Supreme Court takes on Bong Hits 4 Jesus
prism
Posts: 2,440
this ought to get interesting. this kid was not on school grounds so why can't he say whatever he wants as long as he's not causing bodily injury to anyone?
High Court Takes "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Case, Toke Two
"Free Speech or Half Baked Lawsuit?"
Rehashing one of my more popular articles from last year, the Supreme Court, today, takes up the case of Morse v. Frederick. Considered by some to be the "most important student free-speech conflict to reach the Supreme Court since the height of the Vietnam War," it could decide how and to what extent schools can regulate their students' jokes. The case first sparked controversy in 2002, when high school senior Joseph Frederick unfurled a 14-foot banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" during a field trip to watch the Olympic torch pass through Juneau, Alaska. By his own admission, he did it for the juvenile, albeit innocent, reasons that it was funny and it would get him on TV. His principal at the time, Deborah Morse, did not see the humor, but probably noticed the TV cameras and asked him to remove the banner. When he refused, she tore down the sign and suspended him for 10 days. But, potentially seeing an even better opportunity to get on TV, Frederick sued, alleging that she had violated his right to freedom of speech. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with him, ruling that school officials may not "punish and censor non-disruptive" speech by students at school-sponsored events simply because they object to the message.
Before Frederick could collect any damages though, former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr (remember the definition of "is"?) jumped in on behalf of the school board and urged the High Court to reexamine the decision. According to his petition, "this case presents the Court with a much-needed opportunity to resolve a sharp conflict among federal courts (and to eliminate confusion on the part of school boards, administrators, teachers, and students) over whether the First Amendment permits regulation of student speech when such speech is advocating or making light of illegal substances," (presumably marijuana).
But is it just about "illegal substances" ("Guns, Cigarettes, and Doctor Prescribed Oxycontin 4 Jesus" would be okay?), or could this ruling allow schools to tear down any banners they simply don't like? And this is where the issue becomes slightly more bizarre. The New York Times reported yesterday that "organizations that litigate and speak on behalf of the religious right" (i.e., ones you'd expect to back Ken Starr) have thrown in a number of briefs on Fredrick's behalf. These groups even include Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, which "is dependent upon God and the resources He provides" to defend religious freedom. So what appeared at first to be a political slam dunk for social conservatives has now become something of an ideological key party, with the religious right jumping into bed with the ACLU and the National Coalition Against Censorship. I suppose all is fair in love and culture war.
And so, against this increasingly confusing backdrop, all eyes (bloodshot and otherwise) turn to the Supreme Court as it begins its examination of possibly the most bizarre and important First Amendment case in a generation.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/03/high_court_takes_bong_hits_4_j.html
High Court Takes "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Case, Toke Two
"Free Speech or Half Baked Lawsuit?"
Rehashing one of my more popular articles from last year, the Supreme Court, today, takes up the case of Morse v. Frederick. Considered by some to be the "most important student free-speech conflict to reach the Supreme Court since the height of the Vietnam War," it could decide how and to what extent schools can regulate their students' jokes. The case first sparked controversy in 2002, when high school senior Joseph Frederick unfurled a 14-foot banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" during a field trip to watch the Olympic torch pass through Juneau, Alaska. By his own admission, he did it for the juvenile, albeit innocent, reasons that it was funny and it would get him on TV. His principal at the time, Deborah Morse, did not see the humor, but probably noticed the TV cameras and asked him to remove the banner. When he refused, she tore down the sign and suspended him for 10 days. But, potentially seeing an even better opportunity to get on TV, Frederick sued, alleging that she had violated his right to freedom of speech. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with him, ruling that school officials may not "punish and censor non-disruptive" speech by students at school-sponsored events simply because they object to the message.
Before Frederick could collect any damages though, former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr (remember the definition of "is"?) jumped in on behalf of the school board and urged the High Court to reexamine the decision. According to his petition, "this case presents the Court with a much-needed opportunity to resolve a sharp conflict among federal courts (and to eliminate confusion on the part of school boards, administrators, teachers, and students) over whether the First Amendment permits regulation of student speech when such speech is advocating or making light of illegal substances," (presumably marijuana).
But is it just about "illegal substances" ("Guns, Cigarettes, and Doctor Prescribed Oxycontin 4 Jesus" would be okay?), or could this ruling allow schools to tear down any banners they simply don't like? And this is where the issue becomes slightly more bizarre. The New York Times reported yesterday that "organizations that litigate and speak on behalf of the religious right" (i.e., ones you'd expect to back Ken Starr) have thrown in a number of briefs on Fredrick's behalf. These groups even include Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, which "is dependent upon God and the resources He provides" to defend religious freedom. So what appeared at first to be a political slam dunk for social conservatives has now become something of an ideological key party, with the religious right jumping into bed with the ACLU and the National Coalition Against Censorship. I suppose all is fair in love and culture war.
And so, against this increasingly confusing backdrop, all eyes (bloodshot and otherwise) turn to the Supreme Court as it begins its examination of possibly the most bizarre and important First Amendment case in a generation.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/03/high_court_takes_bong_hits_4_j.html
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
*snickers*
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
hehee. exactly.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.