“Bong Hits 4 Jesus” Reaches The Supreme Court

Published on March 18th, 2007

Ah, yes. The American schools system. Teaching about free speech on the one hand, punishing it on the other. OK, class, was it the Greeks or the Romans or… Something about killing the messenger…

Free-Speech Case Divides Bush and Religious Right

A Supreme Court case about the free-speech rights of high school students, to be argued on Monday, has opened an unexpected fissure between the Bush administration and its usual allies on the religious right.

As a result, an appeal that asks the justices to decide whether school officials can squelch or punish student advocacy of illegal drugs has taken on an added dimension as a window on an active front in the culture wars, one that has escaped the notice of most people outside the fray. And as the stakes have grown higher, a case that once looked like an easy victory for the government side may prove to be a much closer call.

The Bush administration entered the case on the side of the principal and the Juneau School Board, which are both represented by Kenneth W. Starr, the former solicitor general and independent counsel.
[...]
[I]t is the array of briefs from organizations that litigate and speak on behalf of the religious right that has lifted Morse v. Frederick out of the realm of the ordinary.
[...]
The [Liberty Legal Institute], based in Plano, Tex., told the justices in its brief that it was “gravely concerned that the religious freedom of students in public schools will be damaged” if the court rules for the school board.

24 users responded in " “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” Reaches The Supreme Court "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 BubbaRay said, on March 18th, 2007 at 7:41 am

That’s right (pun intended), it’s a joke! Get over it. Now whose paying for all this righteous indignation? YOU (and me). Good grief.

# 2 Calin said, on March 18th, 2007 at 7:50 am

An intersting question they don’t bring up. If these students were not on school grounds, what rights does the school have to abridge free speech?

# 3 Greg Allen said, on March 18th, 2007 at 8:33 am

Besides being a drug reference, isn’t this also degrading a religion?

Free speech of students — especially underage kids — has never been fully settled in US law.

I remember studying Tinker vs. Des Moines in college. It was a split decision and even the majority qualified the ruling.

As I remember it, that qualification was that speech in school is free unless it is disruptive or some other reason other than just not liking it . Drug advocacy and religion denigration are both arguably disruptive.

# 4 Fred Flint said, on March 18th, 2007 at 8:45 am

…he designed the banner, using a slogan he had seen on a snowboard, “to be meaningless and funny, in order to get on television.”

All this resulted from that?

# 5 doug said, on March 18th, 2007 at 8:47 am

#2. yeah, if they are off school property – and this does not sound like a field trip to me, since they were not required to go and were not transported there – why in the world should the principal have any authority over them at all?

As we have seen, there are more petty tyrants and power-mad bureaucrats in the public school system than in any other part of government.

#3. wouldn’t it be denigrating a religion if it was “bong hits AGAINST Jesus”?

# 6 Lauren the Ghoti said, on March 18th, 2007 at 9:41 am

#2 – Cailin

It wasn’t on school grounds, but the incident occurred during school hours, while the students were permitted to be off school grounds temporarily. I don’t believe that matter is at issue.

#3 – Greg Allen

I’m with Doug – in what way does this “degrade” anything?

The NYT notes:

Mr. Fredericks’s ensuing lawsuit and the free-speech court battle that resulted, in which he has prevailed so far, is one that, classically, pits official authority against student dissent. It is the first Supreme Court case to do so directly since the court upheld the right of students to wear black arm bands to school to protest the war in Vietnam, declaring in Tinker v. Des Moines School District that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Of course, you’re invited to show us any precedent that addresses “religious denigration.”

Anyway, apparently Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, the Christian Legal Society, the Alliance Defense Fund and Liberty Legal Institute, religion supporters all, don’t consider it degrading to their religion, since they’ve taken the kid’s side against the principal and the school.

- – - – - – - –

Something else entirely is a defense claim:

The Juneau School Board’s mission includes opposing illegal drug use, the administration’s brief continues, citing as evidence a 1994 federal law, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, which requires that schools, as a condition of receiving federal money, must “convey a clear and consistent message” that using illegal drugs is “wrong and harmful.”

Of course, as those who think for themselves among us realize (as opposed to the ideologues), that’s just plain bullshit, since (leaving aside the issue of who gets to decide exactly what about drug use is “wrong”, and why) many illegal drugs are harmless, many legal drugs are harmful, even lethal – and that using drugs, legal or not, is not synonymous with abusing them.

Hardly surprising that the corrupt, incompetent Bushites would fall back on such a pile of legalistic feces as a defense…

# 7 hhopper said, on March 18th, 2007 at 10:16 am

Ghoti is pronounced “fish,” right?

# 8 Lauren the Ghoti said, on March 18th, 2007 at 10:19 am

Very good.

# 9 TJGeezer said, on March 18th, 2007 at 10:40 am

6 – What you said, mostly. But I don’t understand your reply to #2 Cailin – if the school gave the students a window during which they could be off the school grounds, and if the students were not transported or sponsored there by the school, how does the school have any jurisdiction at all over what they do during that window of time? Seems to me if the school lets ‘em off the leash, they’re off the school’s leash until they return.

# 10 Uncle Dave said, on March 18th, 2007 at 10:57 am

For those who didn’t understand #7 & 8 (like me),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti

# 11 TJGeezer said, on March 18th, 2007 at 11:18 am

I always thought “ghoti” came from Shaw, who was a spelling reformer, but I guess it didn’t. I liked the little essay on it at

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwhat04.html

where it says English spelling is kindly because it doesn’t spell “potato” as “ghoughpteighbteau” – see the link for why it could be.

# 12 Thomas said, on March 18th, 2007 at 12:12 pm

I suppose it is safe to assume that you are not using the more humorous pronunciation of your made-up word which is silence ;->

# 13 TJGeezer said, on March 18th, 2007 at 12:37 pm

12 – ( )

# 14 doug said, on March 18th, 2007 at 3:38 pm

I still intensely dislike the idea that schools can have jurisdiction over pupils when they are not on school grounds or some ancillary place – like field trips or the bus stops.

and this whole ‘inconsistent with the educational mission …’ thing is a load of utter crap. In essence that means if you publically disagree with anything you are taught, you are subject to discipline. No way even the Roberts Court goes along with that.

# 15 Eric said, on March 19th, 2007 at 11:41 am

I guess it depends on if they say this was a school function or not. It doesn’t really matter if it was on school grounds per se. There are numerous school functions held “off campus” that require students to abide by school bylaws, etc…. The drug reference is what will probably give the kid the most trouble. This was essentially a school function with the kids being let out of school to attend. The band was present and playing music. Etc…

What does the kid hope to get out of this other than proving the fact that he’s a dick. He’s obviously got some other issues to deal with if this is the best way he can express himself to others.

# 16 Kate said, on March 19th, 2007 at 11:43 am

Freedom of speech is a right to be protected at all costs, but what happened to the decency and respect that were so integrated into our nation’s beliefs years ago? I’m tired of individuals trying to get attention by saying something stupid, getting in trouble for it, and then using the “freedom of speech” excuse. Think about the impressionable children and young adults who listen to these individuals and look up to them for making such a “cool” and rebellious scene. Those kids in turn, may act similar when trying to form their identity, continuing the perpetuation of the action. Compared to other cases, this one’s not all that bad, but it still makes me wonder, “What do the parents of this kid think of his behavior?” Granted, I assume they are embarrassed with the whole situation but geez, try to raise your kids with some class. Though the last thing in an average teen’s mind is their parents’ advice, a good up-bringing and good parent-child relationship will make your child more prone to listen to what you have to say, they may even look up to their parents! What a revelation that would be! A little off topic I know, but everyone needs to vent, eh?

# 17 doug said, on March 19th, 2007 at 12:59 pm

#16. “what happened to the decency and respect that were so integrated into our nation’s beliefs years ago?”

when was this? There has always been a huge bomb-throwing element in American society, at least from Tom Paine onward. and, yes, it always included young people – any description of a Boston mob during the years around the Revolution always included “apprentices.”

whether its the ‘Bong Hits for Jesus’ dudes or the pro-lifers carrying pictures of aborted fetuses, inflammatory communication is as American as it gets.

# 18 Uncle Dave said, on March 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pm

While I was at lunch I happened to hear this story profiled on NPR and they interviewed Joseph Frederick. He went on to be the captain of the debating team at, I think, Stanford, and is now a teacher. He said if one of his students did this he would discuss it with the student rather than do what his principal did.

# 19 Mr. Fusion said, on March 19th, 2007 at 1:24 pm

I don’t buy the argument that this was a school function. If they were required to be there for a commercial event then they should have been paid. Because they were never paid then this was strictly voluntary.

The school should lose, but considering the makeup of the Supreme Court, I won’t hold my breath on this one.

# 20 Max said, on March 19th, 2007 at 1:25 pm

I’m offended by his banner. Based on precedent established by the atheist, (No Christmas trees on public grounds), Feminist (the use of mankind is blatantly offensive) and Muslims (ever hear of a show called “24″?), I guess I should be outraged!

Oh wait – I’m a white, Catholic male… I’m not allowed to be offended. It’s okay for others to mock me…

Max

Sorry – I forgot. I’ll go back to planning my vast right-wing conspiracies…

# 21 Mr. Fusion said, on March 19th, 2007 at 1:26 pm

…but what happened to the decency and respect that were so integrated into our nation’s beliefs years ago?

Decency and respect are only afforded to those who agree with you. It has always been practiced by the establishment that way.

# 22 Lauren the Ghoti said, on March 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pm

#20 – Max(?)

“t’s okay for others to mock me…”

Mock you? I went back and took another look at the banner, and for the life of me, I can’t see your name anywhere on it!

Or is your name actually Jesus, and ‘Max’ is just a nick…?

So what you’re saying is – you’re offended. Well, bad news, chum.

Just as those Muslims who are objected to the depictions of the Prophet were told, you need to get a grip. You see, you may, depending on where you live, have the right to say what you like – but neither you nor anyone else has any right to be free from things that offend you.

Grow up and learn to live with the fact that there are other people on this planet with the same rights as you, and some of them are bound to be offended by you, what you look like, what you say, and/or what you believe. So should they be able to silence you? No?

Then shut up and worry about the words that come out of your mouth, not anybody else’s.

# 23 Mr. Fusion said, on March 19th, 2007 at 7:58 pm

…but neither you nor anyone else has any right to be free from things that offend you.

Damn right. Geeze, I was at this guy’s place tonight and he cut some cheese. You know, passed wind. Uuhh, he let the ole toothless wonder spake. He Ripped One, HE FARTED for Christ’s sake. And it was bad. I was offended. Oh boy was it bad. Those effen Irish with their damned cabbage and corned beef.

But you know, he was a white guy and it looked like he was Catholic, so I just let it ride.

# 24 chelsea said, on July 6th, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Who cares if someone gets offended. Thats not what freedom of speech is. It’s the right to say what you believe. Guess what I don’t like the KKK, but if they want to they have every right to say what they believe. Just because some people get offended doesn’t mean it should be considered wrong. Everyone is different and believes different things. You can’t spend your whole life trying to please everyone. Who cares what the banner said thats besides the point. What matters is the fact we have the right (or I guess we don’t anymore) to say what we want. People need to just lighten up. FUCK JESUS LOVE HITLER. See that’s going to piss a lot of people off but I have every right to say it without going to court.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!