Posted on 03/19/2007 6:24:09 AM PDT by nancyvideo
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear argument in a Juneau, Alaska, case that might further define the free-speech rights of high school students.
In a 1969 case, the high court ruled that students had the right to wear black armbands during the Vietnam War, but in two others in the 1980s, the court said schools had the right to ban offensive speech, as opposed to political speech, and control the content of student newspapers.
The case scheduled for argument Monday involves Joseph Frederick, a student at Juneau-Douglas High School and his principal, Deborah Morse.
(Excerpt) Read more at rightbias.com ...
Any case the ACLU and the ACLJ agree on has as it's foregone conclusion being upheld. The banner is nonsensical on it's face. Bong hits obviously can't be for or against anything, although take enough of them and you might debate that argument.
I remember holding a banner similar in size as then President Clinton went by in a motorcade on his way to see the wonderful University Fort Ord had become transformed from being a training base that we felt sure we no longer needed, what with the cold war being over and all.
I shudder to think of some authority figure ripping up my banner, although many in the crowd that had come to see the president expressed resentment.
No, it means that you can't make content-based regulations. Simple as that. Content neutral regulations, like time, place, and manner restrictions, aren't subjected to the same type of scrutiny?
Or as Chief Justice Burger put it in his concurring opinion of that very same case:
Ah, you mean not the majority opinion? Ok.
Well maybe you can find some similar case
All right. If you'd like.
See, e.g., Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 648-649 (1984) ("Regulations which permit the Government to discriminate on the basis of the content of the message cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment."); Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U. S. 221, 230 (1987) ("[O]fficial scrutiny of the content of publications as the basis for imposing a tax is entirely incompatible with the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press."); Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439 (1991) ("Finally, for reasons that are obvious, a tax will trigger heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment if it discriminates on the basis of the content of taxpayer speech."); R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) ("[W]e nonetheless conclude that the ordinance is facially unconstitutional in that it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses."); Turner Broad. Sys. v. Fed. Communications Comm'n, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) ("At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for him or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence. Our political system and cultural life rest upon this ideal. Government action that stifles speech on account of its message, or that requires the utterance of a particular message favored by the Government, contravenes this essential right.")
Should I go on?
"Thus the question comes down to whether a school may, in the absence of concern about disruprion of educational activities, punish and censor non-disruptive, off-campus speech by students during school authorized activities because the speech promotes a social message contrary to the one favored by the school. The answer under controlling, long existing precedent, is plainly 'No'".
-Ninth Circuit decision
However, word to kid--You want something to cry about? Red China gonna give you plenty to cry about.
I must have missed that. Apart from the disruption the principal caused in destroying the student's property, what disruption did the banner cause? That inanimate objects, (bong hits) are "4" certain things?
My argument is more on restricting the manner in which the ideas can be expressed.
Their definition of content appears to be the core ideas that are being expressed, but not necessarily including them manner in which those ideas are expressed.
That would explain why excessively vulgar speech could be regulated. Or why intentionally dishonest and malicious speech could be regulated. However, when considering speech such as Cohen's jacket, the Justices looked at the manner in which Cohen expressed his view of the draft, and found the manner an important part of his message, and determined that the effect on the rights of others that saw his jacket was minimal. Therefore the restriction on the manner in which he expressed his opinion was overruled in that case.
Is this how you interpret manner and content? Because if you interpret content to include the exact words that were used, it is hard to reconcile those comments by the court with their other rulings.
Regan v. Time, Inc. was about overly broad restrictions on the manner in which currency might be shown in print. It wasn't a total ban on reproducing an image of money, but it was overly restrictive and was placing limitations on the press that were not justifiable as attempts to prevent counterfeiting.
With Project, Inc. v. Ragland the government was exempting some publications and not others based on the type of content rather than the actual words that were used or the way that content was expressed.
So let me restate my opinion that the Principal could examine the manner in which the student expressed his views.
The principal can only punish him based on the basis of the message due to him being a student. In effect that is really a time based restriction. The principal can place restrictions on his behavior on school time. She could also prevent him from posting such a sign on school property, as long as doing so doesn't go astray of equal protections.
Schools appear to be given more leeway because of the need to protect the interests and rights of other students and to maintain order, however they cannot just deny students their rights at will.
What would you say is the content of the student's banner? Is it the words themselves? Is it the message he was presenting? If it was the message, what do you think that message was?
When I see signs "Bush Lies" and "No Blood for Oil" I confront the traitors with an offer--Whipping out a c-note, I say, "Anyone that has any proof we went into Iraq for the oil, I'll give this hundred dollar bill to right now."
They never put the money where their mouth is. I enjoy watching them stand dumbfounded, their paranoid beliefs having been challenged.
You can't libel Jesus, and you can't rip up the traitor's signs no matter how baseless they are.
I hope this is a 9-0 decision, but I think it's going to roll 7-2, Roberts and Scalia dissenting.
Who knows, maybe this kid will come home and kiss the ground and tell us all in a press conference how utterly unfree Red China is. ("Well, yes, I can tell you what the defining moment was, for me. I had logged on a forbidden website, and about a half hour later, I received a knock on my door.....")
What is a bong hit?
I have never seen or used the phrase in my life. The entire phrase on the banner is nonsensical and only a hysterical reaction would cause a rational person to act to censor or concern themselves over it.--
L ucy in the
S ky with
D iamonds
Romans 14 essentially says no THING is evil.
The demonization of this herb is a heresy.
It is not evil. The illegal, unconstitutional
ACTS of war conducted be DEAmen are evil.
Actions are evil, not things. See the Manichaean heresy.
"Where does Jesus command his followers to take up smoking pot?"
Where in the many dietary proscriptions is there one for any herb!
Are you saying that you don't know what a bong hit is?
Do I have that correct?
If I am wrong, then tell me what it is.
Things are not evil, but how we use them may be.
The demonization of this herb is a heresy.
A government banning it's use based on how some people use it or act after using it is not heresy. It may be unwise or poor public policy, but it's not heresy.
It is not evil.
It is a plant. It performs no action on it's own. It has no intent of it's own.
The illegal, unconstitutional
I personally feel that the commerce clause which I suspect is the constitutional justification for the DEA is horribly abused. However, I see nothing in the Constitution barring the states from banning it. Do you have a reason why you feel it is unconstitutional other than a possible lack of jurisdiction by the federal government?
ACTS of war conducted be DEAmen are evil.
Um... OK. Not very descriptive, so I'll just leave that one alone unless you care to elaborate a bit more.
Actions are evil, not things.
I agree completely. However, our government doesn't regulate items or substances based on if the items themselves are evil, but based on how they might be used.
I think that is generally bad policy to ban items based on how they might be used, and instead ban unacceptable behavior. However, it is arguable that in some cases that banning only the behavior isn't practical because behavior can be difficult to monitor nor is constant monitoring desirable. Since the behavior may only be noticed after harm to others has occurred, it can be considered prudent to ban or regulate things that have little productive purpose and whose use can result in harm befalling others.
Because of that I do support regulating highly addictive drugs (I don't consider pot to be highly addictive). I would have no problem it pot were legalized as long as a reliable test for determining how much it is influencing someone's physical reactions. In other words, as long as they can determine if someone is driving under the influence, or is impaired while doing something else that poses a threat to others, I see not reason to ban it's use as a recreational drug.
It all comes down to people's actions.
You called using pot a Sacrament. What is the justification for it being a Sacrament.
Eating lunch isn't a Sacrament.
I did not say it was a sacrament. Rather, that many Christian sects believe it to be a sacrament. However, they seem mostly to base it upon the fact that Christ was the Annointed. In their understanding that means that he was annointed with a traditional oil derived from the plant in question.
"rejection of a pro drug message"
The really interesting factoid is that the message is neither pro or con for drugs or religion.
In court testimony it was entered that the sign is a meaningless collection of words with no message at all. It has no meaning and no meaning was intended. The banner is nonsense.
Ok, so these "sects" don't appear to have any actual biblical basis for considering smoking pot a sacrament, which makes calling it a Christian sacrament absurd.
So what are these "many" sects. I curious what they say they believe. Do they have many members?
All your questions are pointless because this nation has freedom of religion and although you may personally doubt their interpretation you may not persecute them. Google the answers yourself.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jesus+annointed+hemp
In this case, a "bong hit" is part of a nonsensical phrase on 50 cents worth of butcher paper and a "dollar buys" one magic marker. Two minutes should easily account for the time to print the message.
How in the h--- would anyone know for sure what the author meant? I have customers that sell bongs and swear their primary purpose is for tobacco. In fact, there are hookah parlors where bongs or hookahs are used for smoking tobacco.
So I characterize the banner as a wierd, sophomoric joke.
Nothing to get too excited about.
What was interesting was reading the oral argument, available at the SCOTUS website. I haven't read any opinions lately, but they did not use to identify which Justice was speaking. Unless the speaker said "Yes, Justice Brennan", or whomever, the reader never knew who was asking the questions.
As always, Thomas remained silent as a cat has apparently permanently got his tongue. With the identity of the questioners now clear, he can hide behind the cloak of anonymity no longer. Those that argue there should be more Thomases would find oral argument awfully quiet if no one posits anything. He should be impeached for not participating in, as far as I know, any oral argument.
BTW, as one poster has suggested, the student may have meant "Bong Hits for Heysoos" a cryptic and wry comment about that percentage of illegal aliens involved in the drug trade.
What is a bong hit?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.