Originally posted by Togetic
But you're saying above that there should be no restrictions on free speech

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 so my question is, then, what are the boundaries of what is protected, you know what I mean?

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.

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.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
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.

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

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, free speech is only OK if what people are saying is "appropriate"?

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.

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
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.

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]

Originally posted by BlueTriangle

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, free speech is only OK if what people are saying is "appropriate"?

When we're talking influencing young kids, YES.

Actually, that's not the case. Fortunately, the average citizen doesn't get to say what is or is not protected under free speech. You are incorrect in saying that because something might negatively influence your kid, that you get to determine that it's not protected under the first amendment. You may want to, but there is not such right or protection.

I, as a parent, have the right to not have my kids encouraged to do illegal activities while in the state's custody.

No, you don't. The school has the right to restrict the speech of the student, but it has nothing to do with your rights.

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]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

It may have been implied, but since we're dealing with a supreme court ruling, I need more than a wink and a nod.

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

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No, you don't. The school has the right to restrict the speech of the student, but it has nothing to do with your rights.

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...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.

Originally posted by shots
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

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.

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
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.

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?

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I guess that's censorship by your definition too.

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".

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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?

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?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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".

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.