"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Banner Defended By Religious Right

I did not say that! I said:
"Even if it's uncomfortable, unseemly, disgusting or rude, it's protected! "

I did not say there should be no restrictions. I said they aren't based on "appropriateness".



And I answered it with my external source above. The boundaries are Defamation, Causing panic, Fighting words, Incitement to crime, Sedition and Obscenity. I don't understand why you ask when I've already answered.

Me and Jesus are more than just tight; man we're ZIPLOCK!

*SNIP*

Mod Edit: For Jesus.

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 25/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

I really want to know if this is any different than a banner saying "pipe hits for Buddha"

It wouldnt matter if you said " Green cheeba for god " they would still find you at fault becuz of the horrific understandings of our gooberment.

Let 2012 happen, maybe then we will be able to use natures meds, without being labeled as a Criminal.

I wonder the same thing.

A bong hit for Jesus? What exactly is wrong with that? I mean Bible is FULL of CONNECTIONS with MARIJUANA. So, saying Bong Hits 4 Jesus is kind of like quoting the Holy Bible:

God said, "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth....to you it will be for meat.... And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
(Genesis 1:29-31)

The Lord said ..Afore harvest, when the bud is perfect and the sour grape is ripening in the flower, he shall cut off the sprigs with pruning hooks and take away and cut down the branches.
(Isaiah 18:4-5)

So if GOD says it's all right to smoke weed - why can't his SON do that?

image source: http://alkali.colug.org/~kaha/buddy-jebus-420.jpg


Bong for Jesus is BAD.

BOMB for Mohammed is GOOD?

image source: http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/mohammed%20cartoon%20danish-thumb.jpeg


Now how exactly does this Freedom of Speech thingy work?

I have similar concerns as you. I read through the decision this morning (yeah I know, I'm a geek). This is what I took away from the decision. The justices found:

- That banner is identified as "school speech" since the banner was unfurled during school hours and was during a school sponsored event. (ok, I can go along with that, but a certain amount of weight should be given to the fact that it wasn't on school grounds)

- That the banner did promote or advocate illegal drug use (bunk I say, as you noted it does not necessarily limit itself to pot smokers and even if it did, it did not promote it)

- That the "free speech" issue argued in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Distr. (a case in which students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam war) was in effect, irrelevant and that Bethel School District No.403 was more on point in which a student displayed a "elaborate, graphic and explicit sexual metaphor." (again garbage - this was a parody display)

- They also noted that minors are not afforded the same constitutional rights in a school setting that adults would be in in similar situation. (that I find just downright offensive)

I am really having difficulty with the fine line the justices are walking here. This case is obviously more on point with Tinker - there was no real disruption here and no reasonable person could assume that the sign was promoting drug use.

Overall a very disappointing decision.


Bleys

When we're talking influencing young kids, YES. I, as a parent, have the right to not have my kids encouraged to do illegal activities while in the state's custody.

Puh-lease. You and I both know exactly what type of bong hit they were referring. To try to claim otherwise is denying what you know to be true just for the sake of starting an argument. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think I'm an anti-drug poster, because I'm not. *SNIP*

Mod Edit: For The T & C's.

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 25/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

It may have been implied, but since we're dealing with a supreme court ruling, I need more than a wink and a nod. Hopefully they would too. When dealing with the law, we need to be extremely specific, otherwise it's open to vast interpretation. As I said, if you can smoke more than Marijuana from a bong, than bong hit's aren't necessarily illegal, and therefore shouldn't be classified as an illegal act.

Mod Edit: Quote Cleanup.

[edit on 25/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Actually, the only clincher in this story is that the student was at a school-sanctioned (or sponsored) event. That's the ONLY piece of information that makes the Supreme Court's decision understandable. If the students had be let out for the day, there's nothing the school (or anyone) could have done.

It has nothing to do with the intent behind the sign (it is not incitement to commit illegal activity, it simply states a meaningless phrase) or the rights of parents or the "inappropriateness" of the sign. It's simply that the school didn't like it and told the kid to quit and he didn't. And since he was at a school outing, he was at fault for not obeying the school administration, who does have a right to restrict the students' speech.



[edit on 25-6-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Give us all a break.

His intention was clear, he stated he did it for free speech and the vast majority of information available points to drugs so your argument is very weak if not down right ridiculous

Free speech should be limited, if it's not already, when it involves advertising illegal activity to a minor.

Well, then you better contact your congressman to see what can be done about all the movies, video games, commercials, music and TV shows that "advertise" illegal activity to minors every single day of the year.

When Free Speech is limited because people are offended or uncomfortable, it's no longer Free Speech. And I can't believe how many people just don't understand that...

That's why we have ratings systems on movies. If my underage child goes to see an R rated movie without me with him, he's not allowed in. I guess that's censorship by your definition too.

No his intentions were not clear. He said that he didn't do it to advocate drug use, which could mean a host of different tings. And, as long as a bong is a generic smoking device, it cannot be equated to illegal activity. I could use a spoon to eat a bowl of cheerios, or to cook heroin, the device itself is not illegal. He did not say "Smoke Marijuana for Jesus". It may have been implied, but it was not said outright.

So give me a break.

Well, that covers movies while they're in the theater. Have your kids seen Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Friday the 13th? Half of the actual children's movies have some sort of illegal activity in them. Many times performed by the stars of the film! Why aren't you complaining about that?

What about prime time TV shows that show people killing each other, music that advocates killing cops or prostitution? Do your kids ever watch MTV? What about commercials that show people stealing TVs or speeding or video games that praise bombing other people? Do you shelter your kids from all of these?



Who's talking about censorship? Not me. And I'm not giving you "my definition" of anything. I'm telling you the way it is. I'm telling you what the First Amendment is about and what the exceptions are (with legal links to back it up). Because you clearly don't know. It has nothing to do with "my definition" or "censorship".

My kids are currently 4 & 5, so the answer to your entire string of questions is no, with a yes for the last one. The whole point of my post was that I presented a form of censorship that is advocated by the government as it pertains to minors. It's not just in the theatre either, you need to be of age to rent R rated movies and when they are on regular TV they are censored out to be appropriate for minors. Sure, holding up a sign and a movie are different forms of expression but I don't see why the same rules shouldn't apply. What if the kid had held up a large sign full of porn for all of the underage kids to see, would that be OK?



First off, tone it down. Maybe I'm misreading your intention here, but it sure sounds like you're angry and hostile which are two things which do not lead to a healthy conversation.
Censorship is exactly what we're talking about here. When free speech is partially taken away, that's called censorship. I clearly stated an example where the government has stepped in and said that it's not OK to present certain material to minors and now I'll add another one. R+ rated movies and a guy waving porn around in the street. I'd like to hear your opinion on whether or not this guy could wave a sign full of porn posters in front of kids and have that fall under free speech.

Another sad day for freedom of speech/expression.

Well, we're talking about a senior in high-school here. High-school students.



With me? Yes, it would be OK. But I'm not talking about my opinion of what's OK and what's not OK. I'm talking about the First Amendment. And there's an exception to the first Amendment for Obscenity. (That's the 3rd time I've stated that...)



Excuse me? I'm sorry if you heard a "tone" but if you read over my posts without preconception, you'll see I've been very even-keeled. I believe you're reading emotion into my posts that isn't there.

I am a little frustrated that people don't know the Constitution and what it means, but that's my problem that I have such expectations.



I am not angry or hostile. I believe you are misreading my intention. My intention is to stand behind and explain if necessary, the First Amendment.



If you had paid attention to what I've stated 3 times now, you'd see that obscenity isn't protected by the 1st Amendment. So, according to law (NOT my opinion) it's NOT OK.

And not reading what the other poster has said is also not conducive to healthy discussion.

Off Topic, I know, but it will give me some perspective...Tell me, BlueTriangle, you've probably heard of Fred Phelps and his church who's motto is "God Hates Fags"... Would you have the law silence them?