Author Topic: Bong Hits 4 Jesus  (Read 1310 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
« on: June 25, 2007, 11:31:44 AM »
WASHINGTON, (AP) --

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

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

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 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 don't 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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2007, 11:57:40 PM »
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/01/scotu ... index.html
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/LAW/12/01/scotus.bonghits/vert.starr.gi.jpg[/img]  Former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr represents an Alaska school board in a legal dispute over a student's banner.

Starr, who is now dean of the law school at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, urged the high court in his appeal brief to clear up the "doctrinal fog infecting student speech jurisprudence."

According to an Associated Press report, Starr is handling the case free of charge.

The case will test school's ability to regulate speech on illegal drugs, particularly when it is done off school grounds.

The appeal will likely be argued in late February, with a ruling expected by late June.

The case is Morse and the Juneau School Board et al. v. Frederick (06-278).

Copyright 2006 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
-------------- • -------------- • --------------

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2007, 12:00:23 AM »
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
-------------- • -------------- • --------------

Offline Froderik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7547
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • View Profile
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2007, 12:14:04 AM »
Quote from: ""Ursus""
High court takes 'Bong Hits for Jesus' case

Hahaha..
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2007, 12:15:23 AM »
I can't think of a bigger waste of time. How many of those kids even know how to read properly?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2007, 01:08:09 AM »
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/ ... 4_j_2.html
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/03/19/PH2007031901697.jpg[/img]  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
-------------- • -------------- • --------------

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2007, 08:36:51 PM »
It almost sounds like Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg are
pro-legalization.


"...the current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general,
and our antimarijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion
that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a
student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles
of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor
that now supports the war on drugs. The ensuing change in public opinion
occurred much more slowly than the relatively rapid shift in Americans’
views on the Vietnam War, and progressed on a state-by-state basis over
a period of many years. But just as prohibition in the 1920’s and early
1930’s was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding
patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally
millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana,9 and of the
majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal
uses of the product,10 lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval
by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs.
Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of
dampening speech suggesting—however inarticulately—that it would be
better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile
effort to ban its use entirely.

    Even in high school, a rule that permits only one point of view to
be expressed is less likely to produce correct answers than the open
discussion of countervailing views. Whitney, 274 U. S., at 377
(Brandeis, J., concurring); Abrams, 250 U. S., at 630 (Holmes, J.,
dissenting); Tinker, 393 U. S., at 512. In the national debate about a
serious issue, it is the expression of the minority’s viewpoint that
most demands the protection of the First Amendment . Whatever the better
policy may be, a full and frank discussion of the costs and benefits of
the attempt to prohibit the use of marijuana is far wiser than
suppression of speech because it is unpopular."

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg join,
dissenting:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-278.ZD.html
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2007, 03:22:04 AM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
I can't think of a bigger waste of time. How many of those kids even know how to read properly?


One of those "illiterate potheads" is probably fucking your daughter in the ass right now...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Froderik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7547
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • View Profile
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2007, 06:20:25 AM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
Quote from: ""Guest""
I can't think of a bigger waste of time. How many of those kids even know how to read properly?

One of those "illiterate potheads" is probably fucking your daughter in the ass right now...

 :rofl:  ::bwahaha::
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2007, 11:55:25 AM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
It almost sounds like Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg are
pro-legalization.


Yeah, it's about time someone introduced some sanity up there.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Stevens_S ... _0627.html

Stevens: Smoking pot akin to drinking during prohibition
Nick Juliano
Published: Wednesday June 27, 2007    
   
Print This  Email This    

In his dissent on a recent free-speech case, Justice John Paul Stevens wades into the war-on-drugs debate, comparing modern-day pot smokers with "otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies," during the prohibition era.

Stevens, who the Washington Post notes turned 87 on April 20, said the current climate surrounding the war on drugs "is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student."

The Supreme Court this week ruled against an Alaska student who displayed a "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" sign at an event outside his high school, and Stevens wrote the dissent for the four justices who believed the student's free-speech rights should be protected.

"Today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority in (is) silencing opponents of the war on drugs," Stevens wrote.

Most debate over the efficacy of the war on drugs focuses on government crackdowns on users of medical marijuana, for whom the drug eases chronic pain. But in comparing pot smoking to social drinking, Stevens suggests that the drug could be legalized in all cases.

In his opinion, Stevens insists "no one seriously maintains that drug advocacy ... can be prohibited because of its feared consequences." Later, Stevens observes the shift in Americans' views on alcohol since the 1920s and 30s.

"While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs," Stevens writes.

In a 2005 case, Stevens wrote for the court's 6-3 majority that upheld the federal government's right to prosecute medical marijuana patients in states that have legalized medical use of the drug.

But his opinion was based strictly on Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce, and that opinion included mention that credible research showing marijuana could be medically effective would "cast serious doubt" on the government's classification of the drug as a Schedule I narcotic. And he all but encouraged the advocates to take their argument directly to Congress.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline tripleg

  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2007, 12:55:24 AM »
I think this case is a lot more significant than you guys seem to be giving it credit for. What it means is a huge crackdown on the first amendment rights of students: the students holding the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" sign weren't even on school property and yet are being expelled for it.

Goodbye, free speech.

Hello, Tianamen Square...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
quot;To those who fast on the sacred mountain waiting for dawn: Do not be afraid to be afraid. Be afraid, exult, hope, despair, wait, and wonder.

And then love.\"

                  - Steven Foster