"Bong" case is not a legal landmark

Denver Post ^ | 21 Mar 07 | Al Knight

[rellimpank]

Numerous press accounts have claimed that the Supreme Court is about to make a landmark First Amendment ruling in a case based on a 2002 incident in which an Alaskan student waved a banner with the words "Bong hits 4 Jesus."

These reports are almost surely wrong. The only way this case could produce a landmark decision is if the court holds that the student has a right to personally sue the principal who seized his pro-drug banner and suspended him.

Such a decision would give every school administrator (or teacher for that matter) nightmares and repeal the notion that administrators and teachers who act reasonably should have qualified immunity from personal

[rellimpank]

---the Denver Post's best columnist--

[E Rocc]

The way I understand it, the kids were let out of school to watch the parade, they weren't in it or there as an official school function.

If that's the case, it was none of the principal's business.

When government officials overreach, lawsuits should be an option. Cut that off, and Henry Bowman might end up coming around (not in a case like this...but it is a precedent.

-Eric

[pillut48]

"administrators and teachers who act reasonably"--from the few snippets of this case I saw on the news, it looked like the law would be in this idiot's favor, because the incident did not take place on school grounds, and apparently the principal lost it when she saw the banner across the street as the Olympic torch came by, and she ran over and destroyed it...the message on the banner was totally wrong, but I have the bad feeling that this one is going go to the bad guys. :-(

[LibKill]

The twit with the sign was not at a school function and was off school grounds. He was also excercising his first amendment rights on private property and should have been safe doing so under the 1st and 4th amendments. The principal will lose if the constitution is applied.

All that said the plaintiff is a stupid smart-ass and I for one could never call him friend.

[mtbopfuyn]

The lower courts have ruled in favor of the student but the school keeps pursuing it. The principal needs to get over herself and not burden the local taxpayers any further.

[Nick Thimmesch]

If the banner would have read: "Don't Do Bong Hits For Jesus" it still would have been challenged by the Nanny State on (anti) religious message/free speech fears. The kids -- as The Who might say -- are alright: leave 'em alone.

[Terabitten]

The twit with the sign was not at a school function and was off school grounds. He was also excercising his first amendment rights on private property and should have been safe doing so under the 1st and 4th amendments. The principal will lose if the constitution is applied.

Yup. As much as we disagree with the sign, we must defend to the death the student's right to display it. The principal grossly overstepped his bounds.

Since the sign was not on school property, the question becomes: How far does the principal's influence extend? Does he have the right to tear down an offending sign in the student's front yard? Or perhaps in any location where one of his students might see it, like along the interstate? Clearly, that would be absurd. The principal's power extends only to the edge of the schoolyard.

The SC will, I'm sure, rule with the student.

[mmichaels1970]

Not at a school function? I wonder who the kids' parents would have sued if he'd gotten run over by a bus. You may be right, but I still wonder.

[pillut48]

The principal was a woman.

[ASOC]

This is the first news post that nails the issue right off the bat.

The student sued the Principal, and the "administrator" is at risk for her over reaching abuse of authority.

Now I can see school administrators demanding well written guidelines from school boards and maybe actually following the guidelines. Oh, and starting to carry personal liability insurance to cover them when they screw the pooch.

About time taxpayer stopped footing the bill for morons running schools.

[af_vet_rr]

Such a decision would give every school administrator (or teacher for that matter) nightmares and repeal the notion that administrators and teachers who act reasonably should have qualified immunity from personal

Perhaps the schools shouldn't try and regulate what their students do away from campus. This wasn't some official school venue and activity, like a kid streaking the homecoming football game.

The schools need to leave such things to the parents (shocking concept I know).