The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: linnea on June 25, 2007, 10:52:20 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6238672.stm
A former high school student has lost his case in what is the US Supreme Court's first major ruling on students' free speech rights in almost 20 years.
At issue was whether a school principal violated a student's right to free speech by suspending him for displaying a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus".
Joseph Frederick unfurled the banner near to his school as the Olympic flame passed through Juneau, Alaska, in 2002.
The Supreme Court justices ruled by 5-4 that his rights were not violated.
Chief Justice John Roberts said in a written ruling that schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating the use of drugs.
Mr Frederick, 18 at the time, said the words on his 14ft (4.26m) banner did not relate to drug use and were meant to be funny in an attempt to get on television.
Head teacher Deborah Morse, who destroyed Mr Frederick's banner and suspended him for 10 days, argued that the banner's message went against the school's anti-drugs policy and was unfurled during a school event to watch the flame pass.
A bong is a type of water pipe that can be used to smoke marijuana.
Bush's backing
The Supreme Court's ruling has tightened limits on students' rights to free speech at school events.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote: "The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic. 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."
The court found that schools "may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use".
This meant Mr Frederick's constitutional free speech rights were not violated by the confiscation of his banner and his suspension, Chief Justice Roberts concluded.
Justice John Paul Stevens was among the four justices who dissented on the ruling.
He wrote: "Although this case began with a silly nonsensical banner, it ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs."
Ms Morse and the Juneau school board were supported by the Bush administration, which wanted a broad rule that public schools do not have to tolerate speech that disrupts their basic educational mission.
Vietnam precedent
Mr Frederick, now 23 and studying and teaching in China, was backed in the case by the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Center for Law and Justice.
He was also supported by conservative groups concerned that a ruling against him could allow schools to limit students' expression of religious views, particularly on the issues of abortion and homosexuality.
Mr Frederick's lawyer, Douglas Mertz, argued that the court should stand by its 1969 ruling that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate".
In that case, at the height of the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court decided in favour of students who wanted to wear black armbands in class to protest against the war.
But the court ruled in the late 1980s that a student did not have the right to give a sexually-suggestive speech at a school assembly and that school newspapers could be censored.
I've followed this case with interest since I heard that he was taking it to the Supreme Court. The ACLU has backed some pretty shocking cases, but I was very surprised that conservative groups would get on board with the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" kid.
I guess I'm just surprised that this kid was standing up for nothing. Sure, he wanted to get on TV and so he somehow conceived of "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as the most offensive, crazy statement that might get posted on FOX News. He didn't even try to brook his shocking message with something about how medicinal marijuana was needed for terminally ill patients, he stated that his goal was to get on the news. I was surprised that his attorney would try to liken his case to the Vietnam War protesters. They were standing up during a dangerous time with a political message.
Do you party people think that the court ruling was justified? After reviewing the news coverage and thinking about it, I really can't have sympathy for the kid. If he had something like, "Stop the war" or some type of message that was constructive (i.e., working towards a cause) rather than cryptic nonsense...well, I could get behind that. I guess that he just didn't have any cause that he felt strongly about, other than a desire for 15 minutes of fame?
-
Even if he didn't do a very good job of it, he claims he was trying to be funny, and free speech rights for humor seems like a pretty important cause to me.
-
Well, considering that the court has already ruled that all people on school property, regardless of age and whether school is in session, immediately sacrifice amendments 1, 2, and 4 I'm not surprised.
Hell, 4 or 5 years ago it wasn't uncommon to read about kids who were suspended for stuff they put on their personal websites or blogs using their home computers. I'm pretty sure one kid was banned from graduation for shit he said about the principal in his blog, which he never even acesssed with school resources.
-
Yeah free speech is great but I've always considered that if you're in a school or business etc. than the people running that business can kick you out for whatever reason they please. That said some people need to lighten up. Was it a public or private school? That would obviously blur the lines a bit.
-
Well, he was not standing on school grounds.
If more people took bong hits there wouldn't be a war.
-
It was apparently a school-organised event, though, so, y'know, thorny.
I am of the opinion that a school should be able to put a stop to acts that unnecessarily disrupt classes et cetera, and that, practically, that has to include stuff like this. Whether that should be the case at an event like this I can't really say based on the information here; either way, though, suspending him for it seems unduly harsh. Suspension seems to be bandied about an awful lot these days.
More generally, I cannot begin to formulate a coherent notion of how freedom of speech ought to work, because I've not yet successfully married by firm belief in its vital importance with the fact that speech and expression aren't as divorced from the world of action as people often like to think.
Ooh, this reminds me, I read a disgusting letter in a paper a few weeks ago, baldly asserting that "freedom of speech is not freedom to offend". It troubles me that people can be quite that foolish.
-
Yeah, I don't necessarily disagree with this at all, just saying that in the situation (watching an olympic torch) that isn't really harmful to "learning".
I am mainly opposed to the fact you lose your 4th amendment rights on school grounds. But it is all really the same thing. If we are free, we should be free in government buildings we are forced to go to.
Even if we allow for lose of rights at school, f they force you to go to rallys/ minor league baseball games (my own experience) the behavior should not be held up to classroom standards. Come On! (G.O.B. Style) They are at a fuck*ng rally, not school. If it was a musuem that might be different.
-
I was listening to some coverage of this this morning and realized that the main point is summed up by the quote from Justice Stevens above. Did the Founding Fathers even have bongs? There wasn't even a public education system at the time. So it's pretty wild to think there's a constitutional basis to say anything specifically about student speech about drugs.
Basically I am thinking now that this is pretty creepy.
-
I am mainly opposed to the fact you lose your 4th amendment rights on school grounds. But it is all really the same thing. If we are free, we should be free in government buildings we are forced to go to.
Well it's not like the school staff can just randomly strip search any student. They can however strip search any student with "reasonable suspicion." In other words, if they find you in a bathroom that's smokey you can be searched for cigarettes, even if there's no evidence whatsoever that the smoke was made by you. And of course anything else illegal/against school rules they find during said search is fair game.
-
Did the Founding Fathers even have bongs?
George Washington did.
-
I don't know about the founding fathers specifically, but water pipes have been around for hundreds of years.
-
George Washington did.
Apparently, he grew hemp as well. Hmmmm...
-
I was joking. And he grew marijuana. And he smoked it. It is in his journal. That is what the joke was supposed to be. Sorry that it wasn't good.
-
Oh. Well. Carry on then.
-
Ah I was lazy and didn't read so I didn't get that he wasn't at school. I'm still not totally behind him though, I think the school could have handled it differently (say, a teacher just tell him to stop being an ass and put the sign away) but when I hear freedom of speech I take it to mean that someone will not be locked up for voicing their opinion, being suspended from school isn't exactly sending in the gestapo.
Also your country has a hell of a lot of faith in the infinite wisdom of a bunch of dudes who died over a century or two ago.
-
Also your country has a hell of a lot of faith in the infinite wisdom of a bunch of dudes who died over a century or two ago.
Yeah well I guess it's a way to put an end to arguments that would otherwise go on forever, you know? I mean, rock-paper-scissors would be so undignified.
-
Yeah well I guess it's a way to put an end to arguments that would otherwise go on forever, you know? I mean, rock-paper-scissors would be so undignified.
So, if you can Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law) an argument, does this mean you can Jefferson an argument?
"ugh... You know, once upon a time there was a man like you, and he drafted a document of his ideas. His name was Thomas Jefferson."
"Oh... wow... you know... maybe we're both right."
And then they hug, and buy each other novelty ice creams.
-
So, if you can Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law) an argument, does this mean you can Jefferson an argument?
"ugh... You know, once upon a time there was a man like you, and he drafted a document of his ideas. His name was Thomas Jefferson."
"Oh... wow... you know... maybe we're both right."
And then they hug, and buy each other novelty ice creams.
James Madison was the primary drafter of the Constitution.
-
James Madison was the primary drafter of the Constitution.
Nazi.
*** EDIT ***
Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) views on Sodomy
In 1779, Jefferson prepared a draft of Virginia’s criminal statute, envisaging that the punishment for sodomy should be castration. [39]
The bill read: “Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least.”
What the hell, Tom? What's up with the nose thing?
-
WTF!
Why does TJ want to cut off my dick?
-
Wear your dress when his ghost come clanking around with the chef's knife. That'll confuse him.
-
Because 230 odd years ago there was different social mores and even on seemingly similiar issues there was differing points of stress, importance and hierarchy. Public, private and criminal behaviour were more strictly codified and those who were not in conformity were more harshly condemned for being wrong.
Y'all don't need to worry about TJ, you need to sweat that there's at least a jillion un-socially-evolved motherfuckers who would straight up do you that way for those same acts today if they could.
Geez, wonder whys there's dissension in the world?
I know mores are different and whatnot, but how could any man hate blowjobs that much? It boggles the mind.
-
Hnag on, I always thought sodomy was anal, not oral. I am recieving a dose of embarassingly public education?
-
a lot of people have had different definitions of Sodomy. Some folks argued that anything other than missionary-position sex with the man on top was sodomy, back in the day.
-
Hnag on, I always thought sodomy was anal, not oral. I am recieving a dose of embarassingly public education?
Yeah, the definition of sodomy has varied. Traditionally though it's a synonym for buggery.
-
Y'all don't need to worry about TJ, you need to sweat that there's at least a jillion un-socially-evolved motherfuckers who would straight up do you that way for those same acts today if they could.
And yet... there are also people who would do that crime, take that punishment, and then post pictures of it on the internet for other people to fornicate to.
And they all want to be your MySpace friend.
-
WTF!
Why does TJ want to cut off my dick?
I think inev just confessed to being a polygamist.
-
there are also people who would do that crime, take that punishment, and then post pictures of it on the internet for other people to fornicate to.
It would be fantastic to go back and explain suicide girls to the founding fathers, they'd just tear up their constitution there and then.
-
Merriam-Webster says it's anal, oral, or bestiality. Gender doesn't matter. I'd always known the first two but the animals part is new to me.
-
You've got to hand it to those sodomites, those fuckers knew how to party.
-
Sodom and Gomorrah got nothing on what's doing at my crib.
And a tip o' the hat to Mr. Tesco Vee.
-
We knew what the Sodomites were up to, but apparently the Gamorreans were just the kind of people who came to your party and hogged the pizza.
-
We knew what the Sodomites were up to, but apparently the Gamorreans were just the kind of people who came to your party and hogged the pizza.
(http://www.fotolode.com/images/jaydub/gammoreanguard.jpg)
Pizza?