NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/01/scotus.bonghits/index.html

I'm reasonably sure that if Jesus was alive, he'd hit a bong. Don't you? ;)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/01/scotus.bonghits/index.html

I'm reasonably sure that if Jesus was alive, he'd hit a bong. Don't you? ;)

I'd always taken him for a Hookah man.

I wonder how much he will need?

I predict the old bread sharing story Jesus never hogs :)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/01/scotus.bonghits/index.html

I'm reasonably sure that if Jesus was alive, he'd hit a bong. Don't you? ;)
I'm reasonably sure how this case would be judged before the european court of human rights. Bong or no bong.

That's stupid. In the States you generally don't wear uniforms, right? So who was to know what school the guy was from? Ignoring it would've been a better option than immortalising the guy by suspending him for 2 weeks. Now if it had been Muhammad instead of Jesus...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/01/scotus.bonghits/index.html

I'm reasonably sure that if Jesus was alive, he'd hit a bong. Don't you? ;)

Yes, and he would most certainly give thanks for it!

I was hoping that they were going to rule on whether or not marijuana use could be considered a legitimate and legal sacrement. Which, depending on the outcome of the case, could have lead me to re-discover christianity.

it is so appaling that the usa violates its own constitution all the time. there is nothing in there about a "minimum age" for free speech.

it is so appaling that the usa violates its own constitution all the time. there is nothing in there about a "minimum age" for free speech.

Well this is just a jackass high school. Not the entire US government.

it is so appaling that the usa violates its own constitution all the time. there is nothing in there about a "minimum age" for free speech.

Children dont have Constitutional rights in schools. Thier rights are abbrogated to thier parents and in thier absence to school officials because children by definition are incapable of making legal decisions on thier own. They cant enter legal contracts and they dont have the same freedoms that citizens of legal age have. They are forced by the government to attend schools till a certain age, and they are forced to say and do certain things and not say and not do things at certain times. This is all done with complete consent from all the parents and the laws of the community and state.

I would also guess the courts will uphold the schools authority over the students off school grounds, but during a school event, to prevent the stiffeling of our childrens education by restricting the schools authority to a very small geographic area(school grounds) that always isnt the best place to be every day for a complete and well rounded education. I mean who doesnt think that field trips have at least some educatiuonal value? And who in the community wants school children running amok in a public place without giving school authoritys some power of control over them.

What children do during their own time is their own business, the schools no longer have responsibility or authority over the child. That belongs to the parents. During school time which includes school trips they are under the control of the school as by the permission slip signed by their parents.

Children dont have Constitutional rights in schools.

Aha! But he wasn't in school!

Thier rights are abbrogated to thier parents and in thier absence to school officials because children by definition are incapable of making legal decisions on thier own. They cant enter legal contracts and they dont have the same freedoms that citizens of legal age have. They are forced by the government to attend schools till a certain age, and they are forced to say and do certain things and not say and not do things at certain times. This is all done with complete consent from all the parents and the laws of the community and state.


I would also guess the courts will uphold the schools authority over the students off school grounds, but during a school event, to prevent the stiffeling of our childrens education by restricting the schools authority to a very small geographic area(school grounds) that always isnt the best place to be every day for a complete and well rounded education.

I should certainly hope they do not. If for example, I happen to be sick during school hours, and happen to be reviewing some material not considered appropriate for school, does my principal have a right to come to my house and take it away from me?

I wonder how much he will need?

I predict the old bread sharing story Jesus never hogs :)

ya but jesus could take a few stems and seeds and supply the whole crowd with dope.

especially if his mom asked him to

(to mix scriptural metaphors)

What children do during their own time is their own business, the schools no longer have responsibility or authority over the child. That belongs to the parents. During school time which includes school trips they are under the control of the school as by the permission slip signed by their parents.

Exactly what I tried, and somehow failed, to post!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/01/scotus.bonghits/index.html

I'm reasonably sure that if Jesus was alive, he'd hit a bong. Don't you? ;)
Totally, maaan... http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/JesusShades.gif

What children do during their own time is their own business, the schools no longer have responsibility or authority over the child. That belongs to the parents. During school time which includes school trips they are under the control of the school as by the permission slip signed by their parents.

That seems to be the major legal point in this case.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision is confusing in many respects and leaves school administrators with no clear guidance regarding what restrictions schools may place on student messages promoting illegal drug use, what student conduct may be restricted at off-campus events, or what restrictions may be placed on student conduct at non-curricular school events that take place on the school campus. For example, in some places the court describes the viewing of the torch relay as a “school-authorized” activity; in another it says that Frederick’s display of the banner “did not take place as part of an official school activity.” The court suggests that it might be permissible to ban Frederick’s banner at some off-campus events, but that viewing the Olympic Torch Relay was not one of them. The court further emphasizes that its decision does not “reach the question of whether the school could have prohibited Frederick from displaying his banner on school grounds or wearing a T-shirt that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”
http://www.jsd.k12.ak.us/newdistrict/news/archive/frederickvmorse_archive.htm

Actually, IMHO, the issue of public officiuals immunity to civil damage suits is the more interesting part.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/orders_and_opinions/
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf
(http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf)http://www.jsd.k12.ak.us/newdistrict/news/press/Release2006_12_01.php

ya but jesus could take a few stems and seeds and supply the whole crowd with dope.

especially if his mom asked him to

(to mix scriptural metaphors)

Seeing as the scriptures have him doing that with one drug (wine), I don't see why any good Christian would have a problem with his do it with another...
(I'd actually be interested in seeing a sound scripture based argument...)

Children dont have Constitutional rights in schools. Thier rights are abbrogated to thier parents and in thier absence to school officials because children by definition are incapable of making legal decisions on thier own. They cant enter legal contracts and they dont have the same freedoms that citizens of legal age have. They are forced by the government to attend schools till a certain age, and they are forced to say and do certain things and not say and not do things at certain times. This is all done with complete consent from all the parents and the laws of the community and state.

Actually, you are wrong. a 1970's SCOTUS ruling found that students did have the freedom of political speach while they were on school grounds. Children do not have certain specific rights, but that does not mean that they have no rights.

I would also guess the courts will uphold the schools authority over the students off school grounds, but during a school event, to prevent the stiffeling of our childrens education by restricting the schools authority to a very small geographic area(school grounds) that always isnt the best place to be every day for a complete and well rounded education. I mean who doesnt think that field trips have at least some educatiuonal value? And who in the community wants school children running amok in a public place without giving school authoritys some power of control over them.

If you truly beleive that having the right to make a political or religious statement in a public place is the equivalent of running amok, then you are very, very wrong.