RIGHT TO SUE EVEN WHEN THEY INCURRED NO DAMAGES - THAT'S LIKE SAYING EVERYONE DIAGNOSED WITH BRONCHITIS THAT TURNS OUT TO BE A SINUS INFECTION SHOULD THEN BE ALLOWED TO SUE THEIR DOCTOR FOR DAMAGES EVEN THOUGH THE ANTIBIOTICS PRESCRIBED ACTUALLY WORKED

John D:

A school newspaper and all other school sponsored and supervised events are in an entirely different category. Read my discussion of the Hazelwood case. Hazelwood explained why "prohibiting" certain speech in a school supervised activity, on school property, using school resources are completely different from punishing a student for free-speech activity undertaken off-campus at an activity that was neither sponsored nor organized by the school.

The difference in circumstances makes a difference in the application of the law. That is why the kids won in the Tinker case when they were punished for wearing arm-bands, and lost in Hazelwood when they had their school paper articles censored. So, please, don't bring out the school newspaper example again. It doesn't fit the case we're talking about now.

Harry Bosch:

Thank you for acknowledging that Hazelwood doesn’t really apply. My whole point is that the instant case has taken us a large giant step backward in terms of First Amendment protection. That is true regardless of whether the Supreme Court has created a “drug exception” as claimed by the A.C.L.U.ers.

Also, you may call the “disruption of work and discipline exception” a large hole, but I disagree to the extent you suggest the instant case doesn’t make the hole a lot larger. It does make it larger because it is now unhinged from the reasons for the exception. There was no schoolwork or discipline to disrupt in this case. Furthermore, the exception as stated in Tinker was that the right to free speech prevailed unless “the student’s activities would materially and substantiallydisrupt the work and discipline of the school.” That, to me, is a far cry from what happened here. I think it’s no longer an exception. I think the exception has now swallowed the rule.

tom (little) t:

First, the kids were not supervised on the side of the street opposite the school where the kids had the banner. Nor, for that matter, had the student who got suspended even shown up for school that day. Furthermore, this was not a school event that the school could cancel. The Olympic torch business was going to go on with or without school kids in attendance. To suggest this was a school sponsored event, under these circumstances, is a tail-wagging-the-dog argument.

Second, as to personal liability for an injury, I have no idea what the answer would be because I don't know anything about Alaska tort law, much less the responsibility that devolves to schools when they let kids out. I also fail to see how that is pertinent to what actually happened. No one claimed actual harm from unfurling the sign.

Third, your comparison between the suit against the D.C. cleaners, this case, and all other "irresponsible" people is over the top. The law distinguishes between things that are different enough to merit different treatment. This case merits different treatment because the kid was engaged in expressive conduct.

No one has a constitutional right to file oppressive law suits - as was the case against the D.C. cleaners. No one has a general right to do anything, stupid or otherwise, that harms anyone else. BUT, the moment someone engages in expressive conduct - i.e. speech - then the questions then arise whether that conduct is protected by the First Amendment. Under previous case law from the U.S. Supreme Court the kid was entitled to engage in such conduct without getting punished like he did. That is far and away different from the other things to which you made comparison.

tom (with the little t):

I had something else to say about an earlier post of yours.

No, I’m not trying to elevate the plaintiff in this case to the status of a freedom fighter, or even to that of a martyr. [And don’t think for a second that I’m going to be made to feel guilty for “desecrating the memories” of all the luminaries you paraded in front of us on the page – especially since some of them are still alive.]

Someone doesn’t have to be a giant like Mahatma Ghandi or Nelson Mandella to make a difference. It is good enough, sometimes, to stand up against petty oppression. It is good enough because tyranny doesn’t come in leaps and bounds. It comes in short, baby steps.

It comes in short, baby steps because that is what governments can get away with without much notice. Like Fredrick Douglass said, “Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.” And then when people get used to that injustice, those in government take another short, baby step.

Don’t believe that governments are truly interested in protecting you. They aren’t. Protecting or respecting your rights makes their jobs harder. The ability to act arbitrarily, in derogation of your rights, is what makes their lives simpler. That is why the little guy has to stand up once in a while.

Just remember this when you scan the horizon, looking for Big Brother. You might just discover that the evil you fear has been burrowing up from below in almost imperceptible short, baby steps.

So, be thankful the kid sued. He, at least, managed to stop government for a moment in its small, baby tracks. But now, even though he lost his case, the direction of government is no longer quiet or unnoticed.

Hi dt:

Clarence Thomas actually wrote an opinion in this case, but I don't think you want to read it. He took the most untenable position of all, namely, that the kid should lose because school children have no First Amendment rights whatsoever.

Yep, yep, yep: keep your whale oil lamps and wood burning stoves. We're headed back into the dark ages.

P.S. Did you read my last entry in the Moore/Sicko thread?

points well taken - John W. -- sorry I didn't get to read the Moore thing (is there a link ?) -glad you don't think of this plaintiff as a hero

as you may have guessed, i'm not a JD - actually I'm an MD which you may have remembered or guessed as well

I do believe we should stick up for the little guy - and the constitution (all amendments) - that's the only thing that has a chance of protecting us from becoming nothing but another oligarchy (and a malignant aristocratic one at that) - the government does not look out for us - neither party - they both look out for their own power and special interests

as the son of a 35 year schoolteacher, I am deeply concerned that 1st amendment defenders chose the wrong case when they stood behind this kid - everyone has to choose their battles carefully

I'm not saying the kid didn't have a point at all (maybe he did - maybe he didn't) when he claimed he was treated unfairly BUT he had ABSOLUTELY no business suing the principal and the school district over this matter in federal court - NONE

at the most, he should have written the school board or the local paper a protest letter -- there is no way the federal courts could rule his claim to have merit without the unintended but severe consequences of undermining the authority of every school administrator - because every student who felt they were treated unfairly could initiate a cascade of events that would result in enormous legal fees for the school and the teachers - it would create anarchy - literally

I am not overstating my case - many science curricula are already deeply influenced by intimidation (mostly by the left) - no critical thinking skills are allowed at all in the analysis of theories on the origin(s) of life forms as we know it - NONE - talk about fascism

this case has no merits on the damages end - that's why it had no reason to be heard and should have been dismissed long ago (FYI - most analysis which I have read, does concur that this qualified as a school event by most definitions)

the judges who gave merit to this case were definitely putting the foxes in charge of the henhouses as an unintended consequence at schools everywhere in America - this is indefensible considering the complete absence of any significant harm done to the plaintiff !

p.s. please remember I am a true independent - no party affiliation

Well, it looks like opponents of the ruling now have a protest song on their hands. The question is, will it be a "hit"?:

Bong Hits 4 Jesus
(the song)
Dr BLT (c) 2007
Smash Records
http://www.drblt.net/music/bongHITS2.mp3