'Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ - Yet Another "Freedom of Speech" Issue

[nickel]

‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ case to U.S. Supreme Court?
Former Clinton prosecutor Ken Starr asks court to hear free-speech case

http://media.msnbc.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/sourceAP.gif
Updated: 4:19 p.m. ET Aug 29, 2006
JUNEAU, Alaska - Former Whitewater special counsel Kenneth Starr petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Alaska’s “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case, a dispute involving a high school student, a banner and a tough school policy.

Starr, who gained national prominence while investigating former President Clinton’s Whitewater land deal and relationship with Monica Lewinsky, filed the petition Monday on behalf of the Juneau School District in response to a March ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court sided with a high school student who displayed a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” during an Olympic torch relay in 2002. It ruled former Juneau-Douglas High School principal Deborah Morse violated former student Joseph Frederick’s free speech rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court petition must receive a minimum of four of the nine justices’ votes to be heard.

Frederick, then a senior, was off school property when he hoisted the banner but was suspended for violating the school’s policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event.

“The principal’s actions were so outrageous, basically leaving school grounds and punishing a student for a message that is not damaging to the school,” said his attorney, Doug Mertz.

Superintendent Peggy Cowan said clarification is needed on the rights of administrators when it comes to disciplinary action of students who break the district’s drug message policy.

“The district’s decision to move forward is not disrespectful to the First Amendment or the rights of students,” she said. “This is an important question about how the First Amendment applies to pro-drug messages in an educational setting.”

Starr, of the Los Angeles-based firm Kirkland & Ellis, took the case pro bono.

The outcome could have implications on how student-conduct policies are enforced around the nation, said Eric Hagen, one of two other attorneys from Starr’s office named on the petition.

“It makes it a little harder when teachers and principals in their daily duties might be subject to a damages lawsuit and be held personally liable,” Hagen said.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11767029/?GT1=8404

Which side are you on? I have this issue with respect and the use of the First Amendment. While I don't want to squelch free speech I also see that if the school has rules that anything promoting/advertising drug use shouldn't be paraded by students then I see that side too.

[faither]

Do people really have this much free time on their hands?

If someone could show that this knucklehead was "damaged" by the suspension (did it prevent him from being accepted at Harvard --hell, something like this might actually help), maybe I'd be open to his plight but I haven't seen it. I know it's not entirely the same but there are other off-property infractions for which students can be disciplined. This may be an extension.

[Markel]

I think a big question is what determines "a school-sanctioned event". If the school band marches in a community parade, I don't think that the school policy applies to any student participating in or watching the parade. However, in the case of the Olympic torch relay, the school might have dismissed the pupils so they could observe or participate in the "historic event" and (especially if the students were returning to school after) there could be an expectation for the school standards to be maintained.

When I was in high school, our school did not have a football stadium (only a practice field). Football games were played at a municipal stadium on Friday nights. Situations arising from the football games were certainly under the disciplinary authority of the school.

That being said, I still think the kid did a dumb thing.

[InfiniteNothing]

So I guess the school didn't buy his "anointing" argument? ;)

[kgsilvas]

Maybe Tommy Chong could testify on the kid's behalf!

Man, Dave's not here...

[InfiniteNothing]

Dave who?

[Markel]

This is Dave! Open the door!

[kgsilvas]

Thanks Markel!

[Thesifer]

I just wonder if he would have been suspended for wearing a shirt that said, "Bong hits 4 Everyone" Or if it was using the word "Jesus" If it has anything to do with him putting Jesus in there, then I definately disagree.

Being agnostic I could care less if people feel they must promote their religion as long as it's not forced upon me, and any of my rights aren't affected by it.

Like it's very interesting to me that you can say

"Damn" on the radio, but if you say "God Damn" it is bleeped to be "... Damn"

[Markel]

Or if it was using the word "Jesus" If it has anything to do with him putting Jesus in there, then I definately disagree.
The article says it was a violation of "the district’s drug message policy". I would guess that it was the "bong hits" part that they took issue with.

[Thesifer]

The article says it was a violation of "the district’s drug message policy". I would guess that it was the "bong hits" part that they took issue with.


Which if I wanted to push my religious agenda where it was against the rules to push, I would also use that excuse.

I'm willing to bet you are wrong.

[MikeD]

That being said, I still think the kid did a dumb thing.

:agree:

What's the kid's point? That he could put up a banner that a large percentage of people would find tasteless? I don't understand the mentality. :disa:

[Markel]

Which if I wanted to push my religious agenda where it was against the rules to push, I would also use that excuse.

I'm willing to bet you are wrong.
I'd venture that if he said "Bong Hits for Everyone", the situation would have been the same. (Juneau Alaska is hardly in the center of the Bible Belt.)

[Houdini]

I've always wondered exactly what school suspensions accomplish anyway. My mom's a 3rd grade teacher, and has had students suspended for x # of days, but then they just come back and misbehave. It's sorta like telling the kid, "you're in big trouble, so you can't come back to school for 3 days." WTF? Most elementary/junior high/etc. kids would love a few days off.

In-school suspension, where they have to stay and extra couple of hours with more work to do, etc., would make more sense.

Or, especially in HS cases, telling the kid that it would go on his record, with details (fighting, bringing a knife to school, etc.) would severely impair his/her ability to get into his/her university of choice...that might make a difference.

Sorry to move a little off topic...

H

[Thesifer]

I'd venture that if he said "Bong Hits for Everyone", the situation would have been the same. (Juneau Alaska is hardly in the center of the Bible Belt.)


Alaska, you mean the place where they got it put on the ballot to vote for legalization of marijuana and it barely lost? :)

You don't have to live in the bible belt to be affected by the Ultra Religious Right.

[Markel]

Well, this case ended up at the Supreme Court. Link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/25/supremecourt/main2974259.shtml)

Student Loses "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Case

WASHINGTON, June 25, 2007

(CBS/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."

CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen said he was not surprised by the ruling, saying that, "high school students typically have been blocked from having the same first amendment rights as adults and this ruling falls into a long line of cases that say so. The lesson here is if you want to exercise your full free expression rights get as far away from your high school as you can."

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.

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 in a lawsuit he filed over his firing.

Joseph Frederick pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, according to court records.

[cruelpupet]

I am completely shocked that they ruled in favor of the school. Inside or outside of school, ones rights should never be ‘revoked’, nor should age be a factor at all. This ruling is just as ridiculous as harsher sentences for those who distribute drugs in a ‘school zone’, especially in city limits where technically everywhere is within 2 miles of a school.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the students protest by all wearing t-shirts to school with the slogan, I know my school would have.

[Thesifer]

CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen said he was not surprised by the ruling, saying that, "high school students typically have been blocked from having the same first amendment rights as adults and this ruling falls into a long line of cases that say so. The lesson here is if you want to exercise your full free expression rights get as far away from your high school as you can."


That says it all right there.

I do like this though.. "Joseph Frederick pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, according to court records." Yet he didn't want it to deal with drugs in anyway. lol.. hehe.. Either way though, I still don't think he should have got into trouble.


I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, if they said that it was during school at a school sanctioned event, but from what I can see it wasn't. You aren't in High school 24 hours a day 7 days a week, it isn't the military.

[Napoleon54]

I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, if they said that it was during school at a school sanctioned event, but from what I can see it wasn't. You aren't in High school 24 hours a day 7 days a week, it isn't the military.

:stupid:

Nothing I've read on this case has shown this to be a school-sponsored event. How the hell does the school have any authority here???

[ufcrusher]

They were let out of school with teachers to view the passing torch. Hence, they were out under the teachers and it was a school event.

Personally, I disagree with this verdict, but I am not surprised by it.

[Houdini]

One telling issue here is that the guy said he wanted to prove he could say "anything he wants" or whatever, per the above article.

Yes, we have freedom of speech. But no, you can't say anything you want. You can't incite a riot or panic. You can't make assassination threats.

That said, I'm as pro-free speech as just about anyone else. You don't have a right in this country to NOT be offended. However, when things are school-related, I understand when some rules are enforced. Plus, it really could be taken as a joke, or as an incitement to use MJ, which is illegal. Kinda like saying "Murder for Jesus!" or "Carjacking for Jesus!" or "Armed Robbery for Jesus!" or whatever. Note - this does not mean I'm equating taking a bong hit with armed-robbery, just that both are illegal. :shrug:

[Thesifer]

One telling issue here is that the guy said he wanted to prove he could say "anything he wants" or whatever, per the above article.

Yes, we have freedom of speech. But no, you can't say anything you want. You can't incite a riot or panic. You can't make assassination threats.

That said, I'm as pro-free speech as just about anyone else. You don't have a right in this country to NOT be offended. However, when things are school-related, I understand when some rules are enforced. Plus, it really could be taken as a joke, or as an incitement to use MJ, which is illegal. Kinda like saying "Murder for Jesus!" or "Carjacking for Jesus!" or "Armed Robbery for Jesus!" or whatever. Note - this does not mean I'm equating taking a bong hit with armed-robbery, just that both are illegal. :shrug:


Technically .. No.

As he could have meant "Bong" as in the Bong of a Bell ...

Or also he could have been advocating smoking Tobacco or Hookah Tobacco out of them, which would be legal.

As the "BONG" doesn't become illegal or paraphernalia until you actually do something legal with it.

Semantics, but the entire case is based on the "Assumption" that he meant something illegal. Whether he did or not I don't agree with this ruling.

[gwilks98]

Semantics, but the entire case is based on the "Assumption" that he meant something illegal.

I think it's a safe enough assumption.
I think if I told my boss I was going to go home and smoke some MJ, he wouldn't think I meant Michael Jackson.

[Airencracken]

Sad. I think the real kicker here is the fiction of a "school sponsored event" almost as scary as the 1st amendment issue is the fact that schools are trying to spread all their authority through an entire student's life.

[Houdini]

Technically .. No.

As he could have meant "Bong" as in the Bong of a Bell ...

Or also he could have been advocating smoking Tobacco or Hookah Tobacco out of them, which would be legal.

As the "BONG" doesn't become illegal or paraphernalia until you actually do something legal with it.

Semantics, but the entire case is based on the "Assumption" that he meant something illegal. Whether he did or not I don't agree with this ruling.

True, I guess. If you go to a headshop to buy some tobacco to roll your own and you notice the zillions of bongs, you have to call them "tobacco water pipes." If you say the word bong, they will likely kick you out.

But would any reasonable person believe, upon reading that sign, that he meant clanging a bell for Jesus? Or smoking vanilla-flavored tobacco in a hookah bar for Jesus? I don't think so. Bong is a commonly accepted term for an item used to smoke marijuana. If it were "roach clips," I seriously doubt people would widely accept that it referred to something one may use to pick up an insect. Or cut an insect's hair. Or whatever.

Using synonyms as an out may work in some cases, but I really don't see it applying here. After all, when is the last time you heard someone say, "I'm going to go bong that bell?" Yeah, I guess someone could say it, but the word just isn't used that way. And most people who smoke tobacco out of a pipe/water contraption do not call them bongs, but hookahs (even if they aren't really hookahs in the traditional sense) or whatever. As "bong hit" means "inhaling marijuana smoke" to probably 95+% of anyone polled, I'm not so sure that defense would hold up.

[guiseppewv]

I think a big question is what determines "a school-sanctioned event". If the school band marches in a community parade, I don't think that the school policy applies to any student participating in or watching the parade.

I disagree. Relative to your example: The students watching the parade would not necessarily be under school policy unless they were on a school function (i.e. transported to the event by a group [e.g. chess club] from the school). The students participating in the school band at the event are most definitely under school policy. They are there representing the school.

[guiseppewv]

Technically .. No.

As he could have meant "Bong" as in the Bong of a Bell ...

Or also he could have been advocating smoking Tobacco or Hookah Tobacco out of them, which would be legal.

As the "BONG" doesn't become illegal or paraphernalia until you actually do something legal with it.

Semantics, but the entire case is based on the "Assumption" that he meant something illegal. Whether he did or not I don't agree with this ruling.


From the article in Markel's link Joseph Frederick pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, according to court records.

Safe to say he was talking about MJ not about a hookah or a bell.

[VTGreg]

Sad. I think the real kicker here is the fiction of a "school sponsored event" almost as scary as the 1st amendment issue is the fact that schools are trying to spread all their authority through an entire student's life.

How is describing this as a "school sponsored event" fiction if the kids went on what is essentially a field trip? I still haven't seen it in any of the articles but UFcrusher said the kids were taken to the event with teacher supervision and that will always qualify as a school sponsored event.

[Markel]

I disagree. Relative to your example: The students watching the parade would not necessarily be under school policy unless they were on a school function (i.e. transported to the event by a group [e.g. chess club] from the school). The students participating in the school band at the event are most definitely under school policy. They are there representing the school.
I wasn't talking about those in the band - I was talking about other students who might have been participating in the parade in another capacity such as riding on a (non-school-related) float or something. For sure, those marching in the band are representing the school.

[guiseppewv]

I wasn't talking about those in the band - I was talking about other students who might have been participating in the parade in another capacity such as riding on a (non-school-related) float or something. For sure, those marching in the band are representing the school.

You specfically said "any student participating in" and the students in the band participating in the parade fell into that category. The same would apply for cheerleaders, etc...

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were trying to get across.

[jstreet]

I found it pretty disturbing that the administration's lawyers said in court they believed that a school could restrict ALL speech by students not directly related to the education mission. Thankfully, new guy Alito smacked that argument down.

I found it pretty interesting the extent of Christian groups that backed the student. Seemed contrary until I understood what they stood for.

[ShawnLee]

I think it's a safe enough assumption.
I think if I told my boss I was going to go home and smoke some MJ, he wouldn't think I meant Michael Jackson.
gwilks wants to smoke Michael Jackson!
Now, does that mean "smoke" as in murder, or perform a sex act upon?
gwilks is gay for Michael Jackson!

Anyhow, the criteria for "school event" having been met, I'm cool with the decision.

I think what's more interesting is who decided what. Why which justice agreed with the vote but wrote separate opinions. Beautiful.

[gwilks98]

gwilks is gay for Michael Jackson!

Quote of the day. Thanks SL.