|
|
| Justices To Hear Case of 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' |
|
Posted by CN Staff on December 03, 2006 at 08:45:57 PT By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer Source: Los Angeles Times 
Washington, DC -- The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether a high school student had a free-speech right to unfurl a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at a school-sponsored event.A ruling on the issue, due early next year, is expected to clarify the extent to which school officials can control slogans on banners, T-shirts and the like at school events. In recent years, disputes have arisen over messages involving religion, guns, gays and drugs on T-shirts worn by students. In March, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that school officials may not "punish and censor non-disruptive" speech by students at school-sponsored events simply because they object to the message. That decision cleared the way for a student to win damages from a principal in Juneau, Alaska, who had torn down the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner. Joseph Frederick had unfurled the sign on the street outside the school in 2002, as the torch for that year's Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City passed by. Students were released from classes to watch the event, and Frederick apparently hoped the banner would be seen on television. Principal Deborah Morse suspended Frederick for 10 days. Frederick sued Morse, alleging her actions violated his right to freedom of speech protected by the 1st Amendment. A federal judge in Alaska rejected the claim by Frederick, now a student at the University of Idaho, but he won before the 9th Circuit. In August, former U.S. Solicitor Gen. Kenneth W. Starr and his law firm took up the case free of charge and appealed to the Supreme Court on behalf of the principal and the Juneau school board. In a brief filed in the case, Starr said the 9th Circuit's ruling would create "a dangerous precedent [that] is deeply alarming to school administrators across the country." The decision would open the administrators to being personally sued for prohibiting "pro-drug messages" at school events, said Starr, now the dean of the Pepperdine University School of Law. Snipped: Complete Article: http://tinyurl.com/yle3e3 Source: Los Angeles Times (CA) Related Articles: Top Court Takes `Bong Hits' Case on Free Speech Court Takes 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' Case Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ Case To U.S. Supreme Court? Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #10 posted by Wayne on December 03, 2006 at 22:14:01 PT |
| I'm sorry guys, I had to post this. Scott Morgan at StopTheDrugWar.org posted this a few days ago, and I really got a good kick out of it (and the following comments that came along with it). Just a quick laugh to make y'alls Monday go a little smoother (in case you're out of bud)... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by FoM on December 03, 2006 at 20:03:16 PT |
| I looked at the article and I went to another link about wheat. Someday Canada will grow more food then we do I think. It might not be in my lifetime but I do believe that because of global warming. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by potpal on December 03, 2006 at 16:30:43 PT |
| Interesting BBC article. New crops needed to avoid famines http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6200114.stm What about old crops? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by global_warming on December 03, 2006 at 16:26:59 PT |
| were for jesus, and all the free men in this world [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #6 posted by Richard Zuckerman on December 03, 2006 at 15:27:45 PT:
|
| About five years ago, a written opinion by a federal trial court was published in the Federal Supplement, Second edition, entitled Forchion v. Intensive Supervised Parole, which makes a clear distinction between a person on parole who encourages the USE of "Marijuana" from the person on parole who encourages the LEGALIZATION of "Marijuana". The author of this court opinion, Judge Irenas, said that the defendant, whose web site is www.njweedman.com, only encouraged the LEGALIZATION of "Marijuana", which involves legitimate public debate and is protected speech. Judge Irenas said if he had encouraged the USE of "Marijuana", then he would have been encouraged the commission of an illegal act and may not be protected speech. BONG HITS FOR JESUS may fall within the category of speech which encourages the commission of the illegal act of smoking "Marijuana", which may not be protected speech, especially on public school grounds, where public school officials are given more latitude to restrict expression. Notwithstanding this legal distinction, the public school curriculum teaches us to avoid drug use, snitch on others whom are not hurting anybody, and support law enforcement. Perhaps minors should be required to avoid the use of Cannabis, because the young body's "endogenous cannabinoids" apparatus may not be fully developed? Richard Paul Zuckerman, Post Office Box 159, Metuchen, New Jersey, 08840-0159, richardzuckerman2002@yahoo.com, (Cell)(848) 250-8879, Buck Private Paralegal, N.Y.U. Paralegal Diploma, 2003. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by global_warming on December 03, 2006 at 12:15:49 PT |
| Justices To Hear Case of 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus', sure hope all this Justice is taking their medications in February, surely would not want them to confuse a bong for some penis enlarging instrument, i sit here and think, was it the bong or was it the "hits", surely it cannot be jesus. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by BGreen on December 03, 2006 at 11:56:22 PT |
| The decision would open the administrators to being personally sued for prohibiting "pro-drug messages" at school events, said Starr, now the dean of the Pepperdine University School of Law.Mr. Starr, it seems to me that the only thing at risk here is the ability of the schools to control the lives and actions of the students OUTSIDE of the school building and campus. That's what this case is about. Mr. Starr, did you even review the facts of this case before you saw another chance to fail miserably? There hasn't been ANY question over the school's ability to control students by stripping away every Constitutional right they have as long as they're AT SCHOOL or at a SCHOOL EVENT. NONE! The courts have given you this control. However, Mr. Starr, neither YOU nor the SCHOOLS are the parents of these children. You remember the parents, don't you? The legal guardians of these kids? The people who, for as long as humans have existed, are supposed to raise their children and teach them their own values? Why does it make any sense to remove parental rights? My goodness, I would NEVER send my children to public schools, even as the system is already set up. If they allow the schools to become the parents without the financial obligation to clothe, feed and provide 24/7 shelter, then I guarantee there will be an explosion in the number of kids yanked out of the public brainwashing centers. The Reverend Bud Green [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by global_warming on December 03, 2006 at 11:32:11 PT |
| In August, former U.S. Solicitor Gen. Kenneth W. Starr and his law firm took up the case free of charge,...when is this born again righteous nut case going to retire? http://politicalgraveyard.com/index.html [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by observer on December 03, 2006 at 11:16:48 PT |
| If government can't censor what your children say AT HOME, NOT AT SCHOOL, that is "a dangerous precedent [that] is deeply alarming to school administrators across the country." I think any limitation of government's tentacles in our lives is "dangerous" and "deeply alarming", to government. Government says the same thing about anything government desires to control (which is of course everything). If government can't continually strip you, rape you, and monitor/profit from your bodily fluids, this is "dangerous" and "deeply alarming", to government. The sheep fall for this type of rhetoric without fail. All your body belong to us (government). [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by FoM on December 03, 2006 at 10:32:25 PT |
| http://youtube.com/watch?v=QoZ8xXEczyo [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |