|
Supreme Court rules that Jesus can't have bong hits. Jesus is weeping on his cross
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
This landmark case (that I know all of you have been diligently following) finally comes to a close today in tragedy. Why does the Supreme Court hate Jesus? :(
| quote: |
Court limits student free-speech rights By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
42 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.
Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.
Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.
His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use.
"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts said. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."
Morse suspended the student, prompting a federal civil rights lawsuit.
The winning side in the case was quick to assert that the decision was not anti-free speech
In their concurrence, Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy specified that the court's opinion provides no support for any restriction on speech that goes to political or social issues.
It's a narrow ruling that "should not be read more broadly," said Kenneth Starr, whose law firm represented the school principal.
Students in public schools don't have the same rights as adults, but neither do they leave their constitutional protections at the schoolhouse gate, as the court said in a landmark speech-rights ruling from Vietnam era.
The court has limited what students can do in subsequent cases, saying they may not be disruptive or lewd or interfere with a school's basic educational mission.
Frederick, now 23, said he later had to drop out of college after his father lost his job. The elder Frederick, who worked for the company that insures the Juneau schools, was fired in connection with his son's legal fight, the son said. A jury recently awarded Frank Frederick $200,000 in a lawsuit he filed over his firing.
Joseph Frederick, who has been teaching and studying in China, pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, according to court records.
Conservative groups that often are allied with the administration are backing Frederick out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose homosexuality or abortion.
The case is Morse v. Frederick, 06-278.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625...wtzrc2t6lms0NUE
|
|
|
|
| stren |
| Jezus jest zajebisty |
|
|
| RJT |
I really don't see how this ruling even applies to the case - wasn't the student with the banner off of school grounds when this occurred?
:conf:
Doesn't this ruling essentially just say that schools have the right to censor students while they're in the care of the school, but really says nothing about what they can or cannot do off school grounds?
Or am I just missing something here?
This all just seems really pointless to me. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
I really don't see how this ruling even applies to the case - wasn't the student with the banner off of school grounds when this occurred?
:conf:
Doesn't this ruling essentially just say that schools have the right to censor students while they're in the care of the school, but really says nothing about what they can or cannot do off school grounds?
Or am I just missing something here?
This all just seems really pointless to me. |
It was a "school sponsored" event. But yes this is a -1 for free speech. Sucks to be a student ... |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
It was a "school sponsored" event. But yes this is a -1 for free speech. Sucks to be a student ... |
Ah, so if an event is "school sponsored," now that means that anywhere within the line of sight of the "school sponsored event" is technically "school grounds," and therefore gives uptight administrators the right to censor any enrolled students within the vicinity?
ing weak. :( |
|
|
| Fast Turtle |
| pray for democracy next election |
|
|
| stren |
| no free speech in america, I bet Jesus wept |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| Land of the free. |
|
|
| tubularbills |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
I really don't see how this ruling even applies to the case - wasn't the student with the banner off of school grounds when this occurred?
:conf:
Doesn't this ruling essentially just say that schools have the right to censor students while they're in the care of the school, but really says nothing about what they can or cannot do off school grounds?
Or am I just missing something here?
This all just seems really pointless to me. |
don't you remember the girls in chicago that kicked the out of another chick to "initiate" her into the pom club or something....and they video taped it? it was done off school grounds, but yet the girls got suspended for it, or something like that. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by tubularbills
don't you remember the girls in chicago that kicked the out of another chick to "initiate" her into the pom club or something....and they video taped it? it was done off school grounds, but yet the girls got suspended for it, or something like that. |
I think beating the out of someone and carrying a nonsensical banner that COULD be construed as promoting use of a relatively benign drug are two totally different things.
A ruling like this scares the piss out of me. |
|
|
| david.michael |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
A ruling like this scares the piss out of me. |
They happen more and more all the time.
The amount of political correctness is inversely proportional to the amount of freedom.
Let's move. :( |
|
|
| tubularbills |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
I think beating the out of someone and carrying a nonsensical banner that COULD be construed as promoting use of a relatively benign drug are two totally different things.
A ruling like this scares the piss out of me. |
but wouuld they get suspended from school....i could see getting in trouble w/ the law, considering it was assault that they did....but it had nothing to do w/ the school
just like this too. |
|
|
|
|
