High Court Takes On 'Bong Hits' |
Posted by CN Staff on March 18, 2007 at 06:54:27 PT By Eric Morrison, Juneau Empire Source: Juneau Empire Alaska -- A goofy sign on Glacier Avenue sparked a debate that many are calling the most important fight over student free speech since the Vietnam War. The questions: Did former Juneau-Douglas High School student Joseph Frederick have the right to hold up a banner declaring "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" while off school grounds? Did former principal Deborah Morse infringe his First Amendment rights by suspending him? The story began Jan. 24, 2002, while the Olympic Torch Relay toured the snowy streets of the state capital through streets lined with onlookers. Frederick, standing with friends across the street from the school, held up his banner as television cameras rolled nearby. Morse confiscated the banner, had a talk with Frederick and eventually levied a 10-day suspension from school. Frederick sued, and the case began moving up through the court system. Now it has gone as high as it can go. On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on an issue that has garnered national attention from free speech advocates, prominent school organizations and major media outlets. As things stand, the onus is on the educators. In March 2006, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned an Alaska court ruling and decided in favor of Frederick. The appellate panel found Morse personally liable for violating his First Amendment rights. Morse and the Juneau School board petitioned and got a Supreme Court hearing. "It could be the defining moment on the limits of student expression in public schools," said Ronald Collins, a scholar at the nonprofit First Amendment Center. In commenting on Morse v. Frederick, many legal experts cite the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In that 1969 decision, the justices ruled in favor of students who were expelled for wearing symbolic black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Students "do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gate," the majority opinion read. "It's a rather major opinion," Collins said. "Since then, when that case was argued, the Supreme Court in a couple of other cases cut back on the rights for student expression." Vulgar, lewd and offensive speech may be prohibited during school, according to a 1986 ruling in Bethel School District v. Fraser. That case went against a student who was suspended after delivering an explicit speech making sexual references to fellow students. Bruce Hunter, associate executive director of public policy for the American Association of School Administrators, likens the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case to the Bethel decision, citing its disruption of a school-sanctioned event, even though the event wasn't on school grounds, and students were only a fraction of those taking part. "This speech was not off-color, but it promoted drug use and made fun of the central figure in the Christian religion, which is also offensive, like demeaning a central figure in any religion," he wrote in an e-mail. Hunter contends that the students were still "in school" during the morning of the torch relay and that the administrators would have been responsible if, for example, one of them happened to be injured during the event. Collins said student speech rights took another hit in the 1988 Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier case, involving a principal who confiscated two pages of a student newspaper, claiming inappropriate references to sexual activity. The court again ruled in favor of the administrator. "Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns," the majority decision said. "Bottom line, the precedent set on Tinker ... has been undermined since 1969," Collins said. "The question is what will this case do to a precedent that is already in jeopardy." That's why a lot is at stake now, he said. That may be the one area where both sides agree. "It may be that this latest case that the court could drive another stake in the heart of student expression," Collins said. Tom Hutton, staff attorney with the National School Board Association, also noted the potential for a significant impact. In general, student free speech and administrators' rights have become murky since the Supreme Court's last significant ruling, he said. "The lower courts have kind of made a mash of things," Hutton said. "The courts need to provide more clarity in this area of law because there are a lot of lawsuits, and every dime that is spent on these costs comes out of some child's education." The issue is tough enough for lawyers who can debate for hours, let alone for a principal trying to act quickly and decisively, Hutton said. "We argue that judges need to give school officials a little more benefit of the doubt in these borderline cases," Hutton said. Attorney Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, an alliance of 50 nonprofit organizations founded in 1974, said it is difficult to know why the justices decide to hear specific cases. People can't be sure if they took Morse v. Frederick to address the free speech issue, the liability issue, or some combination. "It's a little bit of crystal-ball gazing, since we don't know where the justices will end up," Bertin said. It's not even clear if the court with decide to decide. The justices could still decline to hear the case for any number of reasons. If they do take up some or all of the issues, a quick decision would be practically unheard of. No opinion could be expected for weeks at least. "It's really going to be hard to avoid the clear facts here," Bertin said. "Nobody denied where Joseph Fredrick was when he did what he did, they just drew different conclusions from it." The NSBA and others on Morse's side want to argue for greater clarity of school administrators' roles, and have no desire to stifle free speech, Hutton said. "That's not what happened in Fraser, and that's not what happened in Hazelwood," he said. "We're hopeful that they'll provide more clarity, but we'll just have to see how they approach it." School should be a place where teachers and administrators educate students on the importance on the First Amendment and the role of freedom of speech in American society, Collins said. If the court rules against Frederick, it could have the opposite effect, he said. "One would hope that they wouldn't throw the student out with the bathwater," Collins said. "One would hope that one would realize that there is a place for the First Amendment properly used by students in the school atmosphere." Note: Case called most important student free speech debate since Vietnam War. Source: Juneau Empire (AK) Related Articles: Free-Speech Case Divides Bush and Religious Right 'Bong' Banner Tests Student Free Speech Court Case Tests Limits of Student Speech Rights Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
Comment #17 posted by whig on March 18, 2007 at 18:25:35 PT |
Thanks. I agree. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #16 posted by Toker00 on March 18, 2007 at 18:19:35 PT |
etc., not necesarrily those who Govern, or are just wealthy, or use their influence for the good of man. When wealth and power are not abused, like drugs, they can be comforting, calming, healing. It's the abuse of power and money that make them dangerous, just like drugs. Just like abusive parents. The intent is what matters in anything we do. And that was MY two cents worth. Toke. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #15 posted by whig on March 18, 2007 at 18:08:20 PT |
I don't have very much. We are on a student stipend with little extra coming in from my consulting. I am not financially supported beyond this. I skip meals sometimes. I don't have money. I do have family. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #14 posted by Toker00 on March 18, 2007 at 18:07:14 PT |
'The drug being so very widely used on the island, (JAMAICA) despite being illegal, the Center for Studies of Narcotic and Drug Abuse of the US National Institute of Mental Health sponsored a medical anthropological research programme in 1970 to assess how chronic users were affected by it. The final results were published in full in 1975, written by Vera Rubin and Lamros Comitas and entitled simply, "Ganja in Jamaica." The conclusions were fascinating. It was found that marijuana use was the reason for substantially lower levels of alcoholism than anywhere else in similar societies in the Caribbean, it did not cause any measurable brain or chromosomal damage, was not psychologically dangerous and there was no link between marijuana usage and crime, accepting that growing and using it were in themselves illegal acts. More interestingly, the study stated that the culture had in-built restraints which controlled the social aspects of marijuana. The teenagers' decision as to whether a peer should join in smoking marijuana after his initiation prevented those who might suffer adversely from the experience from continuing with it. There were also widely held social rules which said that, for example, one should avoid the drug if not in a calm state of mind; another advised that "ganja" should never be used on an empty stomach. Although the programme was conducted with all the necessary scientific rigour, it was all but ignored by international governments because it did not endorse the PREFERRED view of marijuana having negative aspects to it. Another study conducted concurrently by the University of Florida in Cost Rica, which drew more or less the same conclusions, was similarly suppressed and would have remained unknown were it not for one of the very few copies printed being leaked to NORML.' Danger to Society? Danger that we could become passive and friendly people. That would threaten the very soul of the War Machine. God forbid we adopt our own social laws and customs to keep OURSELVES safe and grounded. No, we couldn't live without the laws of DEAth. There would be no one for the Elite to use as fodder for Profit. I say: TOKE UP, WORLD! Screw the Oil/Pharma/War Mafia. Toke. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #13 posted by whig on March 18, 2007 at 18:07:03 PT |
I don't know what Museman means by that either, and if you don't mean to condemn me either then I have no problems. Do you remember my last name, FoM? [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #12 posted by FoM on March 18, 2007 at 18:05:39 PT |
Someone who has money isn't what I think of a ruling class. I have friends that have money and I like them for their personality not their wealth. I don't know who a ruling class person is. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #11 posted by whig on March 18, 2007 at 18:01:55 PT |
I don't understand what you are saying. If you found out that I was born to a wealthy and influential family, would you still be my friend? [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #10 posted by FoM on March 18, 2007 at 17:46:04 PT |
I don't have any friends that are part of a ruling class so I have nothing to compare too. I don't mind having leaders though. They are responsible for the good and the bad and it's on their shoulders not mine as long as I follow my heart and vote my conscience then it's out of my hands. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #9 posted by whig on March 18, 2007 at 17:32:23 PT |
I don't agree. Say that I was born to the ruling class. Are you going to reject me if that is true? [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #8 posted by FoM on March 18, 2007 at 13:11:39 PT |
I guess I think that efforts that are generated from the heart are what's important to me. For me it is hoping for a change in 08. I don't want to hurry up and get to the elections because I don't believe in wishing my life away but I'll wait and watch different people stand like they are. That will keep me going. I think how a body works. We have hands, feet, a neck and a head. We have eyes and even toes. Each issue is like a part of a body. They are are needed to make it work properly. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #7 posted by Toker00 on March 18, 2007 at 13:08:55 PT |
Sorry. They weren't stranded in snow storms. They just weren't able to get there because of the storms. Toke. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #6 posted by Toker00 on March 18, 2007 at 12:59:45 PT |
"When people stop bending over and taking it -and I'm sorry, but thousands of weekend warriors standing around with signs on the white house lawn doesn't really qualify as 'stopping', to me it's just a big collective fart that goes away quite quickly in a stiff breeze-" Why do you continue to discredit what is necessary for change, museman? Did you watch the protest? Did you not see that the anti-war movement is encouraging us into taking it to the next step, RESISTANCE? Protests are an important first step to revolution. I agree we are late in taking the next step in this movement, but you don't have to disrespect those of us who have at LEAST taken this FIRST STEP toward change and I resent our efforts being compared to fart gas. I think your criticism is way out of line. You seem to have given up and are telling everyone else to, too. Most young people today don't even realize what went down in the sixties. It wasn't just people holding signs and yelling, and it isn't just that today. People put their asses on the line then, and they are doing it now. Those people at that protest are doing far more than their credit with you goes. There were ACTIVE duty soldiers speaking out about their right to address Congress w/grievances about this war. Parents whose children have been killed in this war were calling it what it is. Empirical Aggression. Not just discrediting the Bush regime, but the entire system of Capitalism. Can you at least give the Christians credit for showing some BALLS by a display of Civil Disobedience to the point of over 200 of them getting arrested? Or is that just fart gas to you too? They were encouraging us to stop paying our taxes for a war that is a disaster. They encouraged us to take it further and END ALL WARS. I'm sorry. Your post really surprised me. I understand your cynicism because of the situations you and yours have had to endure, but that gives you no special right to discredit other's attempt at breaking the chains. Progress, Dude. Protest, Resist, Revolt. Step by step. Won't back down. I felt the Power of the People at that protest. Not just white people and not just Americans. That protest was broadcast worldwide and even by Al-jazeera, or however the hell you spell it. The message was given to the world that the People of the US are not consenting to this War Machine that they actually went out and Confronted on a very cold and uncomfortable day. Many bus loads of people were stranded in snow storms and weren't there, but they were given credit for trying. They were miserably cold, but they were more powerful than all the Pigs that surrounded them. I felt the power, I got the message. I hope others did too. We must join all our brothers and sisters around the world in resisting this Global Empire with every fiber of our being. When the Migrants protest this time, we need to join them. We need to stop the gears of this Murder Machine. And we will. I'm not arguing with your point that protesting isn't enough. Just the part where you compare us to fart gas. That is demeaning even for someone as sceptical as you. Please just take that part back, k? Toke. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #5 posted by FoM on March 18, 2007 at 12:35:57 PT |
I'm not museman but a question like that was always a damned if you do or damned if you don't type question.
[ Post Comment ] |
Comment #4 posted by whig on March 18, 2007 at 12:16:52 PT |
If I had been born to the ruling faction, would you despise me for that? [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #3 posted by FoM on March 18, 2007 at 11:39:42 PT |
Dirt Rich Planting the Seeds of Happiness By Joel Achenbach Sunday, March 18, 2007 When I was growing up in Florida, my mom and stepdad planned to save the world through organic gardening. Go find the counterculture and make a hard left: There we were, virtuous, alternative, crunchy before crunchy was cool. We labored under a brutal sun, hacking the earth, yanking weeds, swatting bugs, beseeching the gods to let food emerge from sandy soil that only a pine tree could love. We had discovered the future, and it looked strangely like a scene out of the Old Testament. To grow one's own food was a political act, and some foods were more righteous than others. Sweet corn was a hybrid, too closely affiliated with corporate agriculture, so we experimented with "Aztec corn," the small, hard, black kernels of which radiated so much earnestness that you could almost overlook the fact that they were inedible. Complete Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031400188.html [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #2 posted by FoM on March 18, 2007 at 11:23:27 PT |
Since the news is slow I have been reading up on Obama in Oakland, CA yesterday and they posted a link to this slide show. It made me feel good to see this many people smile and have a little hope again. Have a great day everyone. http://www.mercurynewsphoto.com/2007/03/18/obama-rally/ [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #1 posted by museman on March 18, 2007 at 10:08:18 PT |
It's been over 2 centuries since the 'freedom of speech' was written in as one of the 'inalienable rights' described by Thomas Jefferson. The first ammendment was a fight in itself to attempt a legislative guarantee for the people. For 2 centuries, the average american has struggled with the powers that be in court case after court case to 'define' our 'rights.' The catch 22 of the situation seems to drift right by the awareness of most people apparently, because they think that their government, and the judges appointed by same, comes from the ranks of the people at large, and not the actual exclusive club of inbred rich that it is. If these rulers were 'of the people' why are they fighting against the people? Duh! We can toss the various evil compromises of the 'supreme' court back and forth in a hot-air discussion of 'precedents' and 'established law', and in the end, no matter how the 'final' legaleze gobbledegoo of that court of kangaroos is 'written' it is a virtual guarantee that the interests of the ruling faction - power, wealth, and social status is the deciding factor in any 'vote.' Take this case. Who is harmed by this young man's creative expression of his own opinion? Only the illusions of idiots. But of course those idiots happen to have all the money, and all the power. Their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, and cousins who collectively have an exclusive stranglehold on political power. They are the ones who are threatened by a simple sign humorously arrayed. It's not the best of jokes, maybe even not a very wise thing to have done under the circumstances, but if you take the government and their equally corrupt religion out of the picture, the whole thing would have gone by without much note. It's a fact that power corrupts, and there are no exceptions. When americans wake up and stop thinking this system is anything other than a pyramidal infrastructure to support the few at the expense of the many, stop giving the authority that belongs only to God to well-dressed fools who have learned the finer aspects of deception and scripted speech,..then we can perhaps truly establish once and for all the sovereignty of the individual-above and beyond that of the state. When people stop bending over and taking it -and I'm sorry, but thousands of weekend warriors standing around with signs on the whitehouse lawn doesn't really qualify as 'stopping', to me it's just a big collective fart that goes away quite quickly in a stiff breeze- when enough people make the internal decision to stop giving power, time, and energy to the money machine, then and only then will there be substantial progress towards national and global sanity. When your neighbor thinks that they can abdicate their human responsibilty to treat you with respect in regards to something that they may disagree with or dislike, and calls the copdogs, it is the accuser who is truly at fault, and that fault is -as in this case- quite often the larger of crimes and infractions against real people, not illusiory political states. Delegation of responsibility is at the heart of the xtian church, the doctrine of Roman Emporers, and the manifesto of Platonian Republic Ideals. Big Brother is a direct result of centuries of brainwashing and programming, and the fact that after 200 years our constitution, and it's selective 'interpretation' by an exclusively trained sect of 'lawyers' the 'people' must still stand and fight for what our forefathers supposedly "ESTABLISHED" is frankly not a good testimony of either our 'freedom' or our 'citizenship.' Of course, the status quo has an Army, and Air Force, the Marines, and a much more equipped and powerful Police Force to keep us from standing up outside the 'designated areas of impotence', and a 'justice' system to ensure that their psuedo-intellectual 'language' of law is held above the grasp and control of the common man. My hat is off to those who do the best they can with what they have to work with, but sooner or later we have to discard the failed, and start getting real, and the justice system, it's offices, officers, and enforcement agencies are not, nor have they ever been for the benefit of the people. [ Post Comment ] |
Post Comment | |