cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Nixes 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus'
Supreme Court Nixes 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus'
Posted by CN Staff on June 25, 2007 at 07:59:18 PT
By The Associated Press
Source: Associated Press
Washington, DC -- 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.
Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating drug use. "The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts said. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one." Source: Associated Press (Wire)Published: June 25, 2007Copyright: 2007 Associated Press Related Articles:Bong Hits 4 Jesushttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22780.shtmlUp in Smoke At The High Courthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22778.shtmlStudents’ Right To Free Speech http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22777.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #29 posted by whig on June 26, 2007 at 00:35:42 PT
afterburner
Amen to that. I wish it hadn't gone to the supreme court, but some pecksniffers have to uphold their pecksniffery for as long as they possibly can.On that note, here's news from Oregon:http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/06/25/18430665.phpKevin Mannix, republican prohibitionist extraordinaire filed this anti crime initiative with the secretary of the state that cracks down on
meth, sex offenders and would repeal the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act
(OMMA.)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #28 posted by afterburner on June 25, 2007 at 21:40:27 PT
Supreme Court Ruling
What a tremendous waste of taxpayer money!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #27 posted by MMJ MINISTRY on June 25, 2007 at 21:32:18 PT
Sad day for liberty
I second that motion museman!“A little rebellion now and then...is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” - Thomas Jefferson “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it.
Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can
exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary
right to dismember or overthrow it.”
{President Abraham Lincoln}{First Inaugural Address}I watched the confirmation hearing's of John Roberts on c-span and was very impressed with his vast knowledge of constitutional law. Unfortunately he used this knowledge to side step congress as he beautifully demonstrated the art of obstruction while evading answers.I thought I detected a libertarian air about him, guess I was wrong. The only conclusion I can draw from Mr. Roberts rulings thus far is that"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - James Madison, 1774
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #26 posted by whig on June 25, 2007 at 17:18:43 PT
mykeyb420
I got a card. :)California really is the free world compared to the rest of this country.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #25 posted by mykeyb420 on June 25, 2007 at 16:44:57 PT:
here in the real world
Here in California,,we have good laws on the books to protect us against this BS ruling, so it wont affect us, but I feel sorry for those of you who live in a state that IS affected by this ruling.
My 10 year old thinks that this ruling sounds like the GOVT does not want even Jesus to smoke pot if he wanted to. Does being nailed to a cross get you a pot card in California?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #24 posted by whig on June 25, 2007 at 16:25:36 PT
Having said that
BONG HITS 4 JESUS everyone.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #23 posted by whig on June 25, 2007 at 16:23:26 PT
Nonsense is not protected.
If the student wants to make a political statement he should have done so expressly.END CANNABIS PROHIBITION.Or a religious statement:JESUS SMOKED POT.Those should be protected.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #22 posted by whig on June 25, 2007 at 16:21:18 PT
Reasoning.
Suppose the student's banner said:SMOKE CRACK 4 JESUSsee, where do we draw that line?I supported this case before it was decided, because I want our side to win, period. But on legal reasoning, I don't see this as being hard to come to the decision they did.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #21 posted by whig on June 25, 2007 at 16:04:41 PT
In plain English
The principal has no authority over this student, unless said student consents to it, which he did by remaining enrolled.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by whig on June 25, 2007 at 16:03:31 PT
Is attending school a civil right?
That is another question, if so, then the first amendment would apply. If principals have authority to expel students over 16, then it is a question of regulation not constitutionality whether and how principals may limit student speech or even off-time activity.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by whig on June 25, 2007 at 16:00:52 PT
Technically...
The first amendment is not implicated, as the student has the right (at 18) to simply drop out of school.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by dongenero on June 25, 2007 at 14:57:46 PT
drug cartels
If the drug cartels are against drug law reform activists, then Prohibitionists are in bed with the drug cartels.Prohibitionists and drug cartels are partners in crime, both making money off of it.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by Hope on June 25, 2007 at 13:36:30 PT
What I want, vehemently....
is for that list not to lengthen.I want the persecution and the idiocy of swat teams and raids on citizen's home for a drug crime to end. I want the particular peril of prohibition to end. I want future generations to be free and not live in fear of unjust, punitive, and violent government and "rulers".
http://victims.drugwarrant.com
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by Hope on June 25, 2007 at 13:31:14 PT
"Knobble"? Lol!
I think I know what you mean, though.These people, http://victims.drugwarrant.com ,and the many more that are suffering and languishing in prisons and dieing because of being collateral damage in their foolish war on drugs. The people...the families that are torn apart because of prohibition. The homes, the land, the freedom that is lost to unjust laws. It's one thing that a person take a risk... to consume a dangerous substance... even for fun...but it's another thing to have the government killing and hurting and putting people in prison, and ruining their lives because of the prohbition of a substance.The "Scales of Justice" are severely out of balance.
http://victims.drugwarrant.com
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by josephlacerenza on June 25, 2007 at 13:16:12 PT:
It takes us all!!
It takes each of us to make the struggle our own. Your approach is knobble. I do not forget the ones that are suffering at the hands of such a small minority.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #14 posted by Hope on June 25, 2007 at 13:08:22 PT
Josephlacerenza
It's about the people to me. It always has been.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by josephlacerenza on June 25, 2007 at 13:05:03 PT:
Come and Get It!!
If the drug cartels are pissed at activists, more power to us!!! We need the weed to be free, and if this means taking it from their blood soaked hands than so be it!! I do not stand on this side of the issue to make friends with the ones who would kill me over a bag. I am here to take the herb back for my own. Who’s with me?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by Hope on June 25, 2007 at 12:52:14 PT
Whew!
Had to turn the air conditioner off for a bit. Shivering like a chihuahua. :0)Saving electricity, anyway.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by Hope on June 25, 2007 at 12:37:04 PT
gulp
I don't, in anyway, mean that to be funny.What makes that lump come up in your throat... then you have to try to swallow it?Fear makes a lump in your throat? Strange how physical emotion is.Maybe not fear...as much as an awareness that I'd prefer not to dwell on. Even if I did. It wouldn't do any good. It's hard to think that people hate you. It is for me, anyway.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by FoM on June 25, 2007 at 12:32:01 PT
Hope
It's true. I have no doubt about that.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by Hope on June 25, 2007 at 12:29:05 PT
OT
Not too long ago, I had a different, and kind of funny, but disturbing experience as one hoping for reform. I was talking with someone. First, they said, "You're one of those sign carrying athiests against the drug war. Aren't you?""Athiests?" I said."You know! You don't believe in the drug war!""I'm not an athiest."Then, "Wrong word...whats the word?""Activist?""Activist! You're one of those sign waving activists!""Yes. I guess so."Then they told me, "Well, you do know that the dealers and gangsters and cartels hate you just as much as the government hates you, don't you?"I don't know bout you guys, but that can make a gentle woman, and I am, kind of shiver.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by RevRayGreen on June 25, 2007 at 11:51:00 PT
I'm sure these would be acceptable
Single-Malt 4 the Supreme Court OxyConton 4 the Dying
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by dongenero on June 25, 2007 at 10:56:58 PT
free speech
This ruling seems to squelch any public commentary by a student, when that speech opposes government law.I'm sorry, but I believe such application was precisely the intent of free speech. It allows one to speak out against the tyranny of power. Such as laws that one feels are unjust.The dumbing down of society. This is overreaching on the part of the Neocon justices. There goes another shred of your freedom.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by museman on June 25, 2007 at 10:52:05 PT
only one thing to do
Disband the supreme court, and hold a peoples constitutional convention to end this illegal government once and for all. Do I have a second on this motion?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by mykeyb420 on June 25, 2007 at 10:00:56 PT:
goodby 1st amendment
With this ruling, THEY say that YOU have the right to free speech,,as long as THEY agree with it. This is a BIG set back for USA.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by RevRayGreen on June 25, 2007 at 09:16:09 PT
So let's promote legal drug use
instead........likeViagra 4 the VaticanPainkillers 4 the PopeApostles 4 AlcoholismI'm unvieling a banner at "The Wailer's" show Aug 3, it's going to say BONG HITS 4 IOWA.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by josephlacerenza on June 25, 2007 at 08:51:02 PT:
What else can we keep students from saying?
I noticed that the student was 18. Does this mean that even a non minor can be censored? Just because the topic was concerning an illegal subject matter, this is censurable material? What about students that advocated the integration of schools in the south? Were these students also not entitled to free speech? Were does this line exist? We as a nation became the FREE nation we are today by being subversive. If Jesus was here today he would be taking bong hits!!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by FoM on June 25, 2007 at 08:39:17 PT
Expanded Associated Press Article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500537.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by FoM on June 25, 2007 at 08:03:36 PT
Related Article from Reuters
Student Loses Ruling Over "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"***June 25, 2007 Washington, DC -- (Reuters) - A high school student who was suspended for unfurling a banner saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" did not have his rights violated, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in its first major decision on student free-speech rights in nearly 20 years.The high court's conservative majority ruled that a high school principal in Juneau, Alaska, did not violate the student's constitutional free-speech rights by confiscating the banner and then suspending him.Student Joseph Frederick says the banner's language was meant to be nonsensical and funny, a prank to get on television as the Winter Olympic torch relay passed by the school in January 2002.But school officials say the phrase "bong hits" refers to smoking marijuana. Principal Deborah Morse suspended Frederick for 10 days because she said the banner advocated or promoted illegal drug use in violation of school policy.Frederick, 18, had been standing on a public sidewalk across the street from the school when Morse grabbed his banner and crumpled it. Students had been allowed out of class to watch the event.The majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts said the court agreed with Morse that those who viewed the banner would interpret it as advocating or promoting illegal drug use, in violation of school policy.Roberts, who was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush, said a principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event when it is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.Liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented on the constitutional issue. Justice Breyer said he would have decided the case without reaching the constitutional issue by ruling the principal cannot be held liable for damages.Copyright: Reuters 2007http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSWBT00720120070625
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment