Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS: No Bong Hits 4 Jesus (305 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  explain if you can (4+ / 0-)

    You agree that students have no 1st amendment rights?
    You think the message really will incite students to buy or build a bong?

    You feel the parade was correctly identified as a school function and therefore repression is justified?

    Awaiting edification...

    The biggest threat to America is not communism, it's moving America toward a fascist theocracy... -- Frank Zappa

    by NCrefugee on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 09:52:55 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  the first amendment isn't about pranks, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JuliaAnn, dehrha02, Flintcitylimit

      it's about incendiary political rhetoric that threatens people in power.  If this kid was protesting the GWOT or the Iraq War or denying habeus corpus to American Citizens or the three-strikes you're out rules, I'd feel a lot different.  Instead this was just a not-too-carefully-thought out call to party.  I have no problem with this kid displaying this banner.  I have no problem with the principal deciding it was inappropriate.  Kids will be kids; principals will be principals.

      •  So the Merry Prankster had no political agenda? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, Hannibal, MrJersey

        -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & I's score!

        by pinche tejano on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 09:59:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thank god you wrote that out.... (0+ / 0-) I didn't have to.

        I hated george bush before it was cool.

        by dehrha02 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:00:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  what should sign say if want pot legalized? (5+ / 0-)

        Repealing stupid drugs laws is certainly a legit political issue, right?

        And even pranksters and non-traditional thinkers have a right to participate in the process, right?

        If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

        by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:05:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You might feel a lot differently (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell, marina, corvo, Hannibal, MrJersey

        but do you think principals in America's fundie lands are going to? No, sirree, they're going to go around waving this ruling as their permission slip to crack down on everything and anything that doesn't conform to their own personal visions of America.

        It isn't as though they haven't been cracking down on political dissent already. This will only embolden them.

      •  Ahh, yes. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alizard, Hannibal, MrJersey, Justus

        The "it's not political if it doesn't concern an issue I care about" argument.

        Suppose I don't care about the Iraq war, habeas corpus or the GWOT. Enjoy your suspension.

      •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ....what if the student's intent was to bring up the issue of the school's drug policy [perhaps one of those 'zero tolerance' policies--which are pretty damm awful speaking as a former teacher]--and he wanted to bring up the issue in a tongue and cheek way--which is probably the way that an adolescent would bring it up.  What if he had a 'proper' banner that said "Legalize Marijuana Now!"  Of course the banner would have no typos lest we would think the student to be some 2nd class citizen druggie type.

        Would THAT banner be ok then?

        I don't think only 'proper' left-wing rebellion speech is protected.  And I mean 'left-wing rebellion speech' is a good way!

        •  As a former teacher, (0+ / 0-)

          you realize that there need to be boundaries and there are constructive ways to confront issues.  The relationship between teachers and students is not quite the same as the relationship between other citizens.  You are an authority figure and you have the right to establish certain rules for the sake of the students, the material you need to present, and the learning environment.  

          In a more philosophical vein, I would argue that you do a disservice to the true dissidents out there by allowing sloppy, cheap rhetoric to be glorified over a well-crafted argument in favor of an unpopular position.  In this sense, the student is really still being fostered by his principal and his teachers.  So it is more acceptable for these authority figures to apply rules which may at times seem to be at odds with broader societal norms.  

          You can make a student spit out their chewing gum.

          So I guess my answer is that it is a question of place, time and, yes, the quality of the argument being presented.  Of course I would never admit to this publicly.

          •  agree there should be boundaries (0+ / 0-)

            I totally agree that there needs to be some boundaries in the student-teacher relationship but in this case:

            1. Joseph Frederick was 18 years old at the time the incident occurred
            1. The incident occured across the street from school property


            1. The banner in question was not obscene (in other words it could be seen on TV and not be bleeped out or covered up with a black bar)

            The funny thing about this whole thing is that the principal managed by his or her own ineptitude to get the banner seen by the entire world by suspending the student.  I'm actually curious to see what students do and do not get suspended for in that high school.  I wonder what a student gets for cheating or for hate speech (using racial epitaths).  My guess is that in our 'protect the children from drugs at all costs' mentality, cheating or hate speech is just considered not as bad.

            my 2 cents.

      •  so you're saying that political parody and (0+ / 0-)

        humor is not protected by the First Amendment for anybody?

        Congratulations. You're even further to the right than SCOTUS is. So you want The Daily Show off the air?

        Apparently, your problem with their speech is that they don't agree with you.

        The problem SCOTUS had was that high school students were expressing these sentiments, a group that at least one of the SCOTUS members believes has no civil rights.

        If YOU had been carrying that banner, there wouldn't have been an issue.

        Are you sure you're on the right blog? Sounds to me like your natural home is a right blog. Some place like Red State.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 08:28:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If I was carrying that banner to a school event (0+ / 0-)

          I would only expect to get into trouble.  I would just have to weigh ahead of time whether it was worth it.  To this kid, I bet it was worth it.

          •  making him someone (0+ / 0-)

            willing to take risks to show people what freedom of speech is. A "Support The Troops - Support The President" banner wouldn't have been a problem and you know it was well as I do.

            Though calling that activity "a school event" was legal fiction at best.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 01:43:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I think students (0+ / 0-)

      have limited first amendment rights compared to adults until they become adults.

      Certainly not "no" rights but we compulsory require them to attend school, and there are some aspects of public education that require "control".

      We restrict their freedom of movement by saying they can't drive til a certain age, they can't smoke or drink, and they can't vote or have sex until certain ages.

      I think the idea that they have limited free speech rights compared to adults is not some great leap from the rest of the above.

      I don't have a real heartburn with this decision, although I question whether or not we dont have better stuff to focus on and wonder if the principal didnt create a larger issue by going after them rather than simply ignoring them.

      •  Mr. Fredrick was an adult (0+ / 0-)

        He was 18 years old.

        Please visit the Schapira Blog, What we know so far ... ... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!

        by BigMitch on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:56:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  he was also a student (0+ / 0-)

          in high school. Somehow I dont think the idea that all high school and below students are treated one way unless they are 18 and then treated another way when they turn 18 works too well.

      •  RTFA (0+ / 0-)

        The students were off-campus. Do you believe that high schools have jurisdiction over their students regardless of where they are?

        So if one of those students were one of your kids and they said that pot should be legalized in your home, word got back to the school and that student was expelled, you would fully support the school in that decision.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 08:33:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  expulsion wasnt the issue (0+ / 0-)

          in this thread, issue was first amendment rights.

          I'd hope I wouldnt have a kid silly enough to do something like this, I wouldnt support explusion but I would also say that if he got detention or something similar I wouldnt have a problem with it.

          I dont think the question was, should he have been expelled, I wouldnt agree with that, but did he have a first amendment right to do that on "school time" and I think saying he didnt is not the end of free speech as we know it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site