Oh that slippery slope of civil liberties lost just got a little steeper.
The phrase doesn’t make any sense, and it wasn’t supposed to. 18 year old high school senior Joseph Frederick unfurled the 14 foot banner on a public sidewalk across the street from the high school during a non-school event. High school administrator Deborah Morse confiscated the banner and suspended Frederick for “advocating drug use” evidently in view of other high school students.
As was the other decisions that came down yesterday, the Court was divided 5-4 with the conservative gang of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy in the majority. What’s more interesting is the opinions of the minority and they attest to a court that doesn’t even agree with what they are entrusted:
“The message on Frederick’s banner is cryptic,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. But the school principal who suspended him “thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one,” Roberts said in the majority opinion.[..]
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the ruling “does serious violence to the First Amendment.”[..]
Former independent counsel Ken Starr, whose law firm represented the school principal, called it a narrow ruling that “should not be read more broadly.”[..]
Justice Stephen Breyer said the court should not have decided the First Amendment issue, but should have simply held that Frederick’s claim for monetary damages because school officials have qualified immunity in carrying out their duties.
You know that there’s a problem when a Justice openly asks, “Why are we even hearing this case?”
No Trackbacks To “Bong Hits For Jesus“
Corporations - “fictional persons” - have many rights and limited liabilities. But a student - an ACTUAL person - can’t say something if his elders disapprove of the content.
The SCOTUS should STFU.
I find it hilarious that a kid made a BONG HITS FOR JESUS banner and winds up in a supreme court. Its like a bad comedy movie premise. I love it.
No offence to the kid, but I heard Jesus was more of a joint man.
It would be interesting to see what would happen should students attend class wearing shirts that read, “Zoloft for Jesus,” “Oxycontin for Jesu” or “Viagra for Jesus.”
Would they get suspended too?
The case alone should be a shining example of what damage the Supreme Court can do and is capable of if another Republican is allowed to hijack the next presidential election. The Federalists Society is certainly making its voice be heard in the Supreme Court. Roberts probably has another 40 years on the court, this country cannot afford any more right wing nut jobs being appointed to it.
I hate to agree with Ken Starr but the optimist in me can and wants to think this is currently a very narrow ruling. The problem, however, is that it can serve as a stepping stone for deciisons that more significantly erode 1st Amendment rights.
and yet they still allow the perfidious traitor Cheney to continue to occupy OUR White House, even though he declares he isn’t a part of the government.
Conservatism!!!! Laugh????? I thought I would die!
It is my understanding that this WAS a school sponsored event, and as a LIBERAL middle school teacher I think this was an inappropriate banner, and does imply drug use. I mean come on - what else could “bong hits” mean?
Kida have more rights than adults in this day and age - it is time to start changing that around a little bit.
bong hits 4 jesus…hilarious!!
I guess “What’s the frequency, Mary Jane” really would have gotten him in trouble…
Would the case have been different if the sign read “Anilingus for Allah”?
I agree with the courts finding that the school had a right to punish a student for essentially advocating drug usage during a school sponsored event. I also agree with Ken Starr that this ruling should be interpreted narrowly, given the specific circumstances.
WTF is wrong with me?!
But I do agree with Breyer that the Supreme Court probably shouldn’t have ruled on the issue. It’s not a significant ruling, certainly not compared to Tinker v Des Moines (1969), and I hope the neo-cons on the Court don’t use it as a precedent to overrule Tinker v Des Moines.
One only read Kafka’s “The Trial” to understand everything one needs to know about the Roberts court. Corporations may use the publicly owned multi-billion dollar broadcast spectrum to broadcast lies and propaganda at will, while private citizens can be curtailed by unelected officials from expressing their opinions if they do not conform to elite consensus. It is transparently obvious that access to the airwaves is not free. It is very expensive and must run through the ideological filters of its right leaning economic elite owners.
I agree with Jon. And yet I go further. They are punks, and smart-asses. It is an idiotic thing to do and does indeed glorify drug use to other kids. They are right now smugly giggling about it. I’d be ashamed if it was my son involved. Whoever pushed the argument up (probably the parents) need their asses kicked hard.
“The message on Frederick’s banner is cryptic,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. But the school principal who suspended him “thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one,” Roberts said in the majority opinion.[..]
So, it’s not what Fredericks wrote, but how it could be interpreted, is what makes it illegal.
Can you say, THOUGHT POLICE.
What illegal drug was Fredericks alledgedly promoting????
Or was he just trying to save space?
It is evident from the picture of the sign and how the words “Hits 4″ is written (even shortining “for” to “4″), that there was very limited space on the sign.
Clearly,
“Tobacco Water-Pipe Hits 4 Jesus”
would not have fit.
We have 5% of the world’s population and consume 66% of the world’s illicit drugs, since it’s the only way to cope with the Bush administration.
Take a look at the Breyer dissent on Morse V. Frederick. Amazing and well worth a look.
In my judgment, the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students. This nonsense banner does neither, and the Court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding—indeed, lauding—a school’s decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed.
Can we call them Nazi’s or Fascists now? It’s freedom of speech, as long as you don’t say too much…
“The message on Frederick’s banner is cryptic,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. But the school principal who suspended him “thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one,” Roberts said in the majority opinion.[..]
If they wanted to punish him for disturbing the peace, fine, but for this?
So what if they were promoting the use of marijuana? You can say and think whatever you want, so long as you do not act on it and so long as you do not disturb the peace and so long as you are not on someone’s property who prohibits it.
Geez, and the right talks about “activist judges”…
By the way, this new comment system is:
1. Ugly
2. Awkward
3. Very slow
4. Always gives an error message
Jon @ 7:
In 2002, 18-year-old Joseph Frederick was suspended from the high school where he was a senior after he displayed a banner reading “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” [sic] across the street from the school in Juneau, Alaska, during the Winter Olympics Torch Relay. It was not a school sponsored event!!!
I’ll bet this is a republiKKKan.
Bobby Poulsen Says:
I agree with Jon. And yet I go further. They are punks, and smart-asses. It is an idiotic thing to do and does indeed glorify drug use to other kids. They are right now smugly giggling about it. I’d be ashamed if it was my son involved. Whoever pushed the argument up (probably the parents) need their asses kicked hard.
Total bullshit decision from a no-cred court
He probably deserved to be suspended… Promoting drug use is wrong.
What concerns me the most is that the school administrator confiscated the banner…
They weren’t at a school sponsored event and not on school property and she took his personal property?
Anyone else see a problem with that?
I’ll bet he voted for bush and is a republican.
Bobby Poulsen Says:
I agree with Jon. And yet I go further. They are punks, and smart-asses. It is an idiotic thing to do and does indeed glorify drug use to other kids. They are right now smugly giggling about it. I’d be ashamed if it was my son involved. Whoever pushed the argument up (probably the parents) need their asses kicked hard.
Kid should have put up a sign that said FUCK ME, JESUS!
.
bong hits for cheney’s long life of quiet solitute in gitmo
Bummer, I’ll bet that the Virginia Tech massacre would’t have happened if what’s his name was taking BONG HITS 4 JESUS and getting loaded instead of loading a gun, so it’s bong hits for me and Jesus is welcome! I think that the Supreme Court is high on the bad drugs that Frist sold them but what do I know? Call your Doctor and ask if pot is right for you, just don’t put yourself on the medical marijuana list because you’re next.
It was not a school sponsored event!!! And not on school property. You people are ok with giving away our rights? Wake the F*CK UP!!!
What a bunch of TOOLS you are. What comes next, are we going to haul teenagers up before the Supreme Court for telling dirty jokes? If you humorless tight-ass sons of bitches are what pass for LIBERAL these days, then we truly ARE fucked. Advocating drug use? Some teenage kids put up a smartass banner. Yes they probably DID giggle about it, smugly even. Who gives a flying fuck? The only people advocating drug use are dull witless sourpusses like yourselves, who make me want to fire up a joint just for spite. GET LIVES
Judging from some of the remarks of these “Judges”, it appears the USA is about to turn onto a rocky road, and i don’t mean the ice cream.
Corporate Greed @ 27:
I think you’re right. A few bong hits would’ve chilled that fuckwad right out.
I hope that Sandra Day O’Connor is happy. This is her doing, first by subverting the Constitution and not stopping chimpy from getting in the WH in the first place, and then by deciding (conveniently, after 4 years) to retire. Had she any conscience, she would have simply said that the Constitution has provisions for dealing with the scenario in 2000, and/or then taken the Chief Justice position when chimpy tried after Rehnquist died. We’re stuck with Roberts and the conservative f*@ks who will, systematically, destroy the country as we know it. For instance, standing up for the corporations, and smacking down the individual.
What is it about freedom that scares conservatives? They just can’t seem to handle the idea that free people are free to do stupid things, like hold up nonsensical signs at public events.
God help us all.
How about a banner reading “school-led prayer for Jesus”? School-led prayer is illegal. So since Roberts set the precedent, I guess you can have them punished too for supporting something illegal. Great decision, Roberts!
Wingnuts apparently have no cognitive ability to extrapolate the repercussions of an action. The are missing the “consequences” calculator in their gray matter.
thought police.
stay inside the of the lines. do not color outside of the lines.
there will be serious consequences if the color chart is not adhered to.
give complete attention to what we have given you. your curiosity will only be
appreciated within the context of what you are here to learn.
now repeat after me “a good worker is an attentive worker, the corporation
will look after me, and i will look after the corporation”, and again.
i say we all get bong hits for jesus bumper stickers and t-shirts.
J² @ 32:
You hit the nail on the head. Just like the Weimar Republic, all it took was weak kneed “moderate” corporatists to unleash a Fascist tyranny on the world.
Itinerant @ 29:
Hey just because they CLAIM to be liberal-doesn’t make them progressive or civil rights oriented. In fact, claiming to be liberal and then putting forth a polite yet specious argument advocating the removal of civil or human or constitutional rights is the mark of a concern troll.
Best left alone.
Miss kitty, I could not resist… the angel over my shoulder always says to leave the tools alone in the toolshed, but the devil tends to make a convincing argument for fighting fire with fire. :)
Jon @ 7:
Well, a lawyer might argue that it could mean physically hitting someone, in this case Jesus, with a bong type apparutus. It is indeed vague.
Personally, I think it’s hillarious, allthough “Kanebosm for Jesus” would have been more accurate and possibly more arguable in court.
“Hey just because they CLAIM to be liberal-doesn’t make them progressive or civil rights oriented. In fact, claiming to be liberal and then putting forth a polite yet specious argument advocating the removal of civil or human or constitutional rights is the mark of a concern troll.
Best left alone.”
Unfortunately Miss Kitty, there are two entirely different kinds of people who call themselves Liberal. There are the intrusive authoritarian nanny-state types who are obsessed with seatbelts, gun control and anti-smoking who could care less about the working class and the poor, and then the rest of us who advocate civil liberties, social responsibility, democracy, free-speech and the public commmons.
Stupid Kids.
Court of progressive justice indeed. Whats that mean, keep pushing it, regardless of the outcome?
So, are you all ready to concede that this country is completely FUCKED now?
And, you folks who use the latest buzz word “concern troll”….give the rest of us a break. You are so trendy its sickening.
odd .. i simply thought they wanted someone to hit a gong, or ring a bell …
I mean seriously, they even said how many they wanted … 4 …
Liberal AND Proud @ 42:
Well, at least DUMBFUCKED.
Bobby Poulsen @ 43:
How about this: Nanny-State Liberal. Who needs, or wants you?
Bobby Poulsen @ 43:
Uh ok. Come up with some other word-as descriptive-for it. And blow me with all of your ‘you folks this’ and ‘you folks that.’ You are so jealous of our trendiness, it’s sickening.
Jon @ 7:
And you are a teacher? Holly molly, no wonder the kids are ignorant!
Jon @ 7: