Bong Hits For Jesus?

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:22 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/01/scotu ... index.html

This is an interesting case, but it should NEVER made it all the way to the Supreme Court. It sounds like a pissing contest between a student and a principal that both sides wouldn't let drop.

Ordinarily, I would say that even unpopular speech is covered under the 1st Amendment, and since it occurred off of skool grounds, the principal was not in her power to restrict it,

BUT

The release was done during regular skool time, and was a skool-sponsored event, supervised by teechers, so the principal was acting within her power to restrict speech that is disruptive to the ejucashunal mission of the skool. Students surrender certain 1st AM rights when they are in skool. Congress can't abridge your speech; but a principal can. Sorry!

Like I said, it should NEVER have got as far as the Supreme Court. . . .

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:32 pm

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California

all you need to know right there. whatever they rule, it will get overturned sooner or later... almost guaranteed.

Aero · Post by **Aero** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:34 pm

Boo hoo, somebody "promoted" something illegal (BUT IS IT IMMORAL??) and the principal pulled that standard line involving a "disruption of the educational process", even though it was off school grounds and no "education" was taking place (as if it ever did in public schools anyway).

Freedom of speech is being attacked here.

The Bongwater Mermaids · Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:45 pm

The Great "J Man" would be proud of those students! Maybe he'd do the bong hits, maybe not........but he would be proud of them.

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:03 pm

Aero wrote:Boo hoo, somebody "promoted" something illegal (BUT IS IT IMMORAL??) and the principal pulled that standard line involving a "disruption of the educational process", even though it was off school grounds and no "education" was taking place (as if it ever did in public schools anyway).

Freedom of speech is being attacked here.

The sign was nonsensical, by the student's own admission. Promotion of something illegal or immoral is NOT the issue. The sign could have said EAT MORE DONUTS and it still would have been disruptive, since it distracted from a skool event - watching the Olympic torch pass, which WAS educational in nature (however dubious or relevant in educational value) and taking place during skool time, under the watch of skool staff. So it was like a field trip. Students can't just do whatever on a field trip, even though it is off skool grounds. It's not a really freedom of speech issue at all.

subgenius88 · Post by **subgenius88** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:44 pm

=^-..-^= wrote:
Promotion of something illegal or immoral is NOT the issue. The sign could have said EAT MORE DONUTS and it still would have been disruptive, since it distracted from a skool event .

Actually, it is the issue.

Principal Deborah Morse ordered the 18-year-old senior to take down the sign, but he refused. That led to a 10-day suspension for violating a school policy by promoting illegal drug use.

Having a school policy against promoting illegal drug use is unconstitutional(unless by promoting they mean selling or possessing) - and students don't lose their Constitutional rights when entering a public institution, despite popular opinion otherwise.

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:00 pm

sevesd93 · Post by **sevesd93** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:04 pm

Garr wrote:

That is so awesome

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:55 pm

subgenius88 wrote:Having a school policy against promoting illegal drug use is unconstitutional(unless by promoting they mean selling or possessing) - and students don't lose their Constitutional rights when entering a public institution, despite popular opinion otherwise.

Yes, obviously the principal was confused about the message of the sign, which was nonsensical. When the principal asked that it be taken down, she was within her rights to keep order in loco parentis Do we just let students do anything they want in skool because placing restrictions would be infringing on the freedoms of a minor?

1st Amendment: CONGRESS shall make no law. . . . abridging freedom of speech

CONGRESS can't abridge your freedom of speech; your boss or your principal can. [/i]

MrSpall · Post by **MrSpall** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:08 am

=^-..-^= wrote: 1st Amendment: CONGRESS shall make no law. . . . abridging freedom of speech

CONGRESS can't abridge your freedom of speech; your boss or your principal can.

Precisely. People that think 'free speech' gives them the right to say anything they please without consequence are living in a dream world populated by fairies and unicorns. The Bill of Rights prevents speech from being a criminal act. That's the limit of its scope. Had the kid been jailed for his sign, that would be a free speech violation.

He can't have the sign for the same reason I can't call my boss a 'butt-licking fellator of donkeys'. It's not illegal to say, but there will be reprecussions (in this case, my loss of employment).

Here in big-boy world we call that a consequence. They exist. Stop wasting the Supreme Court's time.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:36 am

Stop wasting the Supreme Court's time.

That should be the message to the 9th Circus Court of Appeals... their tagline reads "Consistently overturned for 4 decades"