NationStates Jolt Archive

Some of you may be familiar with the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case that went to the Supreme Court. Some may further know that the principal won the case before the Supreme Court.

Here is a story about it (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/06-25-2007/7ea400061aca6fc7.html):

The U.S. Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long (4.3-meter) "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 in a 5-4 ruling.



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.

Conservative groups that often are allied with the administration are backing Frederick out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose homosexuality or abortion.

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 for drug use.

"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, 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."

Morse suspended the student, prompting a federal civil rights lawsuit.

Students in public schools do not have the same rights as adults, but neither do they leave their constitutional protections at the schoolhouse gate, as the court said in a landmark speech-rights ruling from Vietnam era.

The court has limited what students can do in subsequent cases, saying they may not be disruptive or lewd or interfere with a school's basic educational mission.

Frederick, now 23, said he later had to drop out of college after his father lost his job. The elder Frederick, who worked for the company that insures the Juneau schools, was fired in connection with his son's legal fight, the son said. A jury recently awarded Frank Frederick $200,000 (€148,798) in a lawsuit he filed over his firing.

Joseph Frederick, who has been teaching and studying in China, pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, according to court records.

The case is Morse v. Frederick, 06-278.

Here is a link to the case (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf). I have not yet read all 60 pages and will comment further when I have.

What has stricken me so far is the concurrence of Justice Thomas (pages 19-31 of the pdf). He holds that students have no right to free speech whatsoever and he would overturn all the prior SCOTUS cases that have protected a limited right of free speech for students. He literally argues that students DO check their constitutional rights at the school door. Here is a quote:

As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford
students a right to free speech in public schools.
III
In light of the history of American public education, it
cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment
“freedom of speech” encompasses a student’s right to
speak in public schools. Early public schools gave total
control to teachers, who expected obedience and respect
from students. And courts routinely deferred to schools’
authority to make rules and to discipline students for
violating those rules.

I think this is dangerous thinking and an example of how out-to-lunch Justice Thomas is.

Straight along idealogical lines - all the conservative judges telling kids to get bent and the liberal judges saying that's a stupid, narrow ruling.

Conservative US Supreme Court - stripping you of your rights one dangerous precedent at a time

PS. Why does Clarence Thomas surprise you? He makes Scalia look like a bastion of liberalism. The man would be a candidate for Grand Dragon and his first order of business would be to reinstate lynching of negroes.

"If you had a drug test tomorrow, would you do bong rips with Jesus today?" - Sticker in Santa Cruz.

That's fucking ridiculous. I kind of want to make it about drug hysteria but the real implications of it are so much more menacing that it overshadows the pot issue to obscurity.

Man, everyone who's ever associated with Bush is just taking one dump on the Constitution & The Bill of Rights after another aren't they?

[INDENT]As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford
students a right to free speech in public schools.
III

I wonder where on earth he gets that idea from. I look forward to your analysis when you're done reading the whole thing.

Am I the only one that mentally put "When I was your age.." at the beginning of that ruling?

I wonder where on earth he gets that idea from. I look forward to your analysis when you're done reading the whole thing.

What's ironic is that it's a public school (funded by the government) and yet...hmm....wait, if the Supreme Court rules that you can't have freedom of speech in a public school, which are funded by the government, then would that be an infringement on the First Amendment and thus unconstitutional?

Why dont we just say 'No talking in school'? That'd make things MUCH simpler. Since youre not allowed to swear, pray, talk about politics, mention guns, drugs, violence, sheep, goats, fish under 3 feet long, or laxitives, it'd be far easier if nobody talked at all. Students could just read their textbooks all day while the teacher zapped any talkers with a tazer.

Straight along idealogical lines - all the conservative judges telling kids to get bent and the liberal judges saying that's a stupid, narrow ruling.

Conservative US Supreme Court - stripping you of your rights one dangerous precedent at a time

PS. Why does Clarence Thomas surprise you? He makes Scalia look like a bastion of liberalism. The man would be a candidate for Grand Dragon and his first order of business would be to reinstate lynching of negroes.

Hey, dude, just because Thomas is a moron, don't paint the rest of the conservatives on the bench with the same brush.

The Supreme Court has gradually gone from far left to moderate right. Frankly, it probably now reflects the prevailing beleifs of the US better than it used to.

I can understand allowing the school to confiscate the banner, but the SC's reasoning here is just plain bizarre.

The ironic thing is the kid wasn't in school he was off school property holding up a sign. This is all we need - more court rulings saying schools(and maybe businesses) have the right to punish students for what they do on their own time, off school grounds with in-school punishments.

Hey, dude, just because Thomas is a moron, don't paint the rest of the conservatives on the bench with the same brush.
All it takes is 5 people for a conservative court and they have it, 3 of the conservatives are hard asses, one is moderate and one might swing on a good day.

The Supreme Court has gradually gone from far left to moderate right. Frankly, it probably now reflects the prevailing beleifs of the US better than it used to.
The SC right now is about as moderate as Remote Observers.

I can understand allowing the school to confiscate the banner, but the SC's reasoning here is just plain bizarre.

Do you mean the SC, or Thomas?

The ironic thing is the kid wasn't in school he was off school property holding up a sign. This is all we need - more court rulings saying schools(and maybe businesses) have the right to punish students for what they do on their own time, off school grounds with in-school punishments.

Wasn't it a school-sponsored event?

The ironic thing is the kid wasn't in school he was off school property holding up a sign. This is all we need - more court rulings saying schools(and maybe businesses) have the right to punish students for what they do on their own time, off school grounds with in-school punishments.

Private Business can regulate speech, since they are a private industry and thus are not subject to the First Amendment, which states:

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.

Which states that government shall not make any law abridging the First Amendment, not private businesses.

Do you mean the SC, or Thomas?
The conservatives were in the majority, it was their ruling. Thomas is always bizarre.

So what was all that stare decisis talk by Roberts and wrongness of interpreting the Constitution by Alito?

The conservatives were in the majority, it was their ruling. Thomas is always bizarre.

Well, the reason I ask is that I find the Court's reasoning and decision fairly reasonable, even if I wouldn't have made the same decision. Thomas has lost me completely.

The ironic thing is the kid wasn't in school he was off school property holding up a sign. This is all we need - more court rulings saying schools(and maybe businesses) have the right to punish students for what they do on their own time, off school grounds with in-school punishments.

I don't think it's that clear. From what I understand, the students were taken by teachers to watch the proceedings. In that case, it is more like a field trip and it was not on the student's own time.

Of course. If he was there as a student taking part in a school trip or whatever, then he has to abide by certain rules regarding behavior, and this includes what he can display, say, or do. This is normal in school, since you don't want students talking in class, leaving at whatever time they want, be disruptive or use school events to push whatever agenda they may have.

So, yes, the excuse that he was exercising his free speech right doesn't fly.

I'm sorry, kids, while you're in school you don't have full rights, and that's how it should be.

As a high school student at an American public school this is a little worrying but not too suprising considering the make up of the SC and probably not to severe.

As far as I can tell (and I've only read the article) the decision only talks about only restricting pro drug messages in schools. Which 1. Are already restricted anyway (i.e. I can't wear any beer shirts to school) and 2. Aren't things that most students would do publicly anyways.

So really it doesn't seem that important, although I might be misinterpretating what I have read.

As a high school student at an American public school this is a little worrying but not too suprising considering the make up of the SC and probably not to severe.

As far as I can tell (and I've only read the article) the decision only talks about only restricting pro drug messages in schools. Which 1. Are already restricted anyway (i.e. I can't wear any beer shirts to school) and 2. Aren't things that most students would do publicly anyways.

So really it doesn't seem that important, although I might be misinterpretating what I have read.

I agree. The court based their decision on the drug message reasoning.

It's Thomas, however, that's having a "back in my day" moment and saying kids don't have Freedom of Speech at all.

'Course, I've been known to be wrong as well. ;)

As a high school student at an American public school this is a little worrying but not too suprising considering the make up of the SC and probably not to severe.

As far as I can tell (and I've only read the article) the decision only talks about only restricting pro drug messages in schools. Which 1. Are already restricted anyway (i.e. I can't wear any beer shirts to school) and 2. Aren't things that most students would do publicly anyways.

So really it doesn't seem that important, although I might be misinterpretating what I have read.

The thing that concerns the OP is Justice Thomas' stance on the issue, which is there is no free speech at public schools. Although his concurrence does little more than explain his stance, it is a little worrying that one of our nine Justices supported the majority so that he could chip away at free speech at schools. That was how he actually ended his opinion, in fact.

The thing that concerns the OP is Justice Thomas' stance on the issue, which is there is no free speech at public schools. Although his concurrence does little more than explain his stance, it is a little worrying that one of our nine Justices supported the majority so that he could chip away at free speech at schools. That was how he actually ended his opinion, in fact.

That's normal Thomas though. His "concurring opinions" often come so far out of left field that their connection to the majority opinion is tiny. He's been known in such opinions to start complaining about SC decisions from the 18th century. The man is truly crazy, I think.

I agree. The court based their decision on the drug message reasoning.

It's Thomas, however, that's having a "back in my day" moment and saying kids don't have Freedom of Speech at all.

'Course, I've been known to be wrong as well. ;)
Thomas, like most of the conservatives on the court, are revisionists.. I mean originalists and want to go back to the good old days when you could beat your children for speaking out of turn and the states wern't allowed to make their own decisions.

That woman-groping asshole needs to realize that just because you disagree with what one kid said doesn't mean you should fucking abolish free speech for students everywhere.

When did minors ever have blanket rights to free speech in high schools? I never thought we did when I was that age, and never expected that I could freely distribute information or advocate for any cause while on campus. Odd story.

When did minors ever have blanket rights to free speech in high schools? I never thought we did when I was that age, and never expected that I could freely distribute information or advocate for any cause while on campus. Odd story.

Same here, I was under the impression that the rights of students (and really, minors in general) was under debate.

When did minors ever have blanket rights to free speech in high schools? I never thought we did when I was that age, and never expected that I could freely distribute information or advocate for any cause while on campus. Odd story.

You basically read Clarence Thomas's mind.


Evolving societies like ours should not take away more rights the older it gets. It should grant more rights, as it becomes more mature as a society.

Do you mean the SC, or Thomas?

The whole majority, but particularly Thomas.

You basically read Clarence Thomas's mind.

Evolving societies like ours should not take away more rights the older it gets. It should grant more rights, as it becomes more mature as a society.

I'm not sure it's really the purpose of a public school to be a forum for students' political beliefs. That was the understanding I always had when in school - everyone has their opinion, but school hours are for school. As long as school officials don't try and follow students home, I'm fine with the classroom being apolitical. I'm not advocating that position simply because that's how it was when I was in school, however - that's just my recollection. ;)

Why dont we just say 'No talking in school'? That'd make things MUCH simpler. Since youre not allowed to swear, pray, talk about politics, mention guns, drugs, violence, sheep, goats, fish under 3 feet long, or laxitives, it'd be far easier if nobody talked at all. Students could just read their textbooks all day while the teacher zapped any talkers with a tazer.

Students are allowed to pray in school.
If you think they aren't, then you fail at legal knowledge.

I'm not sure it's really the purpose of a public school to be a forum for students' political beliefs. That was the understanding I always had when in school - everyone has their opinion, but school hours are for school. As long as school officials don't try and follow students home, I'm fine with the classroom being apolitical. I'm not advocating that position simply because that's how it was when I was in school, however - that's just my recollection. ;)

I think it's not really any of the school's business what kids do as long as they're not interrupting class. For example, at one of the schools I went to, the (conservative) math teacher forced a kid to take a Kerry-Edwards '04 sticker off their binder. It was hardly important to class, it was just a teacher wanking off his political views.

Students are allowed to pray in school.
If you think they aren't, then you fail at legal knowledge.

I think he/she just meant that the schools aren't allowed to address prayer, or allow time for it, or disallow it, etc. Even the "moment of silence" is only legal in a few states, Louisiana and North Carolina, I believe (I may be behind the times with that one, though). Naturally, you can't stop a person from silently praying anywhere - it just can't be done without some kind of mindreading technology. :p

I think it's not really any of the school's business what kids do as long as they're not interrupting class. For example, at one of the schools I went to, the (conservative) math teacher forced a kid to take a Kerry-Edwards '04 sticker off their binder. It was hardly important to class, it was just a teacher wanking off his political views.

That sounds excessive, sure. A school shouldn't be every student's personal pulpit, but a sticker isn't going to raise many eyebrows or disrupt class. In that case, the guy probably went too far.

That sounds excessive, sure. A school shouldn't be every student's personal pulpit, but a sticker isn't going to raise many eyebrows or disrupt class. In that case, the guy probably went too far.

Like I said, as long as they're not disrupting a class, it shouldn't be a problem. Hell, if a teacher starts a discussion, they should be prepared for the class to become a pulpit.

Like I said, as long as they're not disrupting a class, it shouldn't be a problem. Hell, if a teacher starts a discussion, they should be prepared for the class to become a pulpit.

That's true - if the teacher initiates a political discussion, no one's going to be punished for participating or defending a position - not in any school I've ever heard of (excepting maybe a few private schools). School guidelines should be reasonable, and hopefully subject to appeal when applied too strictly.

As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford
students a right to free speech in public schools.
III
In light of the history of American public education, it
cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment
“freedom of speech” encompasses a student’s right to
speak in public schools. Early public schools gave total
control to teachers, who expected obedience and respect
from students. And courts routinely deferred to schools’
authority to make rules and to discipline students for
violating those rules.

People who want to feel superior see children as an easy target for oppression.

That's true - if the teacher initiates a political discussion, no one's going to be punished for participating or defending a position - not in any school I've ever heard of (excepting maybe a few private schools). School guidelines should be reasonable, and hopefully subject to appeal when applied too strictly.

And, of course, any political statement made in the hallways shouldn't be banned.

I remember one time this girl had a "Jesus is the reason for this season!" around Christmas, probably due to that whole war on Christmas bullshit going around. I tried explaining to her that the rotation of the earth around the sun was the reason for the season, but she wouldn't go for it.

"Early public schools" were also segregated, Mr. Thomas, and the teachers could beat students. Proving once again that "We've always done it this way!" is not a valid argument for anything.

The conservative Supreme Court is just as bad as the liberal Supreme Court. Both do their absolute utmost to strip us of our rights. To choose one evil over another is to fall into the polarizing trap that most of America has fallen into.

Make your vote count!
Ron Paul '08!

When did minors ever have blanket rights to free speech in high schools? I never thought we did when I was that age, and never expected that I could freely distribute information or advocate for any cause while on campus. Odd story.

Since a ruling in the '70's which said that, outside of interupting the function of a Public School, a student did not check their rights at the schoolhouse door. For example, it is not unreasonable for you to pamphlet at lunch for a cause, like, say a Presidential election, while you are at school. I know, because I've done it, back in 2004. Or you could wear a black armband to protest a war (which is where the right origionally was applied).

This is dangerous and disgusting precident and exactly what I'd expect by activist Conservatives. Kiss your rights goodbye, American, this is the New Dark Ages.

And, of course, any political statement made in the hallways shouldn't be banned.

I remember one time this girl had a "Jesus is the reason for this season!" around Christmas, probably due to that whole war on Christmas bullshit going around. I tried explaining to her that the rotation of the earth around the sun was the reason for the season, but she wouldn't go for it.


Yeah, I can imagine that line of argument wouldn't have worked with her. :p

As for political speech among students, I don't think anyone wants to or would even be able to stop it. There was always open political discussion at the schools I went to, and election coverage was always played on all the school televisions in the commons and library during election season. However, students weren't allowed to hand out pamphlets in class or bring megaphones or organize meetings without approval, that kind of thing.

Since a ruling in the '70's which said that, outside of interupting the function of a Public School, a student did not check their rights at the schoolhouse door. For example, it is not unreasonable for you to pamphlet at lunch for a cause, like, say a Presidential election, while you are at school. I know, because I've done it, back in 2004. Or you could wear a black armband to protest a war (which is where the right origionally was applied).

I agree.

But is it ok for a student to pass out a pamphlet that says, "Hey! Smoke weed! Try some meth! Booze it up!"? From what I understand (admittedly not having read the decision itself), this decision doesn't overturn what has been said before. It simply says that this particular speech - speech advocating illegal substance abuse - is not protected.

I agree.

But is it ok for a student to pass out a pamphlet that says, "Hey! Smoke weed! Try some meth! Booze it up!"? From what I understand (admittedly not having read the decision itself), this decision doesn't overturn what has been said before. It simply says that this particular speech - speech advocating illegal substance abuse - is not protected.

With the amount of liability schools have today, that doesn't sound unreasonable - the school's principal pretty much has to go the "zero tolerance" route to avoid various legal risks that the taxpayer doesn't want to foot the bill for, after all. :p

I agree.

But is it ok for a student to pass out a pamphlet that says, "Hey! Smoke weed! Try some meth! Booze it up!"? From what I understand (admittedly not having read the decision itself), this decision doesn't overturn what has been said before. It simply says that this particular speech - speech advocating illegal substance abuse - is not protected.

You are correct that it is not. However, the willful ignorance demonstrated by the SCOTUS Conservatives about what the sign was about (it was about being able to say what you want, not about drugs). Moreover, the student had not even attended school that day. This is a very dangerous, and activist ruling.

This is relatively minor. When the court said "students do not leave their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door," it was upholding the quietest and most innocuous forms of expression. It has generally ruled that schools may limit student speech whenever it gets in the way of legitimate school goals.

As for Thomas, pay him no mind. He does this in virtually every case, saying he wants to overturn "every case" on an issue. For instance, he also believes that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause does not apply to the states, despite decades of jurisprudence that says that it does. No one listens to him.

I'm unsure what I think about the overall ruling. Should schools be barred from preventing students from discussing illegal activites? I don't know. I'm not sure I necessarily disagree with the general sentiment of the majority.

Perhaps expanding the first amendment to the point where teachers can not prevent students from discussing illegal activity on school time would be a little too far.

That being saidl, thomas is a loon.

That being saidl, thomas is a loon.

More legal-moral questions need to end this way.

You are correct that it is not. However, the willful ignorance demonstrated by the SCOTUS Conservatives about what the sign was about (it was about being able to say what you want, not about drugs).

It would seem to me that it was about being able to say what you want....about drugs. It would be ridiculous to suggest that the banner had nothing to do with illegal substance abuse.

Moreover, the student had not even attended school that day.

Now this is an interesting tidbit I had not heard. If he had not attended school that day, it seems to me that they should have suspended him for skipping school, rather than for what he was doing while skipping.

You are correct that it is not. However, the willful ignorance demonstrated by the SCOTUS Conservatives about what the sign was about (it was about being able to say what you want, not about drugs).
actually, we don't know that. had he made several signs, including one that said, "Prayers 2 Jesus" and possibly one saying "Olypians for Peace" and all three or however many he made was taken down, then yes, it would be an issue of freedom of speech. but being that it was one sign saying "bong hits 4 Jesus", the term Bong hits is commonly refered to as taking Illegal drugs. Thus it was argued and succeeded that the sign was taken down because of the interpretation that it was promoting drug use and not an excercise for free speech.

Moreover, the student had not even attended school that day. This is a very dangerous, and activist ruling.attending the olympic flame was a school sponsored event. the students were there as a school/class.

If Thomas was representative of the majority, I would be worried. It's almost coincidence when he agrees with the majority.

This decision doesn't bother me in the least. Drugs are illegal. Whether he was really intending this to be about drugs or to see what he could get away with at a school function doesn't really matter. What is clear is that if I'd have worn a budweiser shirt to school, I'd have gotten in trouble. This is nothing new. His banner referenced using illegal substances. There is no getting around that. It's a fact. The school acted reasonably.

That said, it doesn't mean students should have no rights.

If Thomas was representative of the majority, I would be worried. It's almost coincidence when he agrees with the majority.

This decision doesn't bother me in the least. Drugs are illegal. Whether he was really intending this to be about drugs or to see what he could get away with at a school function doesn't really matter. What is clear is that if I'd have worn a budweiser shirt to school, I'd have gotten in trouble. This is nothing new. His banner referenced using illegal substances. There is no getting around that. It's a fact. The school acted reasonably.

That said, it doesn't mean students should have no rights.

To me, the real sticking point is the fact that this wasn't at school. Was he required to be there as an official school outing? Or was it that students were allowed to leave school to go there? In the former case, I would say that the school did nothing wrong. In the latter, I would say that the school had no standing to punish him for something not done in school.

To me, the real sticking point is the fact that this wasn't at school. Was he required to be there as an official school outing? Or was it that students were allowed to leave school to go there? In the former case, I would say that the school did nothing wrong. In the latter, I would say that the school had no standing to punish him for something not done in school.

I believe it was a school sanctioned field trip. In fact, there really is, to my knowledge, no such thing as "you can leave to go there".

During school hours the school is repsonsible, and therefore are responsible for what happens to students outside of school but during school hours. Letting students just leave to go attend something by themselves is a massive liability, and as long as there was a school official there, the school power was extended to the event.

To me, the real sticking point is the fact that this wasn't at school. Was he required to be there as an official school outing? Or was it that students were allowed to leave school to go there? In the former case, I would say that the school did nothing wrong. In the latter, I would say that the school had no standing to punish him for something not done in school.

If it was a school event, then it's totally appropriate for the school to take action. Everything I've seen thus far suggests it was. Moreso, TCT is thorough, if it weren't a school event, I'd think he'd have mentioned it.

actually, we don't know that. had he made several signs, including one that said, "Prayers 2 Jesus" and possibly one saying "Olypians for Peace" and all three or however many he made was taken down, then yes, it would be an issue of freedom of speech. but being that it was one sign saying "bong hits 4 Jesus", the term Bong hits is commonly refered to as taking Illegal drugs. Thus it was argued and succeeded that the sign was taken down because of the interpretation that it was promoting drug use and not an excercise for free speech.

And? He says the intention was to use free speech. That's what matters.

attending the olympic flame was a school sponsored event. the students were there as a school/class.

So all the adults there were also attending school? Was the torch runner?

The conservative Supreme Court is just as bad as the liberal Supreme Court. Both do their absolute utmost to strip us of our rights. To choose one evil over another is to fall into the polarizing trap that most of America has fallen into.

Make your vote count!
Ron Paul '08!

Ron Paul: The Republican's Mike Gravel

I believe it was a school sanctioned field trip. In fact, there really is, to my knowledge, no such thing as "you can leave to go there".

During school hours the school is repsonsible, and therefore are responsible for what happens to students outside of school but during school hours. Letting students just leave to go attend something by themselves is a massive liability, and as long as there was a school official there, the school power was extended to the event.

That always irked me as a kid - that the school had technical control of your activities during school hours regardless where you were, including all time spent walking to/from school. Luckily, I was one of 5000 students at my high school, so enforcement never really happened. :p

The US govermrnt makes no sense to me.

Well, ok, all governments make no sense to me. That does not make US any better though.

What has stricken me so far is the concurrence of Justice Thomas (pages 19-31 of the pdf). He holds that students have no right to free speech whatsoever and he would overturn all the prior SCOTUS cases that have protected a limited right of free speech for students. He literally argues that students DO check their constitutional rights at the school door. Here is a quote:

As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford
students a right to free speech in public schools.
III
In light of the history of American public education, it
cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment
“freedom of speech” encompasses a student’s right to
speak in public schools. Early public schools gave total
control to teachers, who expected obedience and respect
from students. And courts routinely deferred to schools’
authority to make rules and to discipline students for
violating those rules.

I think this is dangerous thinking and an example of how out-to-lunch Justice Thomas is.

Here's the thing about Thomas--he's consistent. He's ridiculous in his adherence to originalism, but he's consistent, as opposed to Scalia who'll read whatever the fuck he wants to into the Constitution in order to get the result he desires.

Of course, they all missed the irony in releasing two seemingly contradictory opinions on the same day--corporations have a right to political speech, but students don't.

This case was particularly egregious because the principal suspended a kid for doing something when he wasn't on school grounds. So high schoolers--careful what you write on your Facebook pages or Live Journals or MySpace--principal might be able to come after you now, thanks to this ruling.

Oh, and one last thing. If you voted for Bush in 2004, you don't get to bitch about this kind of shit, hear me?

And? He says the intention was to use free speech. That's what matters.

No, it really isn't. It doesn't matter if my intention is to use free speech, it advocated illegal activities. Bong hits are illegal. Would it matter if he was intending to use free speech if he'd said "kill the principal"? I mean, so what if he's inciting a crime so long as he INTENDED to use free speech.

So all the adults there were also attending school? Was the torch runner?

Deliberately obtuse. I went on a field trip to the museum in school. The school was responsible for me and I was required to follow school rules. I was literally considered in school. There were however lots of people not considered to be in school with me.

I believe it was a school sanctioned field trip.

Yeah, reading through the beginning of the decision makes that pretty clear, although the student in question showed up late for school - just in time for the event, apparently. He might have found a legal loophole for the banner if he had claimed to be skipping school. Of course, then he would have been suspended for skipping..... hehe

In fact, there really is, to my knowledge, no such thing as "you can leave to go there".

I'm fairly certain there is. I know that the schools I attended sometimes let out early because of public events or certain exam schedules, but did not necessarily require students to attend them. Students who were old enough to generally leave on their own were simply let out and students who were not either had parents pick them up or were supervised at the school until normal school hours were over.

On one or two occasions, students were actually bussed home early, but that was due to weather conditions, not events that students may want to attend.


This case was particularly egregious because the principal suspended a kid for doing something when he wasn't on school grounds.

If the school takes a student to a museum, and that student misbehaves, does the school suddenly have no authority to punish him for that action?

If this had occurred after school, I'd think it was bullshit. But it happened at an event during school hours, where students were being supervised by teachers and school administrators.

So high schoolers--careful what you write on your Facebook pages or Live Journals or MySpace--principal might be able to come after you now, thanks to this ruling.

This ruling doesn't open students up to that in any way, shape, or form. If the student were to display their webpages on school grounds or at school events, they might have problems. But this decision says nothing about what students do outside of school events.

Ah, Thomas. Why do his opinions (concurring or dissenting) always seem to start with attacks on any and all precedent (even dating back to the very earliest SC cases)?

Deliberately obtuse. I went on a field trip to the museum in school. The school was responsible for me and I was required to follow school rules. I was literally considered in school. There were however lots of people not considered to be in school with me.

But he had not even attended school that day. Say I take the day off because I have a doctor's appointment, I didn't go on the field trip, I never signed a permission slip, etc. Still, I go to the museum the school went to, and, seperate from them, I punch a student. Do they have authority over me? No more than the man next to me.

Not deliberately obtuse. There's no different between a student not attending school and another person before the school.

But he had not even attended school that day.

According to the decision, he was late for school. It isn't that he wasn't going to school, but is instead that he showed up late and thus went straight to the event.

Meanwhile, if the student was not attending school, he could have received the suspension for skipping school, so he's still screwed.

Say I take the day off because I have a doctor's appointment, I didn't go on the field trip, I never signed a permission slip, etc. Still, I go to the museum the school went to, and, seperate from them, I punch a student. Do they have authority over me? No more than the man next to me.

This is more like, "I show up late for school and my class has already gone to the museum. I go to the museum and join my classmates. I then punch a student." And yes, in that case, the school would have authority over you, both for the action of punching the student and the fact that you were tardy.

But he had not even attended school that day. Say I take the day off because I have a doctor's appointment, I didn't go on the field trip, I never signed a permission slip, etc. Still, I go to the museum the school went to, and, seperate from them, I punch a student. Do they have authority over me? No more than the man next to me.

Not deliberately obtuse. There's no different between a student not attending school and another person before the school.

You're wrong. He had attended school. He was simply late. He was with the school-sponsored field trip.

Your doctor's appt doesn't befit your name. It's not kinda sensible since it reflects nothing even remotely similar to what happened here.

This kid was with a school field trip. Trying to suggest otherwise is deliberately obtuse.

But he had not even attended school that day.
he did (http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/index.html).

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

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

Now 24, he told reporters in March that he displayed the banner in a deliberate attempt to provoke a response from principal Morse, so not an excercise of free speech. you can thank the decision because of his actions.

Say I take the day off because I have a doctor's appointment, I didn't go on the field trip, I never signed a permission slip, etc. Still, I go to the museum the school went to, and, seperate from them, I punch a student. Do they have authority over me? No more than the man next to me.you're right, now show me where he had a doctors notice to not attend school... oh wait... he didn't... he was at school...

Not deliberately obtuse. There's no different between a student not attending school and another person before the school.but he was at school and he was part of the school sanctioned event. you cannot deny that.

Technically, (and this is very technical) I do not think the Constitution gives rights to minors. They're not completely citizens. On the other hand, there have been years of laws, trials, and Supreme Court (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html) decisions that have insured they have rights. But they still can't vote, run for office, etc.
On the other hand, I doubt he was doing this to express an actual opinion; I think he was doing it to be a stupid smart aleck, which is certainly not illegal, but very different from arm bands for fallen soldiers. I guess the decision depends on whether he was with the school or not, but I don't know enough about the incident to say.

By the by, I have heard public schools are still allowed to carry out corporeal punishment, most just (wisely) decide not to. Can anyone verify/dispel that rumor?

Just read the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick) on this.
Apparently the olympic thing was passing by his school and the teachers let the students go outside to watch it. He was late to school and immediately went to the bong hits for jesus sign without going on school grounds.
Pretty smart, really. He avoids the suspension for skipping school for the whole day, and if he won the case, he would have avoided the suspension for the sign.

By the by, I have heard public schools are still allowed to carry out corporeal punishment, most just (wisely) decide not to. Can anyone verify/dispel that rumor?

Eh. Striking a student generally gets you fired, I believe.

You're wrong. He had attended school. He was simply late. He was with the school-sponsored field trip.

Your doctor's appt doesn't befit your name. It's not kinda sensible since it reflects nothing even remotely similar to what happened here.

This kid was with a school field trip. Trying to suggest otherwise is deliberately obtuse.

Yeah he was late. He came on school grounds after he showed the sign (and had it confiscated and got suspended).
He was not with a school field trip, he was across the street from the school.

By the by, I have heard public schools are still allowed to carry out corporeal punishment, most just (wisely) decide not to. Can anyone verify/dispel that rumor?

It was true about 10 years ago where I went to school. However, it could only be done if the parents of the student gave permission. From my understanding, permission was rarely asked and even more rarely granted, so there was very little corporal punishment used.

Yeah he was late. He came on school grounds after he showed the sign (and had it confiscated and got suspended).
He was not with a school field trip, he was across the street from the school.

Being late for school doesn't mean that you aren't at school. If a student's class was going to a museum, and he was late for school and went straight to the museum, he would still be on a field trip.

Likewise, this student showed up late for school and ended up, instead, at a school-sanctioned and supervised event occurring right outside the school. He was just as much under the authority of the school as he would have been if they had been in class.

By the by, I have heard public schools are still allowed to carry out corporeal punishment, most just (wisely) decide not to. Can anyone verify/dispel that rumor?

I think it's still legal in a couple unenlightened southern states. Texas, for one, if I remember right.

Yeah he was late. He came on school grounds after he showed the sign (and had it confiscated and got suspended).
He was not with a school field trip, he was across the street from the school.

At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating“BONG HiTS 4 JESUS,” which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down the banner. When one of the students who had brought the banner to the event—respondent Frederick—refused.

He was at school. He refused to comply when asked to take down the banner. It's really simple. Additionally from the decision:

Frederick’s argument that this is not a school speech case is rejected. The event in question occurred during normal school hoursand was sanctioned by Morse as an approved social event at which the district’s student-conduct rules expressly applied. Teachers and administrators were among the students and were charged with supervising them. Frederick stood among other students across the street from the school and directed his banner toward the school, making it plainly visible to most students. Under these circumstances, Frederick cannot claim he was not at school.

By the by, I have heard public schools are still allowed to carry out corporeal punishment, most just (wisely) decide not to. Can anyone verify/dispel that rumor?

Only 27 states ban corporal punishment in schools.

It was true about 10 years ago where I went to school. However, it could only be done if the parents of the student gave permission. From my understanding, permission was rarely asked and even more rarely granted, so there was very little corporal punishment used.

Any parent who gives people the right to hit their child shouldn't be a parent.

he did (http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/index.html).

And the teachers were wrong. He was not a student at the time that the suspension was handed out. He was a private citizen. They can say whatever they want, they are dead fucking wrong. They have no power over non-students, and, at that point, he was a non-student.

so not an excercise of free speech. you can thank the decision because of his actions.

Yup. Just because he was attempting to get a response from the principal doesn't make it not free speech. A protest is an attempt to get a response, too. Does that make a protest not free speach?

you're right, now show me where he had a doctors notice to not attend school... oh wait... he didn't... he was at school...

No! He had not attended school yet at that point. Get it in your fucking head that a student is not a student when they are not at school. He had not been admitted to class, nor been marked as attending school and he was therefore not a student at that point.

but he was at school and he was part of the school sanctioned event. you cannot deny that.

I can and do.

Just read the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick) on this.
Apparently the olympic thing was passing by his school and the teachers let the students go outside to watch it.which doesn't disprove a "School sanctioned event" the students were expected and did return to class after the olympic flame passed.

He was late to school and immediately went to the bong hits for jesus sign without going on school grounds.being LATE still means he was there at school. also, if you read your wiki page, he brought the sign with him and he and his friends waited for the cameras before unfurling it. which means he knew that they would be outside watching the olympic flame pass. So even tho he was late, he still planned on and did, participated in a school sactioned event.
Pretty smart, really. He avoids the suspension for skipping school for the whole day, and if he won the case, he would have avoided the suspension for the sign.he didn't skip school the whole day. and he was stupid because he admitted the real reason why he displayed the banner was to provoke the prinicpal who disciplined him earlier.

Now 24, he told reporters in March that he displayed the banner in a deliberate attempt to provoke a response from principal Morse, by whom he had been disciplined previously.

And the teachers were wrong. He was not a student at the time that the suspension was handed out. He was a private citizen. They can say whatever they want, they are dead fucking wrong. They have no power over non-students, and, at that point, he was a non-student. He Graduated before he did the banner thing? show proof please.

Yup. Just because he was attempting to get a response from the principal doesn't make it not free speech. A protest is an attempt to get a response, too. Does that make a protest not free speach? nope. re examine the first amendment. I believe even the Cat Tribe will say that if he admitted to doing it just to provoke a response from the prinicpal, then it's not protected.

No! He had not attended school yet at that point. Get it in your fucking head that a student is not a student when they are not at school. He had not been admitted to class, nor been marked as attending school and he was therefore not a student at that point.LOL! funny definition of Student... to bad the real world doesn't agree with you.

if he was ejected from school, or dropped out of school, then I would agree with you. but he wasn't which means, he was still a student who, even arriving late, participated in a school sanctioned event.

He Graduated before he did the banner thing? show proof please.

No, but your status as a student only applies on school grounds. The school can't do jack shit to you when you aren't on school grounds.

nope. re examine the first amendment. I believe even the Cat Tribe will say that if he admitted to doing it just to provoke a response from the prinicpal, then it's not protected.

But he was just protesting. Will you take away the right to protest as well?

LOL! funny definition of Student... to bad the real world doesn't agree with you.

Oh good argument, Junii! "The world doesn't agree with you". That has real substance.

if he was ejected from school, or dropped out of school, then I would agree with you. but he wasn't which means, he was still a student who, even arriving late, participated in a school sanctioned event.

No, he was not. He had not been marked as attending school and he was not on school grounds. He was not a student at the time that the punishment was issued, and therefore the school was outside of it's jurisdiction. Were adults at that event who were not affiliated with the school students? If one of them had been waving a sign, would they have been suspended from work? This is nonsense.

No, but your status as a student only applies on school grounds. The school can't do jack shit to you when you aren't on school grounds.wrong, your status as a student applies to when an Educational institution or system accepts you. as long as that school accepts you as a current attendee, you can call yourself and be considered a student.

But he was just protesting. Will you take away the right to protest as well?what was he protesting?

Oh good argument, Junii! "The world doesn't agree with you". That has real substance. prove your point that a student is only someone who is Physically at an education center/environment?

No, he was not. He had not been marked as attending school and he was not on school grounds. He was not a student at the time that the punishment was issued, and therefore the school was outside of it's jurisdiction. back it up. please show proof of this. please show that he was marked absent. please also show he was marked as a "Non-Student"

Were adults at that event who were not affiliated with the school students? back to this argument again... you seem to like repeating strawmen.
the adults who are not accepted nor acknowledged as being attendees of the educational institution are not students nor faculty.
If one of them had been waving a sign, would they have been suspended from work? This is nonsense.if their workplace had a policy in place (that they would've been informed of when they were hired) yes, the company can take steps and actions that the company deems fit.

wrong, your status as a student applies to when an Educational institution or system accepts you. as long as that school accepts you as a current attendee, you can call yourself and be considered a student.

Not in front of the school body. Should a public school be able to punish you for protesting off of school grounds? Is it acceptable that a school be able punish a student for saying rude things about the administration off of school grounds? He is only a student when he is acting in the role of a student, and he was not, at that moment.

what was he protesting?

The behavior of the administration, it would appear.

prove your point that a student is only someone who is Physically at an education center/environment?

You're the one making the affirmative argument that a student should be under the control of their school at all time.

back it up. please show proof of this. please show that he was marked absent. please also show he was marked as a "Non-Student"

He was late and he had not been to class. That means that he had not yet attained student status.

back to this argument again... you seem to like repeating strawmen.
the adults who are not accepted nor acknowledged as being attendees of the educational institution are not students nor faculty.
if their workplace had a policy in place (that they would've been informed of when they were hired) yes, the company can take steps and actions that the company deems fit.

It's not a strawman, it's an extension of your logic. Merely because someone is under the age of 18 does not mean that their school is alowed to control every aspect of their private life.

I'm not sure it's really the purpose of a public school to be a forum for students' political beliefs. That was the understanding I always had when in school - everyone has their opinion, but school hours are for school. As long as school officials don't try and follow students home, I'm fine with the classroom being apolitical. I'm not advocating that position simply because that's how it was when I was in school, however - that's just my recollection. ;)

Yeah, when I transferred out-of-province smack dab in the middle of high school, it was from a hotbed of political interest and activity to an apolitical, consumerite playground. Phooey. What a letdown that was.

but he was at school and he was part of the school sanctioned event. you cannot deny that.
Reread this:
Though he was standing on a public sidewalk, the school argued Frederick was part of a school-sanctioned event, because students were let out of classes and accompanied by their teachers.
There's two parts to that statement that should have made the Court at least pause. Public sidewalk, and school argued. There is no question that it was a public sidewalk, and there is only the school's claim that it was a school event. Certainly there is some room for argument as to whether or not that was the case. Given those circumstances, the Court should have ruled on the side of greater freedom of speech, not less.

And let's get something else straight--"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" has no semantic meaning. It is certainly not advocating anything, as "bong hits" is a noun in this phrase, and there is no verb in the construction. To advocate an action requires that one suggest action, and there is no suggestion in the phrase. Grammatically, the phrase states that bong hits are in support of Jesus--not that someone is advocating that people do bong hits in praise of Jesus (which oddly enough, would be protected under freedom of religion, I believe).

Here's what it comes down to--the five Justices decided that an anti-drug position was more important than a student's free speech rights. That's it. Now, if you agree with it, fine, but let's not hide behind any other sophistry.

Not in front of the school body. Should a public school be able to punish you for protesting off of school grounds? Is it acceptable that a school be able punish a student for saying rude things about the administration off of school grounds? He is only a student when he is acting in the role of a student, and he was not, at that moment.but if he's still a student, and he joins in on a school sanctioned event, then yes, he's a student and still liable under their rules as long as any ONE of these apply while the school still accepts him as part of their institution.
1) He's their responsiblity
2) He's on their property
3) He's attending an official School Sanctioned activity

is he enrolled in the school? yes.
was he on their property? (depends since some property laws extend to the curb, so even being outside the walls, he could be considered on school property.)
Was he participating in a school sanctioned function? yes.


The behavior of the administration, it would appear."it would appear", so his sign wasn't clear to you that he was PROTESTING anything. Even he first claimed that it was an excercise in FREE SPEECH and not a protest.

You're the one making the affirmative argument that a student should be under the control of their school at all time.nope, I only said that school rules applied because he attened a school sanctioned event with his classmates while he was still a student at the school.

you're claiming that he was not a student because he didn't sit down in class before the event that day. so, back it up.

He was late and he had not been to class. That means that he had not yet attained student status.actually, stretching it to match your definition of student, the moment he joined his friends outside, he "joined his class." the class was moved outside to watch the Olympic flame, by standing next to them, he "joined his class" and became a student.

otherwise, he was late, meaning his purpose was to attend school and thus he has student status.


It's not a strawman, it's an extension of your logic. Merely because someone is under the age of 18 does not mean that their school is alowed to control every aspect of their private life. and the school doesn't control every aspect of his private life.

Had they done this on the weekend, where he and his friends at their own choosing, and not part of the school/class, held up that banner for the cameras to see, then yes, the school can't do anything since it happened outside a sanctioned school event. even if they stood outside their school (and not within it's walls) and held that sign.

However, they choose to do this during a school sanctioned event, a school he is apart of, which gave the principal the right to the actions she took.

No, but your status as a student only applies on school grounds.

Failed.

Ah NSG, the only place in the world where 17 year old high school students try to pretend they know more about law than lawyers.

Reread this:and the second part nazz... a school sanctioned event.

There's two parts to that statement that should have made the Court at least pause. Public sidewalk, and school argued. There is no question that it was a public sidewalk, and there is only the school's claim that it was a school event. Certainly there is some room for argument as to whether or not that was the case. Given those circumstances, the Court should have ruled on the side of greater freedom of speech, not less.but seeing that it was a school sanctioned event, the school and by proxy, the principal and faculty, had the right to their actions.

And let's get something else straight--"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" has no semantic meaning. It is certainly not advocating anything, as "bong hits" is a noun in this phrase, and there is no verb in the construction. To advocate an action requires that one suggest action, and there is no suggestion in the phrase. Grammatically, the phrase states that bong hits are in support of Jesus--not that someone is advocating that people do bong hits in praise of Jesus (which oddly enough, would be protected under freedom of religion, I believe).and the argument the school made (not me) is that the "Bong Hits" is supporting drug use. and if you read, the subject of the sign isn't what is currently being argued. the status of "student" is.

Here's what it comes down to--the five Justices decided that an anti-drug position was more important than a student's free speech rights. That's it. Now, if you agree with it, fine, but let's not hide behind any other sophistry.and you're supporting an act of revenge falls under 'Free Speech' since the "student" now admits that he made that sign to provoke the principal because the principal disciplined him earlier.

It's not a strawman, it's an extension of your logic. Merely because someone is under the age of 18 does not mean that their school is alowed to control every aspect of their private life.

Ah irony.

I remember one time this girl had a "Jesus is the reason for this season!" around Christmas, probably due to that whole war on Christmas bullshit going around. I tried explaining to her that the rotation of the earth around the sun was the reason for the season, but she wouldn't go for it.
I hate to nitpick, but it's the Earth tilting on its axis and not its revolution around the sun that's the reason for the season. ;)

You basically read Clarence Thomas's mind.


Evolving societies like ours should not take away more rights the older it gets. It should grant more rights, as it becomes more mature as a society.

And obviously, the young man in question (later arrested for selling marijuana, which one can in fact smoke in a bong) did not know what a bong was, did not know that a bong hit meant inhaling from a bong, and did not realize that the speech in question, displayed at a school sponsored event, would be construed as advocating drug speech.

I'm not happy with the decision, but this is HARDLY an example of being mature.

I'm not happy with the decision, but this is HARDLY an example of being mature.

I believe he was referring to society, not the boy in question.

and the second part nazz... a school sanctioned event.

but seeing that it was a school sanctioned event, the school and by proxy, the principal and faculty, had the right to their actions.What part of "school argues" didn't you understand? Just because the school argues something doesn't make it so, and I think there more than enough room for debate on the subject.

and the argument the school made (not me) is that the "Bong Hits" is supporting drug use. and if you read, the subject of the sign isn't what is currently being argued. the status of "student" is.And that argument is, as I pointed out, false. And from what I read, it was as much the Justice who wrote the decision as the school who made such a ridiculous interpretation of the sign. I'm no lawyer, but I am a teacher of English and grammar, and I think I've made a pretty solid case that the sign said nothing close to what SCOTUS said it did. The status of the student shouldn't even matter, as Tinker should have covered it. These Justices felt otherwise, but they had to contort the rules of logic to make it happen.

and you're supporting an act of revenge falls under 'Free Speech' since the "student" now admits that he made that sign to provoke the principal because the principal disciplined him earlier.
Language that provokes a reaction should be covered under the First Amendment--it should be the most protected, as a matter of fact. It's not like this kid was trying to incite a riot--he was trying to get a rise out of an authority figure. Well fuck, man,--are you going to make all satire illegal as well? Are you going to ban sarcasm? Good luck with that. You're damn right I support the kid and the sign, and I think the principal needs a swift rhetorical kick in the ass for being such so uptight.

And obviously, the young man in question (later arrested for selling marijuana, which one can in fact smoke in a bong) did not know what a bong was, did not know that a bong hit meant inhaling from a bong, and did not realize that the speech in question, displayed at a school sponsored event, would be construed as advocating drug speech.

I'm not happy with the decision, but this is HARDLY an example of being mature.

Parse the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" for me, Kat. You're a teacher. How does that phrase advocate for anything? There's no verb in it.

What part of "school argues" didn't you understand? Just because the school argues something doesn't make it so, and I think there more than enough room for debate on the subject.

I have to agree with JuNii on this one, it was a school event. Teachers were there sheapherding the kids arround. It might have been off school grounds, but it would be the same for a student getting detention for breaking school rules at an athletic event.

It was during school hours. Teachers were there to keep an eye on the students. Students were not released from school, but just given permission to watch this. He was a student at the time and so on.

If it happened after school hours and after class had been dismissed, he would have a case. But he was under school jurisdiction.

Parse the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" for me, Kat. You're a teacher. How does that phrase advocate for anything? There's no verb in it.
Nazz, that's a really silly argument. You could say that "Obama for President" doesn't advocate anything either and therefore could be banned as it's not political in any sense.

Parse the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" for me, Kat. You're a teacher. How does that phrase advocate for anything? There's no verb in it.

no parsing required.

if the banner had only said "bong hits" its drug associated language would have been enough to allow the school to act

perhaps even if all it said was BONG

sad isnt it? we cant possibly allow our teens free speech. what if they started THINKING for god's sake?

but if he's still a student, and he joins in on a school sanctioned event, then yes, he's a student and still liable under their rules as long as any ONE of these apply while the school still accepts him as part of their institution.
1) He's their responsiblity
2) He's on their property
3) He's attending an official School Sanctioned activity

is he enrolled in the school? yes.
was he on their property? (depends since some property laws extend to the curb, so even being outside the walls, he could be considered on school property.)
Was he participating in a school sanctioned function? yes.


"it would appear", so his sign wasn't clear to you that he was PROTESTING anything. Even he first claimed that it was an excercise in FREE SPEECH and not a protest.

nope, I only said that school rules applied because he attened a school sanctioned event with his classmates while he was still a student at the school.

you're claiming that he was not a student because he didn't sit down in class before the event that day. so, back it up.

actually, stretching it to match your definition of student, the moment he joined his friends outside, he "joined his class." the class was moved outside to watch the Olympic flame, by standing next to them, he "joined his class" and became a student.

otherwise, he was late, meaning his purpose was to attend school and thus he has student status.


and the school doesn't control every aspect of his private life.

Had they done this on the weekend, where he and his friends at their own choosing, and not part of the school/class, held up that banner for the cameras to see, then yes, the school can't do anything since it happened outside a sanctioned school event. even if they stood outside their school (and not within it's walls) and held that sign.

However, they choose to do this during a school sanctioned event, a school he is apart of, which gave the principal the right to the actions she took.

I don't know whether it is significant in THIS case, but many schools are surrounded by what they call a "drug-free zone". Attempts to buy, sell, or to induce students to get involved in drugs within this area around the school is in these places usually met with swift penalties.

What part of "school argues" didn't you understand? Just because the school argues something doesn't make it so, and I think there more than enough room for debate on the subject.

The school's argument is pretty damn compelling. The students were escorted out of their classes by teachers specifically to attend this event. They were supervised by their teachers and school administrators while there. They were then escorted back to their classrooms to finish out the school day. The argument that the boy was "not at school" and thus not under the authority of the school because he was on the sidewalk with the rest of the school is equivalent to arguing that a student who goes to the museum with his class is "not at school" and is thus not under the authority of the school. There go all school field trips....

The only way he could possibly claim not to have been "at school" is if he claims he was skipping school, which, interestingly enough, STILL places him under the authority of the school and still warrants punishment by the school.

And that argument is, as I pointed out, false. And from what I read, it was as much the Justice who wrote the decision as the school who made such a ridiculous interpretation of the sign.

You're right. The phrase "bong hits" has nothing whatsoever to do with doing drugs. :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter if the sign didn't have "proper grammar." In fact, most such signs don't. My friends, at a Pride event this past weekend, saw someone holding a sign that said "Homo sex = sin." Another one just said, "No homo sex." Obviously, these were just nonsense signs, eh?

I'm no lawyer, but I am a teacher of English and grammar, and I think I've made a pretty solid case that the sign said nothing close to what SCOTUS said it did.

No, you haven't.

The status of the student shouldn't even matter, as Tinker should have covered it. These Justices felt otherwise, but they had to contort the rules of logic to make it happen.

Tinker isn't even the most recent precedent to have bearing on the case, my dear.

Parse the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" for me, Kat. You're a teacher. How does that phrase advocate for anything? There's no verb in it.

LOL. Well, it would suggest, actually, that the students holding the sign were offering bong hits for Jesus. I pass signs all the time that say things like 'Yard Sale". I suppose these are equally meaningless because they have no verb?

I really don't understand America, why is it that the President appointed ideologically allied judges, it just seems to be in total contradiction to an impartial judiciary.

Parse the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" for me, Kat. You're a teacher. How does that phrase advocate for anything? There's no verb in it.

Well, shucks, you take a hit off a bong, and you can ask someone if they want a bong hit.

4 is obviously a replacement for the preposition for.

Hmm, let's see, if we were to replace it with "Bitch Slaps 4 Hoes" would you argue that there is not a message there advocating violence against women?

As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford
students a right to free speech in public schools.
III
In light of the history of American public education, it
cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment
“freedom of speech” encompasses a student’s right to
speak in public schools. Early public schools gave total
control to teachers, who expected obedience and respect
from students. And courts routinely deferred to schools’
authority to make rules and to discipline students for
violating those rules.


What a douche.

Well, shucks, you take a hit off a bong, and you can ask someone if they want a bong hit.

4 is obviously a replacement for the preposition for.

Hmm, let's see, if we were to replace it with "Bitch Slaps 4 Hoes" would you argue that there is not a message there advocating violence against women?

Well, technically whores, which could also include men (the "bitch" part used to further degrade them), but its intention is obvious.

no parsing required.

if the banner had only said "bong hits" its drug associated language would have been enough to allow the school to act

perhaps even if all it said was BONG

sad isnt it? we cant possibly allow our teens free speech. what if they started THINKING for god's sake?

According to the decision, it would not be permissable to ban all drug-related speech. If, for instance, the sign had said, "Bong hits should be legal," it would have been protected speech.

Well, technically whores, which could also include men (the "bitch" part used to further degrade them), but its intention is obvious.

;) According to some rappers, ALL women are whores. But if we accept that "bitch slap" is a noun describing a particular blow (as opposed to "pimp slap", for instance) then grammatically, both sentences are identical.

According to the decision, it would not be permissable to ban all drug-related speech. If, for instance, the sign had said, "Bong hits should be legal," it would have been protected speech.

you mean its not protected if it doesnt make sense?

thats stupid.

but without that understanding it still makes my "bing hits" and "bong" actionable.

Well, shucks, you take a hit off a bong, and you can ask someone if they want a bong hit.

4 is obviously a replacement for the preposition for.

Hmm, let's see, if we were to replace it with "Bitch Slaps 4 Hoes" would you argue that there is not a message there advocating violence against women?

I would, because the grammatical reading of that phrase would be "bitch slaps support hoes"--that's how the 4 (or for) is being used in that phrase. It's a personification of the term "bitch slaps." That's why the sign made no sense grammatically, and why, frankly, the principal was an idiot for getting tweezed about it. If the principal had been smart, he/she could have used it as a teaching moment to explain why you shouldn't be high while writing your protest signs.

What if you went around with a banner reading 'All conservative judges should be shot'?

Whats wrong with advocating that Jesus smoke pot? Jesus is a grown man that can make his own decisions.

According to the decision, it would not be permissable to ban all drug-related speech. If, for instance, the sign had said, "Bong hits should be legal," it would have been protected speech.

Which makes the decision even more ridiculous--nonsense speech isn't protected? Somebody tell Dubya's speechwriters.

but if he's still a student, and he joins in on a school sanctioned event, then yes, he's a student and still liable under their rules as long as any ONE of these apply while the school still accepts him as part of their institution.
1) He's their responsiblity
2) He's on their property
3) He's attending an official School Sanctioned activity

is he enrolled in the school? yes.
was he on their property? (depends since some property laws extend to the curb, so even being outside the walls, he could be considered on school property.)
Was he participating in a school sanctioned function? yes.

So as an out of class activity, I'm assigned to go to watch a speach. The speaker is someone I dissagree with, and I heckle. The Principal is also there. You're saying that this Principal can suspend me?

Bull-fucking-shit.

"it would appear", so his sign wasn't clear to you that he was PROTESTING anything. Even he first claimed that it was an excercise in FREE SPEECH and not a protest.

That's a strawman and you know it. Free Speech and protest go hand in hand. It would appear because I don't fucking read minds. Don't be a hypocrite.

nope, I only said that school rules applied because he attened a school sanctioned event with his classmates while he was still a student at the school.

you're claiming that he was not a student because he didn't sit down in class before the event that day. so, back it up.

Actually, I'm saying that a student is a person attending a school, and that at that moment he was not attending school, and that claiming that he was is just stretching the law to give hyperventillating assholes more power over him.

actually, stretching it to match your definition of student, the moment he joined his friends outside, he "joined his class." the class was moved outside to watch the Olympic flame, by standing next to them, he "joined his class" and became a student.

otherwise, he was late, meaning his purpose was to attend school and thus he has student status.

Now, it may have been some time since you've attended school, Junii, but you'll remember that when you got to class, you were marked as being present or not-present, and that if you were late, you were marked at having become present. Since he never did either of these things, he was not present, and therefore, the school had no authority over him.

So as an out of class activity, I'm assigned to go to watch a speach. The speaker is someone I dissagree with, and I heckle. The Principal is also there. You're saying that this Principal can suspend me?

Bull-fucking-shit.

*snip of pointless profanity and dick waving*

Your posts are incredibly annoying. Especially since you've been handed your ass on numerous occasions already.

But hey, go hard, Mr. Armchair lawyer.

you mean its not protected if it doesnt make sense?

thats stupid.

but without that understanding it still makes my "bing hits" and "bong" actionable.

No, it isn't protected if it can reasonably be seen as advocating illegal drug use. "Bong hits should be legal" cannot be construed that way. It is quite clearly a political statement that what is now illegal should be legal.

Equivalently, he could not have held up a sign that says, "Try meth!" He could, alternatively, have held up a sign that said, 'Meth should be legal."


I would, because the grammatical reading of that phrase would be "bitch slaps support hoes"--that's how the 4 (or for) is being used in that phrase.

Really? So, if I say, "Presents for you," that means, "Presents support you?"

Which makes the decision even more ridiculous--nonsense speech isn't protected? Somebody tell Dubya's speechwriters.

As you well know, it isn't "nonsense speech" any more than most of the signs people hold up are "nonsense speech". Poor grammar is not equivalent to "nonsense."

In fact, if it had been complete nonsense - for instance, if it had said, "Gogle Bargle Goo!", it would not have been a problem.

Failed.

Ah NSG, the only place in the world where 17 year old high school students try to pretend they know more about law than lawyers.

That's nice. When you choose to provide information, rather than basking in your superiority complex and making personal attacks, I might lend some credence to what you say. Until such a time, maybe you've merely been out of your mother's care long enough to forget to practice the saying, "If you've nothing worthwhile to say, say nothing." I suggest getting back into practice.

I would, because the grammatical reading of that phrase would be "bitch slaps support hoes"--that's how the 4 (or for) is being used in that phrase. It's a personification of the term "bitch slaps." That's why the sign made no sense grammatically, and why, frankly, the principal was an idiot for getting tweezed about it. If the principal had been smart, he/she could have used it as a teaching moment to explain why you shouldn't be high while writing your protest signs.

Hmm.

Dog food for dogs. Is that support?

Bong hits for Jesus.
Another interpretation we could make is that the hits off the bong belonged to Jesus -- that he was taking them.

So as an out of class activity, I'm assigned to go to watch a speach. The speaker is someone I dissagree with, and I heckle. The Principal is also there. You're saying that this Principal can suspend me?

If this is a school-sponsored event and the students were escorted there by their teachers on school time? Absolutely.

Actually, I'm saying that a student is a person attending a school, and that at that moment he was not attending school, and that claiming that he was is just stretching the law to give hyperventillating assholes more power over him.

He was attending school just as any student on a field trip or other school-sanctioned event during school time is. I suppose he could claim that he was skipping school (a claim he has not made), but that would be just as actionable.

Now, it may have been some time since you've attended school, Junii, but you'll remember that when you got to class, you were marked as being present or not-present, and that if you were late, you were marked at having become present.

What if the teacher didn't have her book on her at the time? Does that mean that you aren't "present" until she gets it out and marks it?

Since he never did either of these things, he was not present, and therefore, the school had no authority over him.

Yes, he did. He got to class. He joined his class in the activity they were currently participating in.

The only way he could be seen as "not at school" is if he was skipping school. He could have been at school, and he voluntarily wasn't. As such, he still falls under the authority of the school, although their punishment would have to be for that.

Of course, the student has never made the claim that he was skipping school.

So as an out of class activity, I'm assigned to go to watch a speach. The speaker is someone I dissagree with, and I heckle. The Principal is also there. You're saying that this Principal can suspend me?

Bull-fucking-shit.
Depends. Were you on school time? Were you assigned to THIS particular speech along with your classmates? Are their school rules about being respectful during speeches? If yes, then yes.

Actually, I'm saying that a student is a person attending a school, and that at that moment he was not attending school, and that claiming that he was is just stretching the law to give hyperventillating assholes more power over him.
Attending school does not mean physical presense at the school. My students do not magically cease to be students and are removed from the school rolls the minute they step off school grounds. They are still enrolled at the school I teach at. Further more, should we leave school grounds on a school event, they are still my responcibility and are under school rules.

When my kids went to visit Kyoto, they went as students and had to obey the teachers assigned to them.

Now, it may have been some time since you've attended school, Junii, but you'll remember that when you got to class, you were marked as being present or not-present, and that if you were late, you were marked at having become present. Since he never did either of these things, he was not present, and therefore, the school had no authority over him.
Balloney. The school as athority over its students during school hours. If not, we could not have truency laws. He was not taken out of school by his parents/guardians. He was enrolled at the school at that time, AND he joined the school group at the torch relay. He was under the authority of the school.

It's interesting...in Canada, freedom of expression is protected by the Charter...but the message itself it utterly irrelevant. The medium is the issue. It wouldn't matter what he had said on the banner here...the constitutionality of the message would have ignored the words, and focused on the banner alone.

If this is a school-sponsored event and the students were escorted there by their teachers on school time? Absolutely.

But he was not escorted there by a teacher, nor was he in a class at the time it began.

He was attending school just as any student on a field trip or other school-sanctioned event during school time is. I suppose he could claim that he was skipping school (a claim he has not made), but that would be just as actionable.

Okay, so he was skipping school. Let me pose another hypothetical situation, then:

A class goes to a museum. A student does not attend school that day, and instead drives themselves to the museum and pays to enter. Are you saying that that student is on the Field Trip?

The only way he could be seen as "not at school" is if he was skipping school. He could have been at school, and he voluntarily wasn't. As such, he still falls under the authority of the school, although their punishment would have to be for that.

Of course, the student has never made the claim that he was skipping school.

But he was skipping school, whether or not he claims he was. That's exactly what the precedent from this case says: that when you are skipping school, if an administrator from your school sees you saying something against school rules, they can suspend you.

Really? So, if I say, "Presents for you," that means, "Presents support you?"Spoken language communicates more than simple words on a piece of paper, so the comparison isn't apt. But I'll play along--if you were to say those words in an absolute monotone, with no hand gestures or anything else to indicate that you were providing me with presents, or that you were the conduit through which presents were making their way to me, then yes, "presents support you" would be a reasonable, though confusing, way to understand the phrase. And that's my point--the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is a nonsensical phrase--it doesn't mean anything. You have to want to read a pro-drug message into it to see it, because it's not there on its own.


As you well know, it isn't "nonsense speech" any more than most of the signs people hold up are "nonsense speech". Poor grammar is not equivalent to "nonsense."

In fact, if it had been complete nonsense - for instance, if it had said, "Gogle Bargle Goo!", it would not have been a problem.

It's as nonsensical as saying "God cat pan-galactic gargle blaster." It doesn't have a message unless you want it to have one. What SCOTUS has said, in essence, is that teens in school can't say "drugs are good" simply because SCOTUS read that into a banner that didn't actually say that.

No, it isn't protected if it can reasonably be seen as advocating illegal drug use. "Bong hits should be legal" cannot be construed that way. It is quite clearly a political statement that what is now illegal should be legal.

Equivalently, he could not have held up a sign that says, "Try meth!" He could, alternatively, have held up a sign that said, 'Meth should be legal."


interestingly stupid ruling

not as stupid as thomas' quote that new genoa quoted a bit ago but still extremely stupid.

Depends. Were you on school time? Were you assigned to THIS particular speech along with your classmates? Are their school rules about being respectful during speeches? If yes, then yes.


Attending school does not mean physical presense at the school. My students do not magically cease to be students and are removed from the school rolls the minute they step off school grounds. They are still enrolled at the school I teach at. Further more, should we leave school grounds on a school event, they are still my responcibility and are under school rules.

When my kids went to visit Kyoto, they went as students and had to obey the teachers assigned to them.

But the point I'm making is that the student in question was not a part of that class, and that he was not under the authority of his teachers, because he was skipping class at the time.

Balloney. The school as athority over its students during school hours. If not, we could not have truency laws. He was not taken out of school by his parents/guardians. He was enrolled at the school at that time, AND he joined the school group at the torch relay. He was under the authority of the school.

Truancy laws are not enforced by the school, they are enforced by the federal or state government. The schools do not control the regulations or laws, legislative bodies do. Does a legislative body have control over a student during certain hours? Damn skippy. But they also cannot restrict the freedom of speech.

I have to agree with JuNii on this one, it was a school event. Teachers were there sheapherding the kids arround. It might have been off school grounds, but it would be the same for a student getting detention for breaking school rules at an athletic event.

It was during school hours. Teachers were there to keep an eye on the students. Students were not released from school, but just given permission to watch this. He was a student at the time and so on.

If it happened after school hours and after class had been dismissed, he would have a case. But he was under school jurisdiction.

I disagree...possibly for the first time ever on an education-related topic ;)

Now, the school claims he attended school by being at the event. He was not (so far as I understand) signed in, and there was no record of his attendance. So far as the records go, he was absent for the day. He was off school property, and therefore wholly out of the principals jurisdiction.
Your example of an athletic event isn't quite accurate: that occurs on school grounds, and the school permits people to attend (student and otherwise). Failure to live up to their expectations is breaking that "contract", and they have the right to remove you.

Had he done the same standing down the street, there would have been no question. Proximity to people in school is not enough to claim that he himself was in school.


As for the decision...yeah...students don't check their rights at the door, regardless of what he says...and I will continue to function under that ideal.

But he was not escorted there by a teacher, nor was he in a class at the time it began.
He joined the group.

Okay, so he was skipping school. Let me pose another hypothetical situation, then:

A class goes to a museum. A student does not attend school that day, and instead drives themselves to the museum and pays to enter. Are you saying that that student is on the Field Trip?
Depends. If he was removed from school by his parents (You seem to forget this part) and does NOT join the school group, he is on his own time. If he does however, he has become a memeber of the group. You can't just draw a box arround yourself and say, "Well, I'm talking with my friends and moving with you, and using your time, but I'm not a member of your group". That's as stupid as Cheney's "I'm not a member of the Excecutaive branch" bit that he's trying to pull.

But he was skipping school, whether or not he claims he was. That's exactly what the precedent from this case says: that when you are skipping school, if an administrator from your school sees you saying something against school rules, they can suspend you.
And? If you're skipping school you're going against school truency laws and you're still under school authority. Sorry, but students cannot just check themselves out of school because they feel like it.

Hmm.

Dog food for dogs. Is that support?

Bong hits for Jesus.
Another interpretation we could make is that the hits off the bong belonged to Jesus -- that he was taking them.

You're comparing two different types of things, and I don't think you even realized it. Dog food is a tangible thing--you can touch it, taste it, etc. Because of that, dog food for dogs makes sense, although it has multiple potential meanings.

Bong hits--assuming we're not personifying them--are an action, but the way the phrase was constructed, I don't see any way to make Jesus the active component. He's the object of the preposition for. That's why the phrase makes no sense--there's no active component. There's no one doing bong hits, there's no one suggesting others should do bong hits--there's only the bong hits themselves.

Spoken language communicates more than simple words on a piece of paper, so the comparison isn't apt. But I'll play along--if you were to say those words in an absolute monotone, with no hand gestures or anything else to indicate that you were providing me with presents, or that you were the conduit through which presents were making their way to me, then yes, "presents support you" would be a reasonable, though confusing, way to understand the phrase. And that's my point--the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is a nonsensical phrase--it doesn't mean anything. You have to want to read a pro-drug message into it to see it, because it's not there on its own.
So Obama for President means Barak Obama supports President Bush?! Wow... he really IS a nice guy!

So Obama for President means Barak Obama supports President Bush?! Wow... he really IS a nice guy!

Only if you assume that President necessarily means Bush, something not supported by the phrase itself. Throw in that, as in Kat's example, Obama is a tangible person while bong hits are intangible, and the meaning of "for" changes.

But he was not escorted there by a teacher, nor was he in a class at the time it began.

Doesn't matter. His class was escorted there and, when he arrived at school, he joined them there. He was just as much "in class" as every other student.

Okay, so he was skipping school. Let me pose another hypothetical situation, then:

A class goes to a museum. A student does not attend school that day, and instead drives themselves to the museum and pays to enter. Are you saying that that student is on the Field Trip?

Either that or they are skipping school - and either action places them under the authority of the school and its ability to punish.

If that student joins the other students in his class and tours the museum with them, he is just as much on the field trip as they are and failure to return with them to the school could be viewed as skipping.

But he was skipping school, whether or not he claims he was.

He was skipping school if his intent was not to go to school with his classmates. He has made no such claim. In fact, the claim made in the decision is that he was tardy, not that he was skipping.

That's exactly what the precedent from this case says: that when you are skipping school, if an administrator from your school sees you saying something against school rules, they can suspend you.

Not at all.

He joined the group.

So now merely walking and conversing with someone gives them authority over you?

So, hypothetical: you meet me on a street corner along with a policeman. The three of us discuss kittens. Then, as we pass a bank, I pull a gun out and start shooting people. By merely walking with me, is the cop granted authority to arrest you?

And? If you're skipping school you're going against school truency laws and you're still under school authority. Sorry, but students cannot just check themselves out of school because they feel like it.

And? What's your point. I'm not arguing that he shouldn't have been punished for being truant, I'm arguing that this case sets bad precedent.

But the point I'm making is that the student in question was not a part of that class, and that he was not under the authority of his teachers, because he was skipping class at the time.
And the point we're trying to get through your skull is that the teacher's authority and responcibility doesn't stop just because he decides to skip school. The law is very clear on that, during school hours unless the student has been cleaned by his parents or guardians, he is under the authority of the school.

Truancy laws are not enforced by the school, they are enforced by the federal or state government. The schools do not control the regulations or laws, legislative bodies do. Does a legislative body have control over a student during certain hours? Damn skippy. But they also cannot restrict the freedom of speech.
Depends upon the district, but if I see a student of mine whom I know is playing hooky, I can haul that student into school. Again, during school hours unless cleared by his parents, that child is the school's responcibility.

Either that or they are skipping school - and either action places them under the authority of the school and its ability to punish.

Absolutely. He should have been punished for not attending school. I concur. However, this ruling deals with what he said, not his attendance at school.

If that student joins the other students in his class and tours the museum with them, he is just as much on the field trip as they are and failure to return with them to the school could be viewed as skipping.

Even though he never attended in the first place and never checked himself in with a teacher, he suddenly loses individual status? That's absurd.

At any rate, I think that it is clear that we are never going to agree on this topic, and so I will agree to dissagree.

Truancy laws are not enforced by the school

I suppose that's why the school sends home letters, calls the home, and sends a representative from the school to the home in order to inform parents that they intend, if the truancy situation is not rectified, to take them to court and sue on the grounds of educational neglect?

And the point we're trying to get through your skull is that the teacher's authority and responcibility doesn't stop just because he decides to skip school. The law is very clear on that, during school hours unless the student has been cleaned by his parents or guardians, he is under the authority of the school.

That's mind-numbingly absurd. You're telling me that, up until 2 weeks ago, if during school hours, I had said "Bong Hits for Jesus" to a passerbye, while I was off-campus for lunch, a teacher could have suspended me? That's inane.

Depends upon the district, but if I see a student of mine whom I know is playing hooky, I can haul that student into school. Again, during school hours unless cleared by his parents, that child is the school's responcibility.

And? Last I heard, you teach school in Japan. Laws are different, no?

So now merely walking and conversing with someone gives them authority over you?

So, hypothetical: you meet me on a street corner along with a policeman. The three of us discuss kittens. Then, as we pass a bank, I pull a gun out and start shooting people. By merely walking with me, is the cop granted authority to arrest you?you can keep putting up the strawmen. but you keep failing.

And? What's your point. I'm not arguing that he shouldn't have been punished for being truant, I'm arguing that this case sets bad precedent.no, you're not arguing that. you keep trying to say that he "wasn't a student, thus the school had no right to suspend him."

Yes, it sets a bad precedent, but it's one HE brought upon himself. He tried to play the martyr and he failed. He set this in motion when he made that banner with the purpose to piss off the principal, and then sued about his infringement of the freedom of speech. It backfired... and you know what? He's going to benefit from it if he should return to the states because HE'S NOW A TEACHER.

I suppose that's why the school sends home letters, calls the home, and sends a representative from the school to the home in order to inform parents that they intend, if the truancy situation is not rectified, to take them to court and sue on the grounds of educational neglect?

I was under the impression that the actual process was carried out by the district and the state, but you almost certainly know better than me.

I disagree...possibly for the first time ever on an education-related topic ;)

Now, the school claims he attended school by being at the event. He was not (so far as I understand) signed in, and there was no record of his attendance. So far as the records go, he was absent for the day. He was off school property, and therefore wholly out of the principals jurisdiction.
Not at all. He was truent! Was he cleared for that absence? No. Did his parents call the school and release him? No. Does a teacher actually HAVE to check a box to say a student is under their authority, no (If we did, we'd have one hell of a time controlling students before class starts. Why would students have to do anything we say, like not fight, if they weren't checked in until the first bell rings?"

Your example of an athletic event isn't quite accurate: that occurs on school grounds, and the school permits people to attend (student and otherwise). Failure to live up to their expectations is breaking that "contract", and they have the right to remove you.
Not all atheletic events take place on school grounds. I remember a number of times we travled to other places off of the ground, but that doesn't mean my coach/teach lost any control over me or that I suddenly didn't have to follow his instructions.

Had he done the same standing down the street, there would have been no question. Proximity to people in school is not enough to claim that he himself was in school.
If ou join the group, you are part of the group. Yes, had he been down the street away from the students, then yes, I would say he was outside of school (Though since he was truent, that's another legal issue). But as it were, he was with his class at a school event, he did fall under their authority.

As for the decision...yeah...students don't check their rights at the door, regardless of what he says...and I will continue to function under that ideal.
I agree with that. I think it's a bad rulling, but I have to agree that he was under school rules at the time. I just think that the rules are wrong.

Only if you assume that President necessarily means Bush, something not supported by the phrase itself. Throw in that, as in Kat's example, Obama is a tangible person while bong hits are intangible, and the meaning of "for" changes.
You're REALLY steaching here Nazz.

no, you're not arguing that. you keep trying to say that he "wasn't a student, thus the school had no right to suspend him."[/qupte]

Yup, I'm arguing that giving them that right sets a bad precedent.

[quote]Yes, it sets a bad precedent, but it's one HE brought upon himself. He tried to play the martyr and he failed. He set this in motion when he made that banner with the purpose to piss off the principal, and then sued about his infringement of the freedom of speech. It backfired... and you know what? He's going to benefit from it if he should return to the states because HE'S NOW A TEACHER.

That's silly. I don't care about him in that regard. He's one of a million people who get fucked over every day by the government. I care about the precedent set by this case, which gives the government excessive and unnecessary powers.

Spoken language communicates more than simple words on a piece of paper, so the comparison isn't apt.

That doesn't stop people from using the same phrasing they would use in spoken language on signs or even on the internet.

But I'll play along--if you were to say those words in an absolute monotone, with no hand gestures or anything else to indicate that you were providing me with presents, or that you were the conduit through which presents were making their way to me, then yes, "presents support you" would be a reasonable, though confusing, way to understand the phrase. And that's my point--the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is a nonsensical phrase--it doesn't mean anything. You have to want to read a pro-drug message into it to see it, because it's not there on its own.

To pretend that there was no message in the sign is something you have to make an active effort to do. Even when I first saw the case and didn't know all the details, just seeing the sign suggested to me that they were offering "bong hits for Jesus."

It's as nonsensical as saying "God cat pan-galactic gargle blaster."

No, it isn't. It's as nonsensical as saying, "Presents for you." The difference is pretty clear.

It doesn't have a message unless you want it to have one. What SCOTUS has said, in essence, is that teens in school can't say "drugs are good" simply because SCOTUS read that into a banner that didn't actually say that.

And a reasonable person - any reasonable person - could read it that way. Most do.


not as stupid as thomas' quote that new genoa quoted a bit ago but still extremely stupid.

How so? I see nothing wrong with a school being able to enforce a rule that keeps students from advocating or glorifying illegal actions at school or school events. I would, however, see something wrong with blocking students from expressing their distaste for given laws in a way that does not disrupt class. Does that mean that I'm "extremely stupid"?


You're comparing two different types of things, and I don't think you even realized it. Dog food is a tangible thing--you can touch it, taste it, etc. Because of that, dog food for dogs makes sense, although it has multiple potential meanings.

A bong hit is a tangible thing. You definitely taste it. You can generally feel it for a while afterwards, too.

Bong hits--assuming we're not personifying them--are an action, but the way the phrase was constructed, I don't see any way to make Jesus the active component.

"Bong hits", in this case, is the noun, while "for Jesus" is a prepositional phrase. You don't have to personify anything. You can take bong hits for Jesus or you can offer bong hits to Jesus, just as you could take aspirin for Jesus or offer aspirin to Jesus.

He's the object of the preposition for. That's why the phrase makes no sense--there's no active component. There's no one doing bong hits, there's no one suggesting others should do bong hits--there's only the bong hits themselves.

The "active component" is implied. It may be poor grammar, but it's pretty damn common in the vernacular.


So now merely walking and conversing with someone gives them authority over you?

Actually, the fact that you were supposed to be there with the school, and are now there with the school, gives them authority over you.

So, hypothetical: you meet me on a street corner along with a policeman. The three of us discuss kittens. Then, as we pass a bank, I pull a gun out and start shooting people. By merely walking with me, is the cop granted authority to arrest you?

Stupid hypothetical that has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation at hand.

And? What's your point. I'm not arguing that he shouldn't have been punished for being truant, I'm arguing that this case sets bad precedent.

Only if you look at it in a way so disparate from the way the court looked at it as to be useless in using the case as precedent.

It's like saying, "Roe v. Wade is precedent for making the law allow murder." Some people see abortion as murder, but the court did not see it that way and their decision did not interpret it that way. As such, suggesting that the case is precedent for declaring murder laws unconstitutional would be ridiculous, just as your claim that this is precedent for a school having the authority to regulate speech outside of school or school-sponsored events is ridiculous.

So now merely walking and conversing with someone gives them authority over you?

So, hypothetical: you meet me on a street corner along with a policeman. The three of us discuss kittens. Then, as we pass a bank, I pull a gun out and start shooting people. By merely walking with me, is the cop granted authority to arrest you?
Depends, what did I do during the shootout? Was I helping you?

Your examples wander farther and farther away from what's going on. He joined his group. That's the whole point of it. He joined his classmates and in doing so, "entered" the school as it were.

And? What's your point. I'm not arguing that he shouldn't have been punished for being truant, I'm arguing that this case sets bad precedent.
I don't like the ruling, but the precedent of school control over students has long since been established. In loco parentis is usually how it works out and the laws are written that way.

That's nice. When you choose to provide information, rather than basking in your superiority complex and making personal attacks, I might lend some credence to what you say.


see, here's the problem. I at least have something to back up my superiority complex. I for example have passed lawschool.

You on the other hand have found it worthwhile to add nothing more than "nuh uh, doesn't work that way" and tried to argue you know more about law than educatators, lawyers, and the supreme fucking court, based on...based on nothing, apparently.

Well, no sorry, not nothing. Your, I guess, 11th grade education. Which on the subject of law is worth, well....absolutly fucking nothing.

so yes, my superiority complex is based on the fact that I have superior knowledge. Yours however is based on the quite flawed presumption that you actually know what you're talking about.

Until such a time, maybe you've merely been out of your mother's care long enough to forget to practice the saying, "If you've nothing worthwhile to say, say nothing." I suggest getting back into practice.

Maybe you've been in your mothers care too long and haven't experienced the real world to know that, when mommy isn't around to take care of you, and you feel like spouting off....make sure you know what the fuck you're talking about, because so far, you haven't managed to get a single point right.

But hey, you haven't let your ignorance stop you yet, have you kiddo?

Your example of an athletic event isn't quite accurate: that occurs on school grounds, and the school permits people to attend (student and otherwise). Failure to live up to their expectations is breaking that "contract", and they have the right to remove you.actually, I've attended school functions on other islands. clubs and whatnot. one student broke the rules by sneaking in alcohol and he and his roommate got blind-stinking drunk. Both were suspended because it was a school sponsored event. Both excepted the punshiment because the other alternative was to get the police involved and as minors, not only would they be in trouble for drinking alcohol, but the person who gave them the alcohol (an alumni) would be in worse trouble.

He literally argues that students DO check their constitutional rights at the school door. Here is a quote:

As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford
students a right to free speech in public schools.
III
In light of the history of American public education, it
cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment
“freedom of speech” encompasses a student’s right to
speak in public schools. Early public schools gave total
control to teachers, who expected obedience and respect
from students. And courts routinely deferred to schools’
authority to make rules and to discipline students for
violating those rules.

I think this is dangerous thinking and an example of how out-to-lunch Justice Thomas is.


Dangerous,dangerous is an understatement!! I mean frankly its insane. You can't expect someone to give up "there inalienable rights endowed by upon them by there creator" just because they enter or stand outside a public building. Really?I mean c'mon to say that "...cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment[freedom of speech] encompasses a student’s right to speak in public schools." seems like something the Nazis might do.

At any rate, I think that it is clear that we are never going to agree on this topic, and so I will agree to dissagree.

See, here's your problem. People can disagree on opinions. You are free to remain ignorant if you chose, but to disagree is to believe something that is wrong.

It is your right to remain ignorant if you so choose, but to act like this is a matter of opinion rather than a matter of law is to suggest that your position is valid, it is not, as it is based on a fundamentally erronious position as to what is, and is not, within the frame of a school's sphere of influence.

That's mind-numbingly absurd. You're telling me that, up until 2 weeks ago, if during school hours, I had said "Bong Hits for Jesus" to a passerbye, while I was off-campus for lunch, a teacher could have suspended me? That's inane.
Why? During school hours you are the school responcibility unless either released by the school or by your parents. YOU don't get a say in it till either age 18 or whenever your state says compulsatory education stops. You violate school rules during school hours, you are under their guidance.

By the same logic, you could argue that military personel are not under military law just because they stepped off the base for a quick bite to eat. It doesn't work that way.

And? Last I heard, you teach school in Japan. Laws are different, no?
My appologies, according to the state laws of Nevada.

Not at all. He was truent! Was he cleared for that absence? No. Did his parents call the school and release him? No. Does a teacher actually HAVE to check a box to say a student is under their authority, no (If we did, we'd have one hell of a time controlling students before class starts. Why would students have to do anything we say, like not fight, if they weren't checked in until the first bell rings?"
Sorry...I was under the impression that his parents knew he was out of school...it's been a few months since I last really looked at this case.

no, you're not arguing that. you keep trying to say that he "wasn't a student, thus the school had no right to suspend him."

Yup, I'm arguing that giving them that right sets a bad precedent. and we're saying that the schools 'always' had that right. it doesn't set any precident because the precident was set loong ago.

That's silly. I don't care about him in that regard. He's one of a million people who get fucked over every day by the government. I care about the precedent set by this case, which gives the government excessive and unnecessary powers. you better care, because he FUCKED every student from now on with his one mindless act and persual of revenge and some people here still sees him as a fucking hero.

actually, I've attended school functions on other islands. clubs and whatnot. one student broke the rules by sneaking in alcohol and he and his roommate got blind-stinking drunk. Both were suspended because it was a school sponsored event. Both excepted the punshiment because the other alternative was to get the police involved and as minors, not only would they be in trouble for drinking alcohol, but the person who gave them the alcohol (an alumni) would be in worse trouble.
yeah, but by attending the event, you implicitly agree to their rules. Regardless of location or who you are.

Sorry...I was under the impression that his parents knew he was out of school...it's been a few months since I last really looked at this case.
From my understanding, no. It was an unexcused tardy.

Still think it's a stupid ruling as students should have the right to freedom of speech, but somehow everyone's moved off that topic to argue scematics of educational law.

Ah, gotta love NSG. ;)

And the teachers were wrong. He was not a student at the time that the suspension was handed out. He was a private citizen. They can say whatever they want, they are dead fucking wrong. They have no power over non-students, and, at that point, he was a non-student.

You mean the teachers and the courts and virtually everyone but you was wrong, right? He was with the class, at a school function, that without it would have left him breaking the law, not the school rules, but the law, by playing hooky.



Yup. Just because he was attempting to get a response from the principal doesn't make it not free speech. A protest is an attempt to get a response, too. Does that make a protest not free speach?

That it was free speech also doesn't make it protected. He isn't given free speech in schools necessarily. He was advocated breaking the law.



No! He had not attended school yet at that point. Get it in your fucking head that a student is not a student when they are not at school. He had not been admitted to class, nor been marked as attending school and he was therefore not a student at that point.

Again, you mean, everyone except you has to get in their "fucking heads" that he was not at school Because the courts and the teachers and everyone that would have arrested him for ditching school took his participation in the event WITH his classmates as being at school.


I can and do.

Yes, we noticed. Against all reason. But hey there's something to be said for consistency.

you better care, because he FUCKED every student from now on with his one mindless act and persual of revenge and some people here still sees him as a fucking hero.

...I didn't say that......

Absolutely. He should have been punished for not attending school. I concur. However, this ruling deals with what he said, not his attendance at school.

Problem is, as far as the courts and the school were concerned, he was attending school, and I see no reason to contest that assertion.

Even though he never attended in the first place and never checked himself in with a teacher, he suddenly loses individual status? That's absurd.

It has nothing to do with "individual status." We aren't talking about an adult who just happens to be out with other adults. We are talking about a student who is legally required (and required by school rules) to be with his classmates on a field trip. He is there on that field trip. As such, he is "in school."

Meanwhile, if every student had to personally check in with a teacher when he arrived at school, tardiness would be a lot more of a disruption. It's usually just a matter of walking into the classroom and sitting down. Are you saying that, if a teacher is already engaged in teaching and the student walks into the classroom, he isn't really a student until she takes time to mark him down in a little book?

At any rate, I think that it is clear that we are never going to agree on this topic, and so I will agree to dissagree.

Kk.


Dangerous,dangerous is an understatement!! I mean frankly its insane. You can't expect someone to give up "there inalienable rights endowed by upon them by there creator" just because they enter or stand outside a public building. Really?I mean c'mon to say that "...cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment[freedom of speech] encompasses a student’s right to speak in public schools." seems like something the Nazis might do.

Yeah, well, this is the same guy who claims that it would be perfectly constitutional for the states to all declare official state religions. He's pretty out there. Luckily, his "concurring opinion" had pretty much nothing to do with the decision at hand.

-snip arrogant self congratulation-

So what did your 3 years of law school teach you, other than how to make a fool of yourself by spewing Ad Hominem nonsense? All I've ever seen you do is use Ad Hominems, so, until you want to talk about the substance, do us all a favor and be silent.

From my understanding, no. It was an unexcused tardy.

Still think it's a stupid ruling as students should have the right to freedom of speech, but somehow everyone's moved off that topic to argue scematics of educational law.

Ah, gotta love NSG. ;)
haha...it is a wonderous thing. I actually think a good fight against it would be to wear black arm bands. Sadly, it will be a while before I have a job and am secure enough in it to motivate such a thing.

haha...it is a wonderous thing. I actually think a good fight against it would be to wear black arm bands. Sadly, it will be a while before I have a job and am secure enough in it to motivate such a thing.

I'm thinking of setting up a CafePress to sell merchandice that sells "Bong Hits 4 the 1st Ammendment" as a protest.

yeah, but by attending the event, you implicitly agree to their rules. Regardless of location or who you are.

which is what Frederick did when he stood with his classmates. He attended the event as part of his class.

Now had he cut school and he and his friends (who also cut school) stood two blocks away (I say two blocks, to avoid from being caught by the principal or other teachers/students) and held up that sign for the world to see. Then the punishment would be for cutting classes and not was on the sign.

Yup, I'm arguing that giving them that right sets a bad precedent.

It doesn't. That precedent is an old precedent. It wasn't set by this case. Pretending it was is just ignorance.

That's silly. I don't care about him in that regard. He's one of a million people who get fucked over every day by the government. I care about the precedent set by this case, which gives the government excessive and unnecessary powers.

Again, you keep stating that, but this is nothing new. You keep bitching about your own ignorance of the FACT that it's accepted that if you attend a school event and you are a student you are subject to school rules.

...I didn't say that......

apologies.. it pisses me off that this occured from what he started and now he's on the side that benefits.

which is what Frederick did when he stood with his classmates. He attended the event as part of his class.

Now had he cut school and he and his friends (who also cut school) stood two blocks away (I say two blocks, to avoid from being caught by the principal or other teachers/students) and held up that sign for the world to see. Then the punishment would be for cutting classes and not was on the sign.Yeah. I was mistaken and thought his parents had called him out.

haha...it is a wonderous thing. I actually think a good fight against it would be to wear black arm bands. Sadly, it will be a while before I have a job and am secure enough in it to motivate such a thing.
And I would support that (Well, I would except that it would confuse the hell out of my co-workers since this case hasn't even been mentioned over here for obvious reasons).

You know what, this reminds me of something that happened when I was in highschool, in New York.

I went on a school trip. To Spain. This trip was monitored by teachers.

While there, in Spain a kid was caught having a drink in Spain. He was 18, what he did was perfectly legal under local laws. But he was still in trouble. Why? Because he, on a school trip, broke school code of conduct.

For something he did, in case we missed in, in fucking Spain. Yet somehow being across the street renders you immune from school authority, yet not across the atlantic.

More to point something occured to me. We didn't meet at the school. Rather we all gathered at the airport. We never walked INTO the school and then out, and if I recall, I never officially went to a teacher and said "I am officially here for our school trip". So I guess by KSP's logic I was never at school sanctioned event. I was just some private citizen who flew in the same plane as them, stayed at the same hotel as them, went on a tour of costa del sol with them, and yet was not connected with them in any way.

I'm thinking of setting up a CafePress to sell merchandice that sells "Bong Hits 4 the 1st Ammendment" as a protest.now that I'll agree with and say go for it.

or "Student 1st Amendment Rights" might actually be a better phrase... but... *shrug*

So what did your 3 years of law school teach you, other than how to make a fool of yourself by spewing Ad Hominem nonsense?

A whole lot more law than you know.

All I've ever seen you do is use Ad Hominems, so, until you want to talk about the substance, do us all a favor and be silent.

No. And may I add, just because you lost an argument and have to resort to being indignant and snippy, doesn't magically make you right.

Oh, wait, I forget, you're special, and everyone in the world is wrong, but you.

Dangerous,dangerous is an understatement!! I mean frankly its insane. You can't expect someone to give up "there inalienable rights endowed by upon them by there creator" just because they enter or stand outside a public building. Really?I mean c'mon to say that "...cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment[freedom of speech] encompasses a student’s right to speak in public schools." seems like something the Nazis might do.

Um, you are aware that there is a difference betweent he Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, yeah?

apologies.. it pisses me off that this occured from what he started and now he's on the side that benefits.
Sok...just confused me to see that quote attributed to me ;)
And I would support that (Well, I would except that it would confuse the hell out of my co-workers since this case hasn't even been mentioned over here for obvious reasons).Makes sense. I just think it would be a good way to remember a GOOD court decision.

So what did your 3 years of law school teach you, other than how to make a fool of yourself by spewing Ad Hominem nonsense? All I've ever seen you do is use Ad Hominems, so, until you want to talk about the substance, do us all a favor and be silent.

It taught him out to point out when you're outgunned in a debate. Your debate basically rests on "he was not in school because no matter how many examples show that the school is responsible I'm going to ignore them and keep saying the same thing". He merely pointed out that it's absurd that you would claim something must be true without presenting any evidence for it when all legal precedent puts him in the care of the school.

EDIT:stupid typos

Still think it's a stupid ruling as students should have the right to freedom of speech, but somehow everyone's moved off that topic to argue scematics of educational law.

They do have the right to free speech, but that right can be restricted when it is on school, at school, or at a school-sponsored event. I really don't see a problem with a school rule that does not allow students to advocate or glorify illegal activity - even though I don't think the particular activity in question should be illegal.

I taught him

....Professor Abrams? :eek:

They do have the right to free speech, but that right can be restricted when it is on school, at school, or at a school-sponsored event. I really don't see a problem with a school rule that does not allow students to advocate or glorify illegal activity - even though I don't think the particular activity in question should be illegal.
What?! Honestly now...

Actually...

Hmm...

Well, actually I agree with everything you said so it makes it hard to continue the debate...

So... how 'bout those Mets? ;)

....Professor Abrams? :eek:

My bad. Typo. But I laughed. Thanks for that.

They do have the right to free speech, but that right can be restricted when it is on school, at school, or at a school-sponsored event. I really don't see a problem with a school rule that does not allow students to advocate or glorify illegal activity - even though I don't think the particular activity in question should be illegal.

It seems that they don't have a right to free speech, judging by some of the language of this decision...

So... how 'bout those Mets? ;) who? :p

who? :p
Ooooh, I think Kat's going to skin you when she reads that (Or is she a Yankees fan?).

hey

http://www.cafepress.com/cp/moredetails.aspx?showBleed=false&ProductNo=91726049&colorNo=27&pr=F

Ooooh, I think Kat's going to skin you when she reads that (Or is she a Yankees fan?).

I really thought you were talking about a Japanese league... I know they have a team called "The Giants", so... :p

...


I'm just digging myself in deeper... aren't I... :(


I just don't watch sports. :)

What?! Honestly now...

Actually...

Hmm...

Well, actually I agree with everything you said so it makes it hard to continue the debate...

Hehe

So... how 'bout those Mets? ;)

I dunno. I'm sports-illiterate. Are they good this year? I heard on the radio that the Braves are sucking it up lately, so I need a new team to silently and uncaringly support.


It seems that they don't have a right to free speech, judging by some of the language of this decision...

With the exception of the OP quote of Thomas, I haven't seen a single person suggesting that students don't have a right to free speech. Even he seems only to be talking about speech within the context of being at school or school events, although I wouldn't be surprised to hear Thomas say that he thinks the states can restrict speech however they want.

What?! Honestly now...

Actually...

Hmm...

Well, actually I agree with everything you said so it makes it hard to continue the debate...

So... how 'bout those Mets? ;)

who? :p

Ooooh, I think Kat's going to skin you when she reads that (Or is she a Yankees fan?).

LET'S GO METS -- WOO HOO!

*dips JuNii in dark chocolate for disparaging her team*

I dunno. I'm sports-illiterate. Are they good this year? I heard on the radio that the Braves are sucking it up lately, so I need a new team to silently and uncaringly support.
Danged if I know. I've just been in mouring due to the very bad season the Giants have been having.

Though I do have to ask, doesn't ANYONE get that reference any more? :confused:

*dips JuNii in dark chocolate for disparaging her team*Mmmmmm... dark chocolate... :p

Though I do have to ask, doesn't ANYONE get that reference any more? :confused:
I remember hearing that line in Fletch...

and several other movies...

You are correct that it is not. However, the willful ignorance demonstrated by the SCOTUS Conservatives about what the sign was about (it was about being able to say what you want, not about drugs). Moreover, the student had not even attended school that day. This is a very dangerous, and activist ruling.


It is not the job of SCOTUS to determine the facts of the case. It is the job of SCOTUS to determine whether the original fact-finder's decision was reasonable. In this case, it was reasonable for the trial court to find that the sign promoted drug use. If you read the entire opinion (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf), you will also see that the plurality option is very sensible. On that issue, the plurality says "The dissent mentions Frederick’s 'credible and uncontradicted explanation for the message—he just wanted to get on television.' Post, at 12. But that is a description of Frederick’s motive for displaying the banner; it is not an interpretation of what the banner says. The way Frederick was going to fulfill his ambition of appearing on television was by unfurling a pro-drug banner at a school event, in the presence of teachers and fellow students."

You run a great risk when you start ruling on a person's motives rather than content of the action. Had he held a banner saying "Kill Jews", but his motive was just to get noticed, would he be within his First Amendment rights? Of course, I would agree that a banner with a pro-marijuana message isn't as bad as one with a pro-bigotry message. But the point is this. If the gov't has the authority to regulate a certain type of speech, then it has the authority to regulate the CONTENT of the speech rather than the motive.


So, the question becomes "does the school have the authority to regulate speech that the school's agent reasonably believes is pro-drug." Once again, the plurality opinion handles this very well and points out the idiocy of the dissenting opinion in the process. "The pro-drug interpretation of the banner gains further plausibility given the paucity of alternative meanings the banner might bear. The best Frederick can come up withis that the banner is 'meaningless and funny.' 439 F. 3d, at 1116. The dissent similarly refers to the sign’s message as 'curious,' post, at 1, 'ambiguous,' ibid., 'nonsense,' post, at 2, 'ridiculous,' post, at 6, 'obscure,' post, at 7, 'silly,' post, at 12, 'quixotic,' post, at 13, and 'stupid,' ibid. Gibberish is surely a possible interpretation of the words on the banner, but it is not the only one, and dismissing the banner as meaningless ignores its undeniable reference to illegal drugs...... Elsewhere in its opinion, the dissent emphasizes the importance of political speech and the need to foster 'national debate about a serious issue,' post, at 16, as if to suggest that the banner is political speech. But not even Frederick argues that the banner conveys any sort of political or religious message. Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, see post, at 14–16, this is plainly not a case about political debate over the criminalization of drug use or possession."

Which is it? Is it gibberish or is it political speech?




Now, people are jumping all over the "conservatives" on the Court and expressing fear of what Thomas might do next. But the concurring opinion of Thomas is really meaningless. The plurality specifically mentions that it would not go with a broader holding than this, that "The 'special characteristics of the school environment,' Tinker, 393 U. S., at 506, and the governmental interest in stopping student drug abuse—reflected in the policies of Congress and myriad school boards, including JDHS—allow schools to restrict student expression that theyreasonably regard as promoting illegal drug use." That is what the plurality opinion says, a pretty moderate holding. An opinion that was written by Roberts, one of those crazy Bush 43 appointees. And to think, the other concurring opinion was written by Alito and it is even more narrow than the Roberts opinion. I know it seems as if the sky is falling, but I don't think this decision is going to usher in secret police and the end of free speech.


Now, do I think that the principal was excessive in suspending the kid for 10 days? Yes. But do I think that an appellate court should have overruled it? No.

Now, the thing is, even if he was in school, the criteria for a school restricting speech isn't whether it supports drugs or anything like that, but whether it's disruptive. And I see no possible way that watching a parade could be disrupted no matter what you did.
Because it's not even a school thing, it's just a parade. What does it matter if they're looking at the Olympic torch or some guy across the street with a funny sign?

People keep complaining that this is an "activist" decision.

Just for the record, in jurisprudence we call a court "activist" when it rules against the other branches of government, forging its own ideas about what policy should be.

When a court rules in favor of the powers that be, it is by definition NOT activist.

The ironic thing is the kid wasn't in school he was off school property holding up a sign. This is all we need - more court rulings saying schools(and maybe businesses) have the right to punish students for what they do on their own time, off school grounds with in-school punishments.Umm, the first line of the opinion reads, "At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event..." Think "field trip."

I'm not saying I agree with the opinion, but if we're going to discuss it we at least need to get the facts right.

People keep complaining that this is an "activist" decision.

Just for the record, in jurisprudence we call a court "activist" when it rules against the other branches of government, forging its own ideas about what policy should be.

When a court rules in favor of the powers that be, it is by definition NOT activist.

Well when a judicial system is either 'conservative' or 'liberal' based on whose in the White House at that time, that is one screwed up system.

Now, the thing is, even if he was in school, the criteria for a school restricting speech isn't whether it supports drugs or anything like that, but whether it's disruptive. And I see no possible way that watching a parade could be disrupted no matter what you did.
Because it's not even a school thing, it's just a parade. What does it matter if they're looking at the Olympic torch or some guy across the street with a funny sign?

Are you saying that the standard IS whether the speech is disruptive or the standard SHOULD BE whether the speech is disruptive? Even before this case, in Fraser, the court had already relaxed the standard that the speech must be disruptive to fall under school regulation. I don't think the court is really announcing any new standard here, just reiterating earlier caselaw. It sounds to me like the court is trying to come closer to the same analysis they use for other First Amendment and Equal Protection cases; varying levels of scrutiny depending on the state action and the conduct to be regulated (i.e. strict scrutiny, 'middle' scrutiny and rational basis scrutiny). Here, it looks like they are imposing something a bit more rigorous than a rational basis test but definitely not as rigorous as a compelling gov't interest test.

I don't think it matters where the school is. I had a field trip to an amusement park back in the day, but you can be sure that the school was able to regulate certain speech even on the field trip. The "disruptive" standard is entirely unworkable, mainly because it relies on the reaction of the viewer/hearer of the speech. If Student A wears a shirt glamorizing Illegal Activity X at one school but the students don't go apes*** over it, it would be a constitutional violation to regulate his speech but if Student B wears a shirt glamorizing Illegal Activity X at a school across town and the students laugh out loud in class, it would be appropriate to regulate his speech?

Even if the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" was protected political speech, the school would be able to impose time/place/manner restrictions. At an event to partake in an international quadrennial ritual (the olympic torch), most unrelated political speech could be limited.

This is actually just another case of private property being in direct contradiction with democracy, if we have the right to free political expression in public, yet in a private area the property owners can simply make up their own rules, this is true in private employment also.

Are you saying that the standard IS whether the speech is disruptive or the standard SHOULD BE whether the speech is disruptive? Even before this case, in Fraser, the court had already relaxed the standard that the speech must be disruptive to fall under school regulation. <snip>

Is.
Fraser was about a kid giving a (school) speech full of (his own) double entedres.
This guy was not giving a speech, he was holding up a banner. Obviously his own banner, obviously the school didn't have anything to do with it. In that context they can't punish him just because they don't like it, it has to be disruptive. Which is quite hard to do when you're not holding class at the time.

If Student A wears a shirt glamorizing Illegal Activity X at one school but the students don't go apes*** over it, it would be a constitutional violation to regulate his speech but if Student B wears a shirt glamorizing Illegal Activity X at a school across town and the students laugh out loud in class, it would be appropriate to regulate his speech?


Yep, that's pretty much it.
I don't see why you think it's unworkable.

Is.
Fraser was about a kid giving a (school) speech full of (his own) double entedres.
This guy was not giving a speech, he was holding up a banner. Obviously his own banner, obviously the school didn't have anything to do with it. In that context they can't punish him just because they don't like it, it has to be disruptive. Which is quite hard to do when you're not holding class at the time.

Actually, it's not about how people react but whether or not the school can reasonably see it as disruptive. Disruptive doesn't necessarily mean that people have to freak out or ignore class. It's enough for it to be counter to a good learning environment. Advocating illegal activity, particularly drug activity, has long been accepted as disruptive. This is why he attempted to argue it didn't advocate drug activity. The court, rightfully, pointed out that he was full of crap.

Yep, that's pretty much it.
I don't see why you think it's unworkable.

Perhaps unworkable isn't the right word, but I have a problem with what seems to be the left's version of free speech. Here it is in a nutshell: "Free speech isn't about the content of the protected speech compared to nonprotected speech, rather it is about the reaction of the listener." Case in point, college campus "hate speech codes". Such a standard for free speech allows people to bully their political opposition out of their rights to free speech. And it just screams for selective enforcement. Speech is either protected in a given context or is not protected in a given context. It's not protected depending on the reaction of the audience.

I realize that the kid in Fraser was giving a speech, but the opinion says that it was not disruptive, probably b/c since he was the kid that the other kids were focusing on so he couldn't very well disrupt himself when he held the forum. But the fact that in one case a kid is talking and in the other case a kid is holding the sign is not distinguished legally. Both speaking publicly and holding a sign are forms of speech. Unless there is a legitimate "manner" restriction, such as you can hold a banner but can't get on bullhorns when you're inside a city council meeting, there is NO difference between exercising your right to free speech by holding a sign or by talking.

The opinion also says that calling the parade a school event is as far as "school activity" should be stretched. It's not like the kid went to the mall on Saturday to hold a silly sign and his principal happened to walk by. If your school goes on a field trip to the museum and you don't go to school but go to the museum while your school is there, then you are at a school activity. And this case is even more school related than my hypothetical. If you're skipping school but standing ACROSS THE STREET IN EYESHOT of the school, then you are under the school's supervision. Believe me, the dean of boys at my high school used to go after kids across the street from school and bring them back to campus to punish them for skipping.

Perhaps unworkable isn't the right word, but I have a problem with what seems to be the left's version of free speech. Here it is in a nutshell: "Free speech isn't about the content of the protected speech compared to nonprotected speech, rather it is about the reaction of the listener." Case in point, college campus "hate speech codes". Such a standard for free speech allows people to bully their political opposition out of their rights to free speech. And it just screams for selective enforcement. Speech is either protected in a given context or is not protected in a given context. It's not protected depending on the reaction of the audience.

I realize that the kid in Fraser was giving a speech, but the opinion says that it was not disruptive, probably b/c since he was the kid that the other kids were focusing on so he couldn't very well disrupt himself when he held the forum. But the fact that in one case a kid is talking and in the other case a kid is holding the sign is not distinguished legally. Both speaking publicly and holding a sign are forms of speech. Unless there is a legitimate "manner" restriction, such as you can hold a banner but can't get on bullhorns when you're inside a city council meeting, there is NO difference between exercising your right to free speech by holding a sign or by talking.

The opinion also says that calling the parade a school event is as far as "school activity" should be stretched. It's not like the kid went to the mall on Saturday to hold a silly sign and his principal happened to walk by. If your school goes on a field trip to the museum and you don't go to school but go to the museum while your school is there, then you are at a school activity. And this case is even more school related than my hypothetical. If you're skipping school but standing ACROSS THE STREET IN EYESHOT of the school, then you are under the school's supervision. Believe me, the dean of boys at my high school used to go after kids across the street from school and bring them back to campus to punish them for skipping.

More importantly, this kid didn't just happen to end up in the same place. He went to where he knew the class would be and met with the class. He had two choices to meet up at that event or be in violation of the law. To argue that it's reasonable to think that a kid, that is required by law to be at the event and went to the event and met up with the class he is required by law to meet up with while within viewing distance of the school AND puts up a sign he INTENDS to be viewed by those supervising the class, is NOT at school is simply ludicrous.

It requires one to ignore pretty much ever bit of reason and just decide arbitrarily that one can attend a school event with the class but if one wants to not be a part of that class in order to skirt the rules they need only declare it so.

Actually, it's not about how people react but whether or not the school can reasonably see it as disruptive. Disruptive doesn't necessarily mean that people have to freak out or ignore class. It's enough for it to be counter to a good learning environment. Advocating illegal activity, particularly drug activity, has long been accepted as disruptive. This is why he attempted to argue it didn't advocate drug activity. The court, rightfully, pointed out that he was full of crap.

But it wasn't.
"Bong hits..." makes it sound like it, but then the "for Jesus" makes it make no sense at all.
Because why the hell would anyone do bong hits for Jesus?
Or why the hell would Jesus do bong hits?
He lived 2000 years ago and didn't even know what a bong WAS.
It makes as much sense as "all your base are belong to us".
In both cases it sounds like it means something by reading it, but the obvious point of saying it is because it's funny and doesn't make much sense.

But it wasn't.
"Bong hits..." makes it sound like it, but then the "for Jesus" makes it make no sense at all.
Because why the hell would anyone do bong hits for Jesus?

Um, because they're bong hits. Why would anyone sell raffle tickets for Jesus or clap their hands if they love Jesus or honk their car horns for Jesus or any of a million banners like it. If you can explain to me how bong hits have nothing to do with drugs, then I'll be happy to concede. Perhaps you should start by scooping out my brain, because it's the argument you can make that isn't going to be laughable.

Or why the hell would Jesus do bong hits?
He lived 2000 years ago and didn't even know what a bong WAS.
It makes as much sense as "all your base are belong to us".
In both cases it sounds like it means something by reading it, but the obvious point of saying it is because it's funny and doesn't make much sense.

It doesn't say Jesus was doing bong hits. But hey let's continue that argument. Obviously, honk your car horn for Jesus isn't religious speech since Jesus wouldn't know what a car horn is either, since the whole 2000 years ago thing.

There is no getting around both a religious reference, which read reasonably would suggest teasing that faith, and the drug reference. Again, I can scoop my brain out so the connection between drugs and bong hits disappears or so the connection between Jesus and religion disappears, but it would also cause me to die.

You gotta love an argument that the only defense for his actions is that the sign was dumb. What a wonderful argument? Particularly since he simultaneously argued he was making a political statement.

Um, because they're bong hits. Why would anyone sell raffle tickets for Jesus or clap their hands if they love Jesus or honk their car horns for Jesus or any of a million banners like it. If you can explain to me how bong hits have nothing to do with drugs, then I'll be happy to concede. Perhaps you should start by scooping out my brain, because it's the argument you can make that isn't going to be laughable.


Because "Honk your car horn for Jesus" makes some sort of sense? It's (sort of) polling to see who loves Jesus.
Raffle tickets for Jesus is using Jesus to sell stuff.
But it's obvious that 1) this guy wasn't selling anything and 2) the idea that anyone would do bong hits for Jesus is laughable.


It doesn't say Jesus was doing bong hits. But hey let's continue that argument. Obviously, honk your car horn for Jesus isn't religious speech since Jesus wouldn't know what a car horn is either, since the whole 2000 years ago thing.

Honk your horn for Jesus has a "your" in it. It's not Jesus' horn. It's yours.
Honk for Jesus has that assumed, before you argue that.
And "Bong hits for Jesus" does have an assumed your. It makes it "Your bong hits for Jesus." which makes it possible to interpret it as giving bong hits to Jesus.

There is no getting around both a religious reference, which read reasonably would suggest teasing that faith, and the drug reference. Again, I can scoop my brain out so the connection between drugs and bong hits disappears or so the connection between Jesus and religion disappears, but it would also cause me to die.

But you're reading it in parts. The whole thing makes about as much sense as "all your base are belong to us".
Again:
If I say "all your base are belong to us" I am not trying to take over your base(s), I am trying to make you laugh. It's a joke, because the point is not what it says, but the horrible grammar.
With "Bong hits for Jesus", it's supposed to be a joke, because taken as a whole, it makes no sense.

You gotta love an argument that the only defense for his actions is that the sign was dumb. What a wonderful argument? Particularly since he simultaneously argued he was making a political statement.
First of all, that's not my only defense, it's just the defense we're arguing about now.
Second, I never said that it was making a political statement.

Because "Honk your car horn for Jesus" makes some sort of sense? It's (sort of) polling to see who loves Jesus.
Raffle tickets for Jesus is using Jesus to sell stuff.
But it's obvious that 1) this guy wasn't selling anything and 2) the idea that anyone would do bong hits for Jesus is laughable.

But it make sense. In my book, it makes just as much sense. Even if it is funny.

Are you seriously arguing that no reasonable person could ever read this as advocating doing bong hits for Jesus?


Honk your horn for Jesus has a "your" in it. It's not Jesus' horn. It's yours.
Honk for Jesus has that assumed, before you argue that.
And "Bong hits for Jesus" does have an assumed your. It makes it "Your bong hits for Jesus." which makes it possible to interpret it as giving bong hits to Jesus.

It's not Jesus' bong. Seriously, is English something you struggle with this badly? No one in their right mind would read "Raffle Tickets for Jesus" as saying they belonged to him.



But you're reading it in parts. The whole thing makes about as much sense as "all your base are belong to us".
Again:
If I say "all your base are belong to us" I am not trying to take over your base(s), I am trying to make you laugh. It's a joke, because the point is not what it says, but the horrible grammar.
With "Bong hits for Jesus", it's supposed to be a joke, because taken as a whole, it makes no sense.

First of all, that's not my only defense, it's just the defense we're arguing about now.
Second, I never said that it was making a political statement.
No, the kid who was the focus of the case did. It helps if you actually read the case.

Meanwhile, it's not about what he intended it to mean. It's about whether or not it could be reasonably seen as drug-related or religion-related, and honestly, you simply can't argue seeing that reference is unreasonable. It's bizarre that you'd argue that someone wouldn't reasonably make that relationship. It's so obviously obtuse, that I'm not sure the point of continuing.

Man, everyone who's ever associated with Bush is just taking one dump on the Constitution & The Bill of Rights after another aren't they?

Wiping their ass with freedom is nothing new to Dear Leader and the White House gang.

But it make sense. In my book, it makes just as much sense. Even if it is funny.

Are you seriously arguing that no reasonable person could ever read this as advocating doing bong hits for Jesus?

I know that's what I thought when I saw it. And, when the only information I had was that it was off-campus, I thought that the case should go in favor of the student. But then to find that he broke school rules at a school event.....well, that changed my mind.

It's not Jesus' bong. Seriously, is English something you struggle with this badly? No one in their right mind would read "Raffle Tickets for Jesus" as saying they belonged to him.

Maybe they're raffling Jesus off?

Seriously though, I'm really amazed how many people think that poor grammar automatically makes something "nonsense." Gamers use poor grammar all the time. There's a whole subculture on the internet which employs deliberate improper grammar and spelling.

But it make sense. In my book, it makes just as much sense. Even if it is funny.

Are you seriously arguing that no reasonable person could ever read this as advocating doing bong hits for Jesus?


They could read it that way, but they'd be missing the point.
Yet another analogy:
Say I yell "This is Spartaaaa..." in a park.
Some guy comes up to me and tells me we're not in Sparta.
This guy is both reasonable and missing the point.

It's not Jesus' bong. Seriously, is English something you struggle with this badly? No one in their right mind would read "Raffle Tickets for Jesus" as saying they belonged to him.
How about "Ammo for Jesus"? You can read that as either "Shoot Jesus" or "Give Jesus bullets (for Jesus's gun)".



No, the kid who was the focus of the case did. It helps if you actually read the case.

Yes, he intended it to be a political statement for free speech. He didn't intend it to be a political statement for bong hits.
This would mean he intended the point of holding up the banner to be "Hey look, here's speech protected under the constitution that I can't get in trouble for!"
Which of course is totally unrelated to bong hits.

Meanwhile, it's not about what he intended it to mean. It's about whether or not it could be reasonably seen as drug-related or religion-related, and honestly, you simply can't argue seeing that reference is unreasonable. It's bizarre that you'd argue that someone wouldn't reasonably make that relationship. It's so obviously obtuse, that I'm not sure the point of continuing.
First of all, when was this even about religion related? If it was religion related it'd obviously be protected.
And again, anyone who would say that "Bong hits for Jesus" means "Do bong hits" is obviously missing the point.
With yet another analogy, it's like accusing me for treason for saying "all your base are belong to us".
A reasonable person who had never heard of "all your base..." might think I was intending to attack the US.
But most people would see it as some strange phrase unrelated to attacking anything.
Same here.

Seriously though, I'm really amazed how many people think that poor grammar automatically makes something "nonsense." Gamers use poor grammar all the time. There's a whole subculture on the internet which employs deliberate improper grammar and spelling.

It wasn't the grammar that made it nonsense, it was the content.
At most if you wanted to make sense of it you can say that it was mocking phrases like "(insert something here) for Jesus".

They could read it that way, but they'd be missing the point.

Game, set, match. That's all it takes. If they could reasonably interpret it as promoting illegal activity, which you've just agreed you could, then it's not protected. It was fun destroying your argument. Let's do it again sometime.

Yes, he intended it to be a political statement for free speech. He didn't intend it to be a political statement for bong hits.
This would mean he intended the point of holding up the banner to be "Hey look, here's speech protected under the constitution that I can't get in trouble for!"
Which of course is totally unrelated to bong hits.
Again, why he put up a phrase is unimportant. You keep missing that point. Meanwhile, you should really read the case so you don't sound so ignorant of it. He said the political statement WAS related to bong hits. But, hey, don't take my word for it. Try this. Stop posting. Ignore that quote key. And read up on the subject you're posting since it's not only in the OP's link, but also quoted in the thread. It will really help you look less silly.

Game, set, match. That's all it takes. If they could reasonably interpret it as promoting illegal activity, which you've just agreed you could, then it's not protected. It was fun destroying your argument. Let's do it again sometime.

Pfft. He never said they could "reasonably interpret" it that way, just that they could interpret it that way. Which is true. I could interpret up as down, that doesn't mean it's reasonable.

They could read it that way, but they'd be missing the point.

How do you know what "the point" is? When a gamer uses similar grammar, that gamer is generally trying to make people laugh, yes. That gamer is also getting some sort of message across.

Your earlier example "All your base are belong to us," does two things. First of all, it makes us laugh. Second of all, it expresses an in-game message - "We're going to take over your bases."

Yes, he intended it to be a political statement for free speech. He didn't intend it to be a political statement for bong hits.

It wasn't a "political statement" at all.

This would mean he intended the point of holding up the banner to be "Hey look, here's speech protected under the constitution that I can't get in trouble for!"

Funny, he didn't say that. He gave several different reasons for the banner. One was that he intended to piss off the principal (good job, buddy). The other was that he wanted to get on TV.

Meanwhile, it would appear that this was not "speech protected under the constitution that [he] couldn't get in trouble for," at least not within the context of a school event.

Which of course is totally unrelated to bong hits.

He made it related to bong hits when he included that on the banner.

And again, anyone who would say that "Bong hits for Jesus" means "Do bong hits" is obviously missing the point.

"I don't see it that way, so everyone else [b]must[b] be wrong!"

But most people would see it as some strange phrase unrelated to attacking anything.

And yet most people seem to see this as a clear drug reference meant to advocate or glorify drug use. Funny, that.

It wasn't the grammar that made it nonsense, it was the content.
At most if you wanted to make sense of it you can say that it was mocking phrases like "(insert something here) for Jesus".

Indeed, and it did so by specifically picking a drug reference to do so. I highly doubt that the kid picked a drug reference by accident - the reference was intentional, and was most likely meant to intentionally break the school rule under question here.

Yes, he intended it to be a political statement for free speech. He didn't intend it to be a political statement for bong hits.
This would mean he intended the point of holding up the banner to be "Hey look, here's speech protected under the constitution that I can't get in trouble for!"
Which of course is totally unrelated to bong hits.actually, i've shown that he admitted that he was only provoking a response from the principal. so even he admits it wasn't a political statement for free speech but a petty act of revenge.

It wasn't the grammar that made it nonsense, it was the content.
At most if you wanted to make sense of it you can say that it was mocking phrases like "(insert something here) for Jesus".let's see...
"Honk for Peace" People who want peace would honk their horn.

"Walk for the Environment" People who want a better environment would walk.

"Dollars for Education" People would give money to improve education.

"Cars for Cancer" a slogan for our local cancer research group where you can donate your old vehicle, it would be refurbished/repaired or sold for scrap. the proceeds would go to cancer research.

so "Bong Hits for Jesus" was seen as promoting drugs in the name of Jesus.

Pfft. He never said they could "reasonably interpret" it that way, just that they could interpret it that way. Which is true. I could interpret up as down, that doesn't mean it's reasonable.

For the English-impaired "This guy is both reasonable and missing the point." Next.

Clarence Thomas is an asshole, Anthony Kennedy is a bigger asshole for siding with the conservatives on four cases in a row in one day.

actually, i've shown that he admitted that he was only provoking a response from the principal. so even he admits it wasn't a political statement for free speech but a petty act of revenge.

let's see...
"Honk for Peace" People who want peace would honk their horn.

"Walk for the Environment" People who want a better environment would walk.

"Dollars for Education" People would give money to improve education.

"Cars for Cancer" a slogan for our local cancer research group where you can donate your old vehicle, it would be refurbished/repaired or sold for scrap. the proceeds would go to cancer research.

so "Bong Hits for Jesus" was seen as promoting drugs in the name of Jesus.


nonono - it's promoting that Jesus do drugs. Don't you trust Jesus to make his own decisions?

nonono - it's promoting that Jesus do drugs. Don't you trust Jesus to make his own decisions?

:p It's still promoting drugs. ;)

:p It's still promoting drugs. ;)

What's wrong with that? Bong hits are great! Jesus probably has a lot of stress dealing with all these peoples sins weighing on him. A bong hit can really help ease the tension. It's really a pro-religious message.

Incidentally, Bruce Willis was on The Daily Show last night and mentioned the phrase "Bong hits for Jesus".

What's wrong with that? Bong hits are great! Jesus probably has a lot of stress dealing with all these peoples sins weighing on him. A bong hit can really help ease the tension. It's really a pro-religious message.

No, no, it obviously means that Jesus would be punching a bong. It was an anti-drug message. Yep, that's reasonable.

No, no, it obviously means that Jesus would be punching a bong. It was an anti-drug message. Yep, that's reasonable.

No way! That would never make sense in a million years considering what a stoner Jesus is known to be.

http://www.sourball.com/whitehouse/gs/bong.gif

http://alkali.colug.org/~kaha/buddy-jebus-420.jpg

Besides, then it would have to read "Bong punching for Jesus". This next image should show once and for all how to make a clear statement.

http://ladybunny.net/blog/uploaded_images/queerfetus%20for%20jesus-790937.jpg

I can't believe this actually went to the supreme court. This kind of serious nonsense makes me sick to my stomach.

http://ladybunny.net/blog/uploaded_images/queerfetus%20for%20jesus-790937.jpg

It would suck to be that...woman? in the front there, but actually have nothing to do with the sign.

It would suck to be that...woman? in the front there, but actually have nothing to do with the sign.

except that... woman? is holding the doll with the skull on top.

No way! That would never make sense in a million years considering what a stoner Jesus is known to be.

http://www.sourball.com/whitehouse/gs/bong.gif

http://alkali.colug.org/~kaha/buddy-jebus-420.jpg

Besides, then it would have to read "Bong punching for Jesus". This next image should show once and for all how to make a clear statement.

http://ladybunny.net/blog/uploaded_images/queerfetus%20for%20jesus-790937.jpg

It was actually equivalent to Bong Spanking 4 Jesus. Cuz, spanking and hitting are the same thing.

...

...

See what I did there?

what the? That's a woman? I thought it was one of The Beatles.

what the? That's a woman? I thought it was one of The Beatles.

... your guess is as good as ours... I guess...

It was actually equivalent to Bong Spanking 4 Jesus. Cuz, spanking and hitting are the same thing.

...

...

See what I did there?

I'm a big fan of spanking it for Jesus. But no, spanking it and hitting it are two different things in the eyes of the Lord. Whited out because it's dumb - shhhhh

except that... woman? is holding the doll with the skull on top.

Well, yeah, but in a hypothectical situation where ...she? was just a passerby or something, and then to be immortalized into the internet like that.

except that... woman? is holding the doll with the skull on top.

A doll with a skull on top could mean so many different things. The main meaning is obvious though: Children get high to die.

Well, yeah, but in a hypothectical situation where ...she? was just a passerby or something, and then to be immortalized into the internet like that.

That would be pretty awesome.

For the English-impaired "This guy is both reasonable and missing the point." Next.

I might be reasonable, but that doesn't mean my every interpretation is.

And you might want to try cutting out the mild ad hominems.
Next!

I might be reasonable, but that doesn't mean my every interpretation is.

And you might want to try cutting out the mild ad hominems.
Next!

Uh-huh. That would be a "reasonable" interpretation if we weren't actually discussing the fact that it was a reasonable interpretation. So either it was a non sequitor or it could be *gasp* that he was making a rational statement. I prefer to consider it the latter, but hey if you want to treat him like he doesn't say things that make sense, feel free.

And on the last bit, nah. I like it better this way.

I'll admit to not having read the case yet (though I plan to). However, from a casual glance, I don't understand the majority's justification for upholding the student's punishment based on precedent from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District . I quote directly from the case:

The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners' interference, actual or nascent, with the schools' work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students.
The case established that school officials may only restrict speech if the student in question is disrupting classroom activities or violating the rights of others in the process, in addition to conventional rules of discipline. I don't see how a drug reference made outside of school did either.

I'll admit to not having read the case yet (though I plan to). However, from a casual glance, I don't understand the majority's justification for upholding the student's punishment based on precedent from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District . I quote directly from the case:


The case established that school officials may only restrict speech if the student in question is disrupting classroom activities or violating the rights of others in the process. I don't see how a drug reference made outside of school did either.

Would you understand how a drug reference made inside of school did, since that was where he made the reference?

I'll admit to not having read the case yet (though I plan to). However, from a casual glance, I don't understand the majority's justification for upholding the student's punishment based on precedent from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District . I quote directly from the case:

The case established that school officials may only restrict speech if the student in question is disrupting classroom activities or violating the rights of others in the process, in addition to conventional rules of discipline. I don't see how a drug reference made outside of school did either.

(a) There are other cases which act as precedent for this decision - cases which came after Tinker. Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser and Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton were both brought up - the former to demonstrate that Tinker did not set out a hard and fast rule and the latter to demonstrate precedent for viewing deterrence of drug use as a legitimate school interest (perhaps even a compelling interest).

(b) This was no more "outside of school" than a field trip or school picnic.

Would you understand how a drug reference made inside of school did, since that was where he made the reference?

It was my understanding he held up the offending banner outside, on a street, during a parade.

Even if he made the reference inside the school, I still don't see how he violated either of the standards set forth by the court in Des Moines. The only reason I put emphasis on the fact that he made the reference outside of the school was to underscore that he wasn't even in the building, let alone overstepping student free speech rights. Again, however, I really need to read the case before making my final judgement on it.

(a) There are other cases which act as precedent for this decision - cases which came after Tinker.
I believe it, though it was my understanding that the precedent in Tinker remained intact.

It was my understanding he held up the offending banner outside, on a street, during a parade.

A parade which the students were allowed to attend as a field trip of sorts. They were escorted by their teachers to the parade, supervised by their teachers while there, and then escorted back to their classes. They were just as much under the authority of the school as they would have been on a trip to a museum.

I believe it, though it was my understanding that the precedent in Tinker remained intact.

It does, but as seen in later cases, the "disruption" rule is not the only possible instance under which schools can regulate student speech. As I pointed out, Fraser and Acton were really the most relevant cases used as precedent here.

Tinker could be seen as providing a very strict rule, but it has not been interpreted that way by the court. Later cases have broadened it.

Would you understand how a drug reference made inside of school did, since that was where he made the reference?

Personally, no I do not see a problem with a student making a reference to drugs while in school or out on a field trip.

If he was doing drugs, or passing them out, then yeah I would have a problem with it. Or if he was in a class room and yelling "smoke pot!" over the teacher while they were tryign to execute a lesson plan, sure.

I've had teachers more than once ask me to debate with others as to why marijuana should be legalized during class time.

I've had a teacher come up to me and my friends and ask us where he could get some pot before too. lol - Yes, this was on campus.

To advocate that Jesus shoudl smoke or or that people should smoke pot in Jesus' name does not seem like a reason to suspend someone. It really doesn't even seem like a punishable offense to me.

It was my understanding he held up the offending banner outside, on a street, during a parade.

During a school event. School doesn't end at the walls. We've been talking about this for the whole thread and it's the FIRST SENTENCE of the ruling. Did you not read any of it?

Even if he made the reference inside the school, I still don't see how he violated either of the standards set forth by the court in Des Moines. The only reason I put emphasis on the fact that he made the reference outside of the school was to underscore that he wasn't even in the building, let alone overstepping student free speech rights. Again, however, I really need to read the case before making my final judgement on it.

It didn't. The court points out that Des Moines is a necessary consideration, but that Congress having made it the duty of a school to educate on and prevent drug use means that advocating such drug use does disrupt the school. But again, reading the actual judgement would help since they didn't argue what you're saying they argued.

I've had teachers more than once ask me to debate with others as to why marijuana should be legalized during class time.

Debating the legality of marijuana and advocating illegal drug use are two very different things. From the decision, it would appear that a political statement like, "Marijuana should be legal," would be protected.

I've had a teacher come up to me and my friends and ask us where he could get some pot before too. lol - Yes, this was on campus.

I don't see how having a teacher who is willing to break the law is relevant.

To advocate that Jesus shoudl smoke or or that people should smoke pot in Jesus' name does not seem like a reason to suspend someone. It really doesn't even seem like a punishable offense to me.

This school did. And because the court recognizes discouraging illegal drug use as a legitimate goal in schools, their rule was upheld.

Personally, no I do not see a problem with a student making a reference to drugs while in school or out on a field trip.

If he was doing drugs, or passing them out, then yeah I would have a problem with it. Or if he was in a class room and yelling "smoke pot!" over the teacher while they were tryign to execute a lesson plan, sure.

I've had teachers more than once ask me to debate with others as to why marijuana should be legalized during class time.

I've had a teacher come up to me and my friends and ask us where he could get some pot before too. lol - Yes, this was on campus.

To advocate that Jesus shoudl smoke or or that people should smoke pot in Jesus' name does not seem like a reason to suspend someone. It really doesn't even seem like a punishable offense to me.

Advocating illegal activities, in school, isn't protected speech. Meanwhile, Congress has regularly put educating about illegal drug use and make efforts to discourage as a task of public schools. As such, promoting the opposite does disrupt the purpose of the schools. You don't really think you could wear Budweiser shirts to school, do you?

I notice everyone's talking about how it's an "illegal activity" is why it should be banned. Suppose he held up a banner reading:

BEER BONG HITS FOR JESUS ONCE WE ALL TURN 21

What would your argument be? "He promoted a legal activity with his awful, awful humor!"

I notice everyone's talking about how it's an "illegal activity" is why it should be banned.

Note, nobody is arguing that this speech should be outright banned. The argument is simply that a school can make rules that prohibit such speech at school or school events. If this event had occurred on a Saturday and the student just happened to be standing across from the school (rather than being required to be along that stretch of road by the school itself), the principal would have had absolutely no authority to confiscate the sign or punish the student.

Suppose he held up a banner reading:

BEER BONG HITS FOR JESUS ONCE WE ALL TURN 21

What would your argument be? "He promoted a legal activity with his awful, awful humor!"

At that point, my argument would be, "Unless there was a legitimate school rule that would prohibit him from holding up a sign during this event, there is no reason that he should have been punished."

I notice everyone's talking about how it's an "illegal activity" is why it should be banned. Suppose he held up a banner reading:

BEER BONG HITS FOR JESUS ONCE WE ALL TURN 21

What would your argument be? "He promoted a legal activity with his awful, awful humor!"

Hmmm... I would have to say it would. I'd be offended by the color and size though and since the anti-PC people says we have a right to not be offended (since PC offends them so) I'm saying that you must take it down. Stop violating my rights.

I notice everyone's talking about how it's an "illegal activity" is why it should be banned. Suppose he held up a banner reading:

BEER BONG HITS FOR JESUS ONCE WE ALL TURN 21

What would your argument be? "He promoted a legal activity with his awful, awful humor!"

If that were the case there would be no argument. My understanding is that the whole problem is that he was advocating an illegal activity. If it was a legal activity he was advocating nothing would have happened, one assumes.

Advocating illegal activities, in school, isn't protected speech. Meanwhile, Congress has regularly put educating about illegal drug use and make efforts to discourage as a task of public schools. As such, promoting the opposite does disrupt the purpose of the schools. You don't really think you could wear Budweiser shirts to school, do you?
So, if I'm correct in my reading of your post, you're saying that any sort of verbal or symbolic dissent to school/government policies is speech that may be appropriately banned? I can see the Budweiser shirt -- senseless references to illegal behavior are undestandably banned -- but expressing disagreement with government-mandated curriculum is at the core of the first amendment's free speech clause.
EDIT: That's not to say that the student's banner was an expression of disagreement. Rather, I was just addressing your argument in general, which relates to banning what is effectively known as "pure speech" (again, from Tinker).

If that were the case there would be no argument. My understanding is that the whole problem is that he was advocating an illegal activity. If it was a legal activity he was advocating nothing would have happened, one assumes.

However, his friends would kick his ass for having such an obnoxious sign. Please don't put obnoxious things in these thread Zar. Some of us have huge monitors and that's just offensive to the eyes and really makes it less likely that anyone will read your argument.

If that were the case there would be no argument. My understanding is that the whole problem is that he was advocating an illegal activity. If it was a legal activity he was advocating nothing would have happened, one assumes.

I think one assumes incorrectly. I think this is more an attempt by the conservative activist judges and schools to restrict the free speech of young people.

If I speculate why they might want to restrict the free speech of young people, it's going to start sounding like a conspiracy theory. (The best idea I can come up with so far is because young people tend to be more liberal than older people.)

Debating the legality of marijuana and advocating illegal drug use are two very different things. From the decision, it would appear that a political statement like, "Marijuana should be legal," would be protected.



I don't see how having a teacher who is willing to break the law is relevant.



This school did. And because the court recognizes discouraging illegal drug use as a legitimate goal in schools, their rule was upheld.

Advocating illegal activities, in school, isn't protected speech. Meanwhile, Congress has regularly put educating about illegal drug use and make efforts to discourage as a task of public schools. As such, promoting the opposite does disrupt the purpose of the schools. You don't really think you could wear Budweiser shirts to school, do you?


Yes, obviously the school does thinks it's bad, or else we wouldnt be having this discussion. I'm not sure where I said I don't think they do. I was hoping this would have been made clear when I said "Personally, no I...". I hope it's okay to interject my opinion.

If a student held up a sign or wore a shirt that said "No School for Jesus", or "Math never helped Jesus" or anything else that is opposed to a schools mission statement, and it encouraged someone to do the opposite of what the school would like everyone to do, I would still disagree with their suspension on a personal level.

So, if I'm correct in my reading of your post, you're saying that any sort of verbal or symbolic dissent to school/government policies is speech that may be appropriately banned?

It would depend on where. During school activities, you certainly can't advocate that students break school rules. He didn't say down with the rule. He advocated the activity. The difference is not subtle.

I can see the Budweiser shirt -- senseless references to illegal behavior are undestandably banned -- but expressing disagreement with government-mandated curriculum is at the core of the first amendment's free speech clause.
He didn't express disagreement. Where did he say "I don't like this law". What he did cannot be considered any different than if I claimed my Budweiser shirt was a protest. And if I wore one of those shirts it would be a protest. Against really awful swill.

However, his friends would kick his ass for having such an obnoxious sign. Please don't put obnoxious things in these thread Zar. Some of us have huge monitors and that's just offensive to the eyes and really makes it less likely that anyone will read your argument.

Fine, I'll shrink it a little.

But it would be easier for you to just buy a smaller monitor.

So, if I'm correct in my reading of your post, you're saying that any sort of verbal or symbolic dissent to school/government policies is speech that may be appropriately banned?

Not at all. In fact, the justices seemed pretty clear that dissent to such policies is protected speech.

Advocating illegal drug activity, on the other hand, is not.

If the student had held up a sign that said, "Marijuana should be legal" - making a clear political statement without advocating that students break the law - he would have been fine.

It would depend on where. During school activities, you certainly can't advocate that students break school rules. He didn't say down with the rule. He advocated the activity. The difference is not subtle.

He didn't express disagreement. Where did he say "I don't like this law". What he did cannot be considered any different than if I claimed my Budweiser shirt was a protest. And if I wore one of those shirts it would be a protest. Against really awful swill.
See the "EDIT" part of my post. I was just addressing his/her argument in general.

I think one assumes incorrectly. I think this is more an attempt by the conservative activist judges and schools to restrict the free speech of young people.

If I speculate why they might want to restrict the free speech of young people, it's going to start sounding like a conspiracy theory. (The best idea I can come up with so far is because young people tend to be more liberal than older people.)

What makes you think that young people have the right to promote illegal activities while in school? This ruling is completely in line with a number of other rulings throughout history. Are you really suggesting that students should be allowed to hold up a sign in an assembly that says "Vandalize the school" or "Steal stuff" or any of a number of other illegal activities that if engaged in would be considerably disruptive and obiously illegal.

What makes you think that young people have the right to promote illegal activities while in school? This ruling is completely in line with a number of other rulings throughout history. Are you really suggesting that students should be allowed to hold up a sign in an assembly that says "Vandalize the school" or "Steal stuff" or any of a number of other illegal activities that if engaged in would be considerably disruptive and obiously illegal.

I was actually referring to Clarence Thomas's assertion that students have NO free speech rights.

I would argue, however, that saying "Steal stuff" is not on the same level as saying "Smoke pot".

I was actually referring to Clarence Thomas's assertion that students have NO free speech rights.

Thomas is always crazy. While I think the court would be better off without him, I also realize that none of the other justices are anywhere near crazy enough to agree with him on most issues, so I don't think he's a huge threat.

Yes, obviously the school does thinks it's bad, or else we wouldnt be having this discussion. I'm not sure where I said I don't think they do. I was hoping this would have been made clear when I said "Personally, no I...". I hope it's okay to interject my opinion.

If a student held up a sign or wore a shirt that said "No School for Jesus", or "Math never helped Jesus" or anything else that is opposed to a schools mission statement, and it encouraged someone to do the opposite of what the school would like everyone to do, I would still disagree with their suspension on a personal level.

I think you're approaching the line (the kid was nowhere near it). I'm pretty sure "skip school for Jesus" would be right out. No School for Jesus is pretty gray and on the line. It certainly could be reasonably interpreted as saying they are against school, rather than suggesting that people skip school.

The Math sign is pretty clearly in since it only protests the school activities rather than suggesting that students violate the law or the school rules.

I was actually referring to Clarence Thomas's assertion that students have NO free speech rights.

I would argue, however, that saying "Steal stuff" is not on the same level as saying "Smoke pot".

Why? Because you happen to agree with one and not the other? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

And Thomas is a loon. Most of the concurring opinion said nothing so nonsensical. No conspiracy necessary.

Thomas is always crazy. While I think the court would be better off without him, I also realize that none of the other justices are anywhere near crazy enough to agree with him on most issues, so I don't think he's a huge threat.

I don't know...Scalia's pretty out there.

But the point is, the fact that he just set a precedent-His take on the case is on the legal record, and can therefore could now be used as a precedent for the further restriction of a student's free speech rights.

Why? Because you happen to agree with one and not the other? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

I didn't say I agreed with either one.

So...I disagree with you...So I'm a pothead? Brilliant logic there.

But the point is, smoking pot harms no one but yourself in most cases, whereas stealing hurts other people. The only groups that honestly think smoking pot is worse than stealing are the government, the moral majority, and a few angry nutjobs.