‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ Rests in Supreme Court
If you haven’t learned already, small changes bring big results. The small change in regards to enforcing school policies, now leads into a larger case of Freedom of Speech. Joseph Frederick, a high school senior, displayed a 14-foot banner in the name of humor, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”
As a result of Frederick’s display, the sign was confiscated by his principal and he was suspended from school. The student is contesting this response, and has escalated to the United States Supreme Court regarding how far a school’s right to interfere with a student’s right to free speech can reach (such as onto public property).
While I agree that schools need to have policies against harassment and must have a stance on discouraging use of illegal substances, I don’t believe the school’s principal is just in suspending the student from classroom time. If I want to write a sign that says “It’s Miller Time!” then I damn well should retain the right to display a sign like this on a public street. Even a conservative blogger agrees. As long a public display is not slandering or advocating direct substance use, it should be permitted under school jurisdiction.
I fully endorse and support Joseph Frederick’s fight for his civil right to free speech. Damn, I wish he had a blog, cause he’d get some mad hits right about now.
Our country’s forefathers would be turning in their grave, knowing that government institutions continue to impede a student’s right to free speech, rather than embrace our rights in the great country. That’s the point.
[tags] Bong Hits 4 Jesus, Supreme Court, Freedom of Speech, Civil Rights[/tags]
Stumble it!
March 19th, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Dygital Joe,
Good writeup- just wanted to expand on some things:
The First pertains to the government’s ability to restrict speech (hence the fact that the case was heard at all since public school is government indoctrination) and also protects “slanderous” speech (which is why libel/slander cases are heard in civil court) as well as speech “promoting substance abouse” (e.g. it’s legal to sell or wear T-shirts with pictures of marijuana/alcohol… for that matter it’s also legal to sell/wear a shirt that promotes any crime, including drugrunning and murder, for a example a Scarface shirt that shows a picture of a druglord firing an atuomatic rifle at other drug dealers).
The main issue is whether the Bong Hits 4 Jesus was appropriate for minors (who are obligated to attend school) to be exposed to this speech during their government-mandated school day. I think it’s appropriate that we allow this speech in this case, since (in theory, at least) devout Muslim students are exposed to many things at public school which would be considered offensive to their belief systems. Although to be fair, I’ll admit that this case wouldn’t have happened if the student had tried “Bong 4 for Muhammad [pbuh].”
The First Amendment protects the speech of those who say minorities are inferior (white supremacists) as well as that of those who call Jews evil “skunks” and “monkeys” (Louis Farrakhan). It even protects the controversial cartoons of Muhammad [peace be upon him]- although you’ll notice that the media and most Western government were quick to self-censor (compare to government funding through Rudy Guiliani and subsequent media lionization of such admittedly anti-Christian works as “Piss Christ”).
Hopefully this case will start some conversation among young people about consistency in interpretation of the Constitution. Unfortunately, we seem to live in a pick-and-choose society where some people will love the NRA for supporting certain parts of the Constitution but hate the ACLU for supporting certain parts of the Constitution; and vice versa. Hopefully the generation coming of age will realize that all values of the Constitution are vital to the health of the Republic; and all groups are equally worthy here. Hopefully they will realize that since no television show or movie would denigrate women, Blacks, or Latinos, that neither should any work denigrate Asians, Arabs, or Native Americans. Hopefully they will have the intellectual honesty and moral clarity to say “just as I abhor the thought of Judaism being marginalized; so too do I abhor the thought of Islam or Protestantism being marginalized.”
Well, we can hope, can’t we?
March 20th, 2007 at 8:57 AM
[...] http://www.joemanna.com [...]
March 21st, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Here’s a great excerpt from Roberts and Kennedy:
“…Mertz, arguing for the student, fared even worse than Starr and Kneedler. He got out only one sentence — “This is a case about free speech; it is not a case about drugs” — before Roberts interrupted.
“It’s a case about money,” the chief justice said.
“Would you waive damages against this principal, who has devoted her life to this school?” asked Kennedy. “You’re seeking damages from her for this sophomoric sign that was held up.”
More here: http://www.overlawyered.com/2007/03/bong_hits_4_shakedown.html
Who wants to take bets that the students lawyers are actually going to be willing to waive seeking damages?
“It’s not about the money,” sure…
Whole WaPo article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031901696_pf.html
Don’t worry, readers- there’s plenty of examples of conservatives making fools out of themselves:
‘Antonin Scalia wanted a turn. “Smoke Pot, It’s Fun,” he proposed…’