Smoke a Bong for Free Speech?

Smoke a Bong for Free Speech?

seattletimes.nwsource.com

WASHINGTON — A high school principal was acting reasonably and in accord with the school's anti-drug mission when she suspended a student for displaying a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner, her lawyer told the Supreme Court today.

"The message here is, in fact, critical," the lawyer, former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, said during a lively argument about whether the principal violated the constitutional rights of the student.

On the other side, attorney Douglas Mertz of Juneau, Alaska, urged the justices to see the case as being about free speech, not drugs.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.msnbc.msn.com

This is a tough one to call. The kid admits he was trying to provoke a reaction from school administrators. He was not making a stand for free speech or really any other cause, he was just trying to get a reaction. Should intent matter in cases like these?

seattletimes.nwsource.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I thought it was all about his claim of raising awareness of free speech and the whole issue arose when he was accused of promoting drug use, which he has denied was the cause.

Originally posted by Crakeur
I thought it was all about his claim of raising awareness of free speech and the whole issue arose when he was accused of promoting drug use, which he has denied was the cause.

Here's a quote from law.com.

Frederick said his motivation for unfurling the banner, at least 14 feet long, was simple: He wanted it seen on television since the torch relay event was being covered by local stations.

www.law.com...

It looks like he was trying to be funny and when he got in trouble, he turned it into a First Ammendment Case.
I do think he has a point. What was the principal doing snatching his banner when they weren't even on school property?

I'm sure he and his buddies thought it would a real hoot if it got on tv and his lawyer has come up with a brilliant defense.

He'll win and the big thrill will be hearing the justices use words like bong in their decision. I wonder if there will be a fight over who is forced to read that one.

And with about the same regularity the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gets a ruling right...

Well, the Ninth can dine well... The Supreme Court should have little problem in upholding their decision, as it was the correct one. Now if we could only bottle that feeling of accomplishment for them so they could do a little better on all their other decisions.

Long considered the federal court breeding ground for judicial activism, the 9th Circuit has been the federal appeals court most often overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. And, as shown by statistics compiled by the Center for Individual Freedom Foundation, the High Court’s recently completed October Term, 2002, proved to be no exception to the 9th Circuit’s disfavored place amongst the justices.

Of the 80 cases the Supreme Court decided this past term through opinions, 56 cases arose from the federal appellate courts, three from the federal district courts, and 21 from the state courts. The court reversed or vacated the judgment of the lower court in 59 of these cases. Specifically, the justices overturned 40 of the 56 judgments arising from the federal appellate courts (or 71%), two of the three judgments coming from the federal district courts (or 67%), and 17 of the 21 judgments issued by state courts (or 81%).

Notably, the 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of the cases (24 of 80) and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term. In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for more than a third (35%, or 8 of 23) of the High Court’s unanimous reversals that were issued by published opinions. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.

www.centerforindividualfreedom.org...

I can't sorry... my lungs are shot.... *SNIP*

[edit on 19-3-2007 by grover]

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19/3/2007 by Mirthful Me]

I just read this in Time Magazine thought it was a pretty interesting article on our dimminishing right to free speech.

I like the banner. I think I'll make one for my bedroom!

Mod Edit: Excessive Bolding – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18/5/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by WellSee
Should intent matter in cases like these?

Intent is irrelevant. The fact is he has a right to free speech, if he chooses to abuse that right it's his problem.

If I broke into someone's home in the middle of the night it wouldn't matter whether I was trying to rob them or point out the security flaws in their home, its still a crime... just as breaching someone's right to free speech is wrong.

Frederick was a high school senior in Juneau when he decided to display the banner at a school-sanctioned event to watch the Olympic torch pass through the city on its way to the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City.

seattletimes.nwsource.com

The kid's free speech rights were not violated. He was not thrown into jail.

At a "school-sanctioned event," he violated a school policy and he was suspended from school.

Had he unfurled the banner on his own time and not at a school activity, then nothing would have happened, except most of the english-speaking world would have just considered it to the musings of an idiot.

In a Vietnam War era case, the court backed high school student anti-war protesters who wore armbands to class. Since then, though, the court has sanctioned curtailing student speech when it is disruptive to a school's educational mission, plainly offensive or part of a school-sponsored activity like a student newspaper. [emphasis mine

seattletimes.nwsource.com