free speech takes a hit
 

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Somerfrost,
Sad but true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't be naive, Bush doesn't have to personally go over the list, he has hundreds of like-thinking cronies to do his dirty work. I know about the Wiccan soldiers who died in Iraq, their families weren't allowed to place Wiccan religious symbols on their tombstones. I know Bush stated to ABC that he doesn't think Wicca is a religion. I know his buddy Strom Thurman said it should be banned in the military and compared it to Satanism and cults. I doubt Bush has the slightest idea what Wicca or Witchcraft if you prefer is all about, what we believe etc.

Naivete aside...you gotta fill out the paperwork before you get the goods!:cool:

they have changed their stance, and the wiccan symbols have been allowed.

Don't confuse him with the facts!

well, just wasn't sure if somer saw that the wiccan religion has been added to the DoD list of recognized religions. symbols were placed on the tombstones of the deceased soldiers.

the supreme court chooses which cases to hear, so they evidently felt it was worth their time.

no, it may not be the best example of rights being trampled--but it's one of several rulings lately that gives me and others pause. and of course many feel that any chipping away of rights weakens the constitution. i agree. altho most would say that what the boy did was silly, or inane, or somehow promoted drug use ( i wouldn't go that far, i think he did it to get attention, and it worked), and that they found it offensive (have to wonder, what if it had said bong hits for bozo the clown?) it is his right to express himself--whether his stance is popular or not. and the constitution is designed to protect the unpopular view.
it kills me whenever people say majority rules. it does NOT rule. the constitution was written to protect the minority, as majority rule can quickly become mob rule.

Danzig: Somer knows this, but it makes for a better story if we're still hunting Wiccans. Somer: if this is that important to you,please get the leaders on board so they can benefit from the program!

but he does have a point--so many want to judge others--a non-mainstream religion seems a good target for many. look at al sharptons comments about mitt romney for instance. it shows ignorance on behalf of the speaker when they denigrate a religion that they really know nothing about. it's different, therefore dangerous. i also felt that the wiccans should be able to put their symbol on their tombstone--those guys fought and died for everyone, not just those of the 'correct' faith. thankfully the error was corrected.

Thanks Mrs Z, I'm glad someone sees my point. Yes, after a considerable effort, the symbols were finally allowed...as I originally stated, "the families weren't allowed to place Wiccan religious symbols on their tombstones"...past tense. The courts will correct many abuses of the Constitution...DoD has recognized Wicca for some time but folks like Bush and Thurman have publically questioned this policy and called for it to be changed.

the way I read it, he was told to take the banner down and didn't. then
he was suspended.

whatever his message is, in fact he admits he doesn't have one, I wonder how many other avenues he has used in order to express himself and his ideas?, has he passed out leaflets, gone door to door, taken out ads in the paper, written letters to the editor, stood on the corner preaching his ideas, created a website or blog, written a book, gone on local TV, etc. It would seem that all of those are freely available to him and others, and could be used to exercise his free speech. However just because a principle thought a single banner was perhaps not appropriate for a particular school sponsored event we need to be concerned about living in a totalitarian state?

I think people sometimes go way out of there way to be offended or in claiming to be disenfranchised.

As I said previously, the student was not on school property. The "banner" that he made was his own "property" and it was confiscated.
The event, the running of the Olympic torch, was not initated by the school.
Though I disagree with the "bong hits" part of the message, I don't agree with the Supreme Court's decision, nor did four justices.
On a side note, the T shirts are already being made. It wouldn't surprise me to see many students wearing them to their schools in the future.

And those kids who will wear the bong hits shirts are what makes America great.

no

but in the past the court ruled that free speech was disallowed if it was felt to be disruptive in class. he didn't yell anything, disrupt anything, and wasn't in class.

by the same token, we went on a field trip to d.c....those beer vendors on the mall didn't believe in carding. best school lunch i ever had.

Danzig,
I'll try to find Justice Steven's dissent in its entirety.
This makes mention of it, and I agree with his stand, and not Justice Thomas.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007...h-takes-a-hit/

If anybody is really interested in reading this stuff, here's the full opinion:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletyp...06-278_All.pdf

The way things go today , if the school hadnt done something about it Im sure some person would have freaked out and said "OMFG look at that , at a school function, is this where my tax dollars are going ? is this school district condoning this? my child has been adversley affected by this and he/ she may never be right again ." LOL

i know it's been their first free speech case in years, i just disagree with any further erosion of rights, and to say a child has less rights, or less rights in school--well, i disagree with that.

but then again.....don imus was fired, which some said took away his rights--no, he still has the right to say what he said, they just took his forum away. is that what the school was doing?

i just don't like it when they seem to be willing to erode the rights of minors, in public school, and i think this is one more example of that...i still think tho that had he not said bong hits FOR JESUS, this may not have gone so far.