Unknown2007-03-20 08:46:44
So I was reading the newspaper this morning, 3:00am or so and I'm up. >_< Anywho, this article gets my attention. Here is the story from the Associated Press. (the Reading Eagle I get daily at my house)
Anyway, discuss, I'll reserve my views on the issue until others are chatting it up.
QUOTE( Reading Eagle @ Tuesday, March 20, 2007)
Students from Maryland protest Monday outside the Supreme Court, where justices debated a case involving the right of a high school senior from alaska who got in trouble for unfurling a 14-foot-long banner that said "Bond hits 4 Jesus."
At issue is the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" on a banner displayed by a student across the street from his high school in Juneau, Alaska, in 2002. (First I'm hearing of it, blasted main-stream media)
WASHINGTON -- A high school senior's 14-foot banner proclaiming "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" gave the Supreme Court a provocative prop for a lively argument Monday about the extent of schools' control over student speech.
If the Justices conclude Joseph Frederick's homemade sign was a pro-drug message, they are likely to side with principal Deborah Morse. She suspended Frederick in 2002 when he unfurled the banner across the street from the school in Juneau, Alaska.
"I thought we wanted our schools to teach something, including something besides just basic elements, including the character formation and not to use drug," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said Monday.
But the court could rule for Frederick if it determines that he was, as he has contended, conducting a free-speech experiment using a nonsensical message that contained no pitch for drug use.
"It sounds like just a kid's provocative statement to me," Justice David H. Souter said.
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.
Morse, now a Juneau schools' administrator, was at the court Monday. Frederick, teaching and studying in China, was not.
Former independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, whose Kirkland 7 Ellis law firm is representing Morse for free, argued that the justices should defer to the judgment of the principal. Morse reasonably interpreted the banner as a pro-drug message, despite what Frederick intended, Starr said.
School officials are perfectly within their rights to curtail student speech that advocates drug use, he said.
"The message here is, in fact, critical," Starr said.
Starr, joined by the Bush administration, also asked the court the adopt a broad rule that could essentially give public schools the right to clamp down on any speech with which they disagree. That argument did not appear to have widespread support among the justices.
Douglas K.Mertz of Juneau, Fredrick's lawyer, struggled to keep the focus away from drugs.
"This is a case about free speech,' he said. "It is not a case about drugs."
Conservative groups that often are allied with the administrations 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.
The outcome also could stray from the conservative-liberal split that often characterizes controversial cases.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. who wrote several opinions in favor of student speech rights white a federal appeals court judge, seemed more concerned by the administration’s broad argument in favor of schools than did his fellow conservatives.
"I find that a very, a very disturbing argument," Alito told Justice Department lawyer Edwin S. Kneedler, "because schools have ... defined their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all sorts of political speech and speech expressing fundamental values of the students, under the banner of getting rid of speech that's inconsistent with educational missions."
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in the court's liberal wing, said he was troubled a ruling in favor of Frederick, even if he was making a joke, would make it harder to principals to run their schools.
"We'll suddenly see people testing limits all over the place in the high schools," Breyer said.
On the other hand, he said a decision favorable to the schools "may really limit people's right on free speech. That's what I'm struggling with."
The fault for any and all typo’s are the Eagle's, or those people whom are being quoted, not mine, I noticed one or two, but didn't correct them. I also apologize for their obsessive need to quote as many people as possible rather then sticking to facts.At issue is the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" on a banner displayed by a student across the street from his high school in Juneau, Alaska, in 2002. (First I'm hearing of it, blasted main-stream media)
WASHINGTON -- A high school senior's 14-foot banner proclaiming "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" gave the Supreme Court a provocative prop for a lively argument Monday about the extent of schools' control over student speech.
If the Justices conclude Joseph Frederick's homemade sign was a pro-drug message, they are likely to side with principal Deborah Morse. She suspended Frederick in 2002 when he unfurled the banner across the street from the school in Juneau, Alaska.
"I thought we wanted our schools to teach something, including something besides just basic elements, including the character formation and not to use drug," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said Monday.
But the court could rule for Frederick if it determines that he was, as he has contended, conducting a free-speech experiment using a nonsensical message that contained no pitch for drug use.
"It sounds like just a kid's provocative statement to me," Justice David H. Souter said.
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.
Morse, now a Juneau schools' administrator, was at the court Monday. Frederick, teaching and studying in China, was not.
Former independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, whose Kirkland 7 Ellis law firm is representing Morse for free, argued that the justices should defer to the judgment of the principal. Morse reasonably interpreted the banner as a pro-drug message, despite what Frederick intended, Starr said.
School officials are perfectly within their rights to curtail student speech that advocates drug use, he said.
"The message here is, in fact, critical," Starr said.
Starr, joined by the Bush administration, also asked the court the adopt a broad rule that could essentially give public schools the right to clamp down on any speech with which they disagree. That argument did not appear to have widespread support among the justices.
Douglas K.Mertz of Juneau, Fredrick's lawyer, struggled to keep the focus away from drugs.
"This is a case about free speech,' he said. "It is not a case about drugs."
Conservative groups that often are allied with the administrations 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.
The outcome also could stray from the conservative-liberal split that often characterizes controversial cases.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. who wrote several opinions in favor of student speech rights white a federal appeals court judge, seemed more concerned by the administration’s broad argument in favor of schools than did his fellow conservatives.
"I find that a very, a very disturbing argument," Alito told Justice Department lawyer Edwin S. Kneedler, "because schools have ... defined their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all sorts of political speech and speech expressing fundamental values of the students, under the banner of getting rid of speech that's inconsistent with educational missions."
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in the court's liberal wing, said he was troubled a ruling in favor of Frederick, even if he was making a joke, would make it harder to principals to run their schools.
"We'll suddenly see people testing limits all over the place in the high schools," Breyer said.
On the other hand, he said a decision favorable to the schools "may really limit people's right on free speech. That's what I'm struggling with."
Anyway, discuss, I'll reserve my views on the issue until others are chatting it up.
Estarra2007-03-20 15:59:02
My favorite SCOTUS reporter is Dahlia Lithwick who has a great handle on the justices' personalities and writes with a wry humor.
As usual, her reporting and commentary on Bong Hits for Jesus makes for great reading as well as giving insight into what the hearing must have been like.
As usual, her reporting and commentary on Bong Hits for Jesus makes for great reading as well as giving insight into what the hearing must have been like.
Arel2007-03-21 19:44:18
That is hilariously ridiculous, especially that second article.
Verithrax2007-03-21 20:08:06
I find it disturbing and silly that this is an issue at all.
Callia2007-03-21 20:13:49
Its only an issue because the US legal system can't actually say, "You are a stupid jackass go away." Each person has a right to have their case heard no matter how inane. Seriously, this entire case has gone way to far.
The kid should of been fined for protesting/picketing without 'permission' (IE, getting a permit from city hall.) And the principal should be fired for being a tyrant, and a douche.
Of course... this entire thing reminds me of Southpark... wonder why...
The kid should of been fined for protesting/picketing without 'permission' (IE, getting a permit from city hall.) And the principal should be fired for being a tyrant, and a douche.
Of course... this entire thing reminds me of Southpark... wonder why...
Xavius2007-03-21 21:03:32
QUOTE(Callia Parayshia @ Mar 21 2007, 03:13 PM) 392226
Its only an issue because the US legal system can't actually say, "You are a stupid jackass go away." Each person has a right to have their case heard no matter how inane. Seriously, this entire case has gone way to far.
The kid should of been fined for protesting/picketing without 'permission' (IE, getting a permit from city hall.) And the principal should be fired for being a tyrant, and a douche.
Of course... this entire thing reminds me of Southpark... wonder why...
The kid should of been fined for protesting/picketing without 'permission' (IE, getting a permit from city hall.) And the principal should be fired for being a tyrant, and a douche.
Of course... this entire thing reminds me of Southpark... wonder why...
Protest permits are shaky in any jurisdiction, and are never, ever, ever required for the protests of an individual.
School administrators should never feel that their careers are on the line for good faith attempts to do their job, much like we offer tenure for teachers with some experience.
EDIT: And the Supreme Court has every right, and frequently exercises the right, to ignore cases. Multiple Justices thought that this is an important issue.
Verithrax2007-03-21 21:27:34
QUOTE(Callia Parayshia @ Mar 21 2007, 05:13 PM) 392226
Its only an issue because the US legal system can't actually say, "You are a stupid jackass go away." Each person has a right to have their case heard no matter how inane. Seriously, this entire case has gone way to far.
The kid should of been fined for protesting/picketing without 'permission' (IE, getting a permit from city hall.) And the principal should be fired for being a tyrant, and a douche.
Of course... this entire thing reminds me of Southpark... wonder why...
The kid should of been fined for protesting/picketing without 'permission' (IE, getting a permit from city hall.) And the principal should be fired for being a tyrant, and a douche.
Of course... this entire thing reminds me of Southpark... wonder why...
The very notion of having to get a permit to protest is possibly the most bizarre thing I have ever encountered in any legal system. It's like having to pay a fee in order to file your tax form...
Xavius2007-03-21 21:28:19
QUOTE(Verithrax @ Mar 21 2007, 04:27 PM) 392238
The very notion of having to get a permit to protest is possibly the most bizarre thing I have ever encountered in any legal system. It's like having to pay a fee in order to file your tax form...
A lot of us do that too.
Verithrax2007-03-21 22:04:56
So essentially, you're being coerced into paying taxes... and you have to pay for the privilege?
Mirk2007-03-22 02:41:32
QUOTE(Verithrax @ Mar 21 2007, 05:04 PM) 392249
So essentially, you're being coerced into paying taxes... and you have to pay for the privilege?
no, just if you want to have the convenience of paying online...
Arel2007-03-22 02:58:33
That idea that the principal would have to pay this kid "damages" is completely ridiculous. I'm not sure how any judge would think that sort of thing makes sense in any way.
Verithrax2007-03-22 08:14:37
QUOTE(Arel @ Mar 21 2007, 11:58 PM) 392307
That idea that the principal would have to pay this kid "damages" is completely ridiculous. I'm not sure how any judge would think that sort of thing makes sense in any way.
I don't think paying the kid damages is really necessary, but I don't think the principal ought to get out of this scot-free... Trying to suppress the sign is one thing (Still wrong, but an acceptable knee-jerk reaction). However, when the student invoked the First amendment, the Principal's reaction was to double his detention time... which makes him totally unqualified to do his own job.
Iridiel2007-03-23 12:46:46
Kid made a stunt. Ignore it and if you think the kid might be having problems with drugs and you (as educator) feel responsable call the parents of the sweet creature to deal with it as they see fit. If the kid claims it's a social experiment ask the kid to write a very long project document explaining his method and why did he do it and what did he learn from it. Right of speech is apearing more and more in the center of silly issues, wich means that when it's the center of a really important issue it goes unnoticed as "yet another one sueing on free speech".
Unknown2007-03-23 13:56:35
The article briefly mentions how he's teaching and studying in China now, I doubt he's some sort of druggie since he's in some sort of foreign teaching exchange program.
Callia2007-03-23 14:06:42
In the United States, all forms of protesting, and even preaching, typically require you to goto City Hall, and just tell them you are doing it. There is no fee for the permit, and rarely are they denied. (Examples of denial would be a KKK Rally planned right next to an African American Parade route on MLK, they will ask the KKK to move their rally, for obvious riot control purposes...)
The purposes of 'protesting' permits is not to 'restrict' anyone, but to let the city government know so it can A.) Live up to its responsibility to protect the protester, and B.) Simply so the city is aware, and can make plans if it is going to be a large rally, like shutting down streets, etc...
The purposes of 'protesting' permits is not to 'restrict' anyone, but to let the city government know so it can A.) Live up to its responsibility to protect the protester, and B.) Simply so the city is aware, and can make plans if it is going to be a large rally, like shutting down streets, etc...
Verithrax2007-03-23 20:56:07
QUOTE(Callia Parayshia @ Mar 23 2007, 11:06 AM) 392730
In the United States, all forms of protesting, and even preaching, typically require you to goto City Hall, and just tell them you are doing it. There is no fee for the permit, and rarely are they denied. (Examples of denial would be a KKK Rally planned right next to an African American Parade route on MLK, they will ask the KKK to move their rally, for obvious riot control purposes...)
The purposes of 'protesting' permits is not to 'restrict' anyone, but to let the city government know so it can A.) Live up to its responsibility to protect the protester, and B.) Simply so the city is aware, and can make plans if it is going to be a large rally, like shutting down streets, etc...
The purposes of 'protesting' permits is not to 'restrict' anyone, but to let the city government know so it can A.) Live up to its responsibility to protect the protester, and B.) Simply so the city is aware, and can make plans if it is going to be a large rally, like shutting down streets, etc...
I understand the necessity of warning traffic authorities when you want to have a street closed for a protest, but having to get a permit simply to protest at all is idiotic. It leads to surreal situations like having to get a permit to protest against government bureaucracy, and the fact that they can be denied opens the door to abuse. Blocking traffic without permission is one thing, but picketing on the sidewalk is another, and showing one sign saying a nonsensical phrase during a public occasion is quite a different thing; if I walk down the street and yell something disparaging about a public authority, is that "protest"? What if I scream, "Crack pipes for Allah!"? There's a line between an occasion where public authorities may want to know and having to ask permission from the government to protest - Specially since the government is the most protested organisation in any free democracy.
Daganev2007-03-23 21:00:35
QUOTE(Wesmin @ Mar 23 2007, 06:56 AM) 392728
The article briefly mentions how he's teaching and studying in China now, I doubt he's some sort of druggie since he's in some sort of foreign teaching exchange program.
Really funny you say that. My friend, who is the biggest druggy I know, became a teacher in Japan on a foreign teaching exchange program.
Verithrax2007-03-23 22:30:57
QUOTE(daganev @ Mar 23 2007, 06:00 PM) 392842
Really funny you say that. My friend, who is the biggest druggy I know, became a teacher in Japan on a foreign teaching exchange program.
To quote Eddie Izzard: "The Dutch speak four languages... and smoke marijuana."
Xavius2007-03-24 02:54:23
I looked up the local requirements for protest permits. It's piecemeal, so I can't give you one definitive link, but it's run through the department that manages traffic flow, and not the police, if that gives you any idea of what you need. Basically, call and give four hours notice that you might be messing up traffic. Call the police if you're worried that you're going to make for angry people. You'll be expected to pay police overtime.
Unknown2007-03-26 21:27:07
QUOTE(daganev @ Mar 23 2007, 04:00 PM) 392842
Really funny you say that. My friend, who is the biggest druggy I know, became a teacher in Japan on a foreign teaching exchange program.
>_< I swear my highschool was so stereotypical, all the druggies were art students, and almost all of them flunked out senior year. Still that was a pretty bad thing for me to generalize, I'm just sick of government corruption and I guess I jumped to a conclusion there, in my fervor. I just read three more articles about differing levels of corruption, from presidential 'executive privilege' blocking every/anything he wants it too, to the legislature holding court-like hearings (stepping on the judicial branches toes there a bit eh?). I think I'm losing faith in democracy. >_>Protest permits are another thing, something from a bunch of years back, something I can't cite and have half forgotten, but permits were not quite denied to protesters during bush's first term when he was doing some random parade route through a city. They weren't denied... but they might as well have been, the protesters were whisked off out of sight of anyone else, and far from the route. The same thing happened at the college I was at a few years back, there was a company sponsoring the university that had done some controversial things, students wished to protest, but were banned on doing so any place in which they might be spotted by the public. They didn't want protests to endanger their relationship with their sponsors. >_< A protest where no one sees you… Even if the rule was meant as a public safety measure, it’s being used to squash the freedom of speech and the freedom of assemblage.
