"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Banner Defended By Religious Right

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Banner Defended By Religious Right

www.nytimes.com

A Supreme Court case about the free-speech rights of high school students, to be argued on Monday, has opened an unexpected fissure between the Bush administration and its usual allies on the religious right.

As a result, an appeal that asks the justices to decide whether school officials can squelch or punish student advocacy of illegal drugs has taken on an added dimension as a window on an active front in the culture wars, one that has escaped the notice of most people outside the fray.

(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 18-3-2007 by df1]

We have this kid, Joseph Frederick that displayed a banner "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and as a resulted was suspended from school by Deborah Morse, of Juneau-Douglas High School. To this point the courts have upheld Frederick's free speech rights. Surprisingly organizations that represent the religious right have submitted a number of briefs in support of Frederick's freedom of speech. The most notable of these organizations is the American Center for Law and Justice, founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson.



www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 18-3-2007 by df1]

Im about to double post because my fingers are cool like that

[edit on 20-3-2007 by tsloan]

If the courts rule against this kid I'd be real surprised. He held this banner up outside the school after the school released the upper class to watch a olympic parade? I don't even think he was on school property I think he was close to the school property line, I'm sure it was just 10 feet away. This in his case is just bad taste and timing. He has butted heads with the school officials on other events with freedom of speech? The kid is just being a kid and the government needs to not stick it's nose in cases of bad taste?

Time to be surprised...

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 as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

www.breitbart.com...

I think the Justices missed it on this one... If he had been on campus, I could see it, but not off campus.

I'm sure the "our rights are being trampled" crowd will have a field day with this one.

Despite the fact that I'm pro marijuana legalization, I agree with the decision here. These are young kids who can be easily influenced and this is inappropriate. I wonder if the reaction would be different if the poster had said something like "Rape Women for Jesus" or "Steal for Jesus". They're all illegal.

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I wonder if the reaction would be different if the poster had said something like "Rape Women for Jesus" or "Steal for Jesus". They're all illegal.

Except that bong hits aren't necessarily illegal. Many things can be consumed through a bong. Hell, you could drink fruit punch through a (beer) bong. And, one of the preferred ways of smoking salvia devonorum (a legal substance) is through a bong. And, throughout history this substance was used for inducing a state of spiritual communion with God. So, Bong Hits 4 Jesus could mean a lot of things.

And, since it was off the property line, it's even more BS.

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
These are young kids who can be easily influenced and this is inappropriate.

So, free speech is only OK if what people are saying is "appropriate"?

Appropriate according to whom? People clearly don't understand what Free Speech means. Even if it's uncomfortable, unseemly, disgusting or rude, it's protected!

And yes, MM, we "our rights are being trampled" crowd are up in arms over this one!

Because they are.

I don't know if we can trust someone who has a Banksy piece up as his avatar though, can we MM?????

J/k

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
These are young kids who can be easily influenced and this is inappropriate.

So, free speech is only OK if what people are saying is "appropriate"?

Abstractly, do you think there is any limit to what someone can say in public? Is "appropriateness" ever a reasonable standard?

I don't think appropriateness is ever a reasonable standard. The First Amendment exists to protect the rights of speech that is inappropriate. If everyone spoke appropriately, we wouldn't need it. What good is free speech if we all have to agree that it's not offensive?

There are already limits to Free Speech. Speech that incites unlawful activity (riots) isn't protected by the First Amendment.

Where does "fire in a crowded theater" come in?

Fire in a crowded theater is an often overused example. People tend to equate it to many things that just aren't comparable. I don't think Bong Hits 4 Jesus is close to inciting a riot or causing mass confusion.

In God we trust... All others pay cash...

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I don't know if we can trust someone who has a Banksy piece up as his avatar though, can we MM?????

J/k

I wouldn't trust me either... Regardless of avatar.

I'm always amused at the "interpretation" of free speech being couched in terms of the founding fathers. What do you think that bunch of powdered wigs would think of rap music, internet porn, or Rosie O'Donnell's indecipherable rants? They don't make enough tar and feathers for that question to be answered.

I'm sure glad someone invented that whole "living document" tripe so that we can reinvent the rules to suit our needs.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Fire in a crowded theater is an often overused example. People tend to equate it to many things that just aren't comparable. I don't think Bong Hits 4 Jesus is close to inciting a riot or causing mass confusion.

It's used because that, I believe, was in the Supreme Court's opinion on the subject. Regardless, I am trying to narrow down what you think, because while you're saying that appropriateness should not be the standard, in the case I just mentioned, I think we would both find it inappropriate language because it incites a riot. Therefore, there must necessarily be some restrictions on free speech, and then back to the first question, what are the boundaries?

[edit on 6/25/2007 by Togetic]

Originally posted by Togetic
Where does "fire in a crowded theater" come in?

Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is speech that causes panic and is also not protected.

Source

Exceptions established by the courts to the First Amendment protections include the following:
Defamation | Causing panic | Fighting words | Incitement to crime | Sedition | Obscenity

Read about Falsely Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theater.

Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which ruled that speech could only be banned when it was directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot), the test which remains until this day.
...
Despite Schenck being overturned, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.

Hope that helps.

That's fine; we agree. In fact, we agree with what the result of this case should have been. But you're saying above that there should be no restrictions on free speech ("Even if it's uncomfortable, unseemly, disgusting or rude, it's protected! "), but then you agree that the fire example is not protected. My contention is that such a policy is untenable. And so my question is, then, what are the boundaries of what is protected, you know what I mean?

[edit on 6/25/2007 by Togetic]

[edit on 6/25/2007 by Togetic]

[edit on 6/25/2007 by Togetic]

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

I think the Justices missed it on this one... If he had been on campus, I could see it, but not off campus.

I have to disagree the SCOTUS Ruling made it clear both the court and school considered it as a school event even though it took place off campus. The kid was wrong and should not have displayed the banner since it promoted drugs which is against school policy.

At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse,
the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating
“BONG HiTS 4 JESUS,” which she regarded as promoting illegal
drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such
messages at school events,
Souce SCOTUS PDF Doc

[edit on 6/25/2007 by shots]

Can anyone prove that Bong Hits 4 Jesus is meant to promote illegal drug use? Since we're talking about the strictest legal terms, I'd like this one definitively answered.

Is it possible that the student was talking about Nakhla or Salvia? And if there is the slightest possibility of this, then legally the decision is wrong. Let alone morally wrong despite the legal judgment.

Freedom of speech, where does one begin. This has been coming for a long time. I do not agree with the remark "bong hits for Jesus" and I do not agree with Imus' remarks either but freedom of speech is not freedom of speech anymore. Now "they" say if you wish to make remarks it must be done in "private" around peers that understand. I do agree, which most of you will not agree with, censoring lyrics in Music that are offensive. I once saw an interview with a popular rock musician who said that his friends lyrics and music should not be held responsible for any action it might reproduce.
I guess the lesson in all this is to be responsible for what we say and do.