We can still have bong hits for Jesus right?

I know the holy supreme court ruled against the kid who held up a banner in front of his highschool saying 'bong hits for Jesus', but we can all still HAVE bong hits for Jesus, right?

Treat censorship as damage and route around it.

Make their act of censorship have the opposite of the intended effect.

Also, I think a key to the prosecution's argument was that "Bong Hits for Jesus" somehow encouraged drug use.

So, I propose also using the slogan, "Blowjobs for Jesus," which has absolutely nothing to do with drugs.

"Fags should die"?

or

"Keep the niggers out"?

or

"Bitches are 4 fucking"?

Would everyone be rallying around the kid? Would the school be right to not let banners like that at school-sponsored events?

until the terrorists love us.

rights that adults have. Never have. Tinker is pretty clear that the speech cannot be disruptive to the education process. The kid had a 14-foot sign that made reference to drug use at a school-sponsored event. I can't believe that people are finding it difficult that a school might want to limit a student's speech about illegal drug use while that student is at a school-sponsored event.

"educational process" occurring while people are standing around waiting for an Olympic torch parade - a *community*-sponsored event, not school-sponsored -, so the "disruptive to the education process" argument doesn't hold water.

Seems to me that such a banner held up outside, and not even on school grounds, is less disruptive to the educational process, and less powerful a political statement, than anti-war black armbands being worn to class all day, as was the case in Tinker.


Our Constitution continues to get ripped to shreds...

Schools across the country are suspending and expelling kids for things they do ON THEIR OWN TIME, which is freakin' outrageous.

Their teachers with them. Why would teachers accompany the students unless the students were still officially in school?



Apparenlty FREDERICK had not been to school yet that day, but other students had. He joined his friends in this school-sponsored event. So the facts would be that school was indeed in session but the student hadn't been there yet--though he joined students who had been at school in the school-sponsored event.


And the student admits that one of the reasons for the banner was to piss off the principal. That certainly seems like the INTENT of the banner was a DISRUPTION. Seems the Principal and Frederick had had it out on several occassions before for things that I think are insane (not standing for the pledge and reading Camus) but THIS incident was meant to piss off the principal.


Finally, it is a reference to illegal drugs at a school-sponsored event. On school grounds or off, do you really think the school should not be able to stop those kinds of references when they are sponsoring the event?

Everyone should stay nicely catatonically calm, just
as our Supreme Leader and his media have commanded.

Tesha

The language of Tinker says that the speech can't be a disruption to the school day. This sign was clearly INTENDED to be a disruption by the student's own admission.

Wouldn't you prefer that, for example, our Congress
were a little more disruptive occasionally?

Tesha

Congress is not a high school.

> Congress is not a high school.

Then why do the geeks spend so much time uselessly trying
to suck up to the "cool kids"?

Tesha

to get my day off to a good start.

What the hell were these students supposedly learning at this event? I don't think that whatever it was that it was more important than freedom of speech.

Also schools have no business trying to be the NARC squad. Maybe you disagree. Drugs are bad? Says who, how can an inhuman institution makes subjective proclamations like that?


Every SCOTUS decision handled down this week was incorrect.

Is that what you are saying? This was not a discussion about the legalization of pot. If it were, I would have no problem with it. This speech is clearly within the bounds of the school to stop. The only extension this case makes is that the speech was at a school-sponsored event yet off school property.

Outside the school buildings, in situations when
the student speech can't be confused as having
been spoken on behalf of the school, the schols
shouldn't be able to limit speech at all.

Inside the schools, perhaps there can be some limits
("don't talk while I'm lecturing!") but right now,
the Supreme Court has tipped the balance far to far
in favor of speech limitations.

This decision was blatantly political and wrong and
represents yet another significant erosion of our
constitutional rights. And I'm always amazed at how
quickly DUers are ready to waive their rights.

Tesha

except this was a school-sponsored event. They were still technically "in school" at the time.

What if the kids had beaten the crap out of a gay kid while teachers stood by and watched? Would everyone here be OK with the actions of the teachers because they were off school property or would we have wanted the teachers to handle the situation before it got out of hand because they were still in charge at the time? This was a school-sponsored event and the school had the duty to control the situation. There have been instances where students are punished for what they do while visitors at another school for a sporting event; why does the school have control over them there?

"School sponsorship" was obviously the turning point
and I think the Supreme Court read a bit more into
this than actually existed. The kid wasn't "in school"
that day, he merely happened to be standing in the
same place as the out-of-school "in school" kids.

Tesha

He was a student at the school and even though he was absent in the morning, by being with everyone else he was at a school-sponsored event. Would he have bitched if the principal had told him to get the hell out because he wasn't at school yet?

I think people are making more of this ruling than need be. The other three were crap. This one only really makes an extension to school-sponsored event that is not on school property. It doesn't reach out to when the kid is on their own and the language, from what I have read of the opinion, does not open the door for that to happen--it is all about being under the "control" of the school and those are the times they have the ability to control speech.

It was across the street from the school, but it wasn't on school property.

and the kids were in school and they were escorted by their teachers.

The only extension of Tinker this makes is to something off school grounds yet still school-sponsored.

educational process, so therefore no reason to limit the student's speech.
And again, the school did not sponsor the parade. The community did.

The rules of the school were still in effect. The banning of references to drugs, alcohol, and sex has never been challenged.

to put on our construction crew trucks. I want it on a banner to hang off of my front porch. I want to see it on bill boards across the nation. I want to see the people of America not take this crap anymore.
Meanwhile....I will do plenty of bong hits....for whomever I please!
:smoke:

This one's for you Big J. Gurgle gurgle gurgle....whooosh.

If we can't say Bong Hits 4 Jesus, then can the Phelps's still say that God hates Fags?

YES, you can say God hates fags, but you just can't BE one.

LOL!

The chief justice said these ads involve ''core political speech,'' which is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. ''We give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship,'' Roberts said.

What if kids (and others, but mainly young people) EVERYWHERE at all events held up this same banner, indicating that they protest leaving their civil rights at the door when they become public school students. The banner message would change from a "drug" message to a "we are citizens too" message. I would like to see, somehow, kids all over the country demonstrating with this banner at every event....it would drive the RW absolutely crazy.

I wish He could do that with the half ounce I have.

hanging out with Jesus and having him turn his stems and seeds into pounds of kind bud ;) Indeed!

This is not a free speech issue. It is a children's rights issue. And children do not have the same rights as adults. Especially when in school. A school can squash many of a child's rights while they are under their care. Just as a student cannot hold up a sign endorsing drug use in school they cannot hold up a sign declaring God hates fags in school.

Now if this kid were protesting outside the Westboro Baptist Church he would not have gotten into trouble.

If you read the bible you quickly come to the conclusion that God likes the smell of burning goats and other critters. I am pretty certain he will maintain whatever odor he considers pleasant in heaven. Which of course means that Heaven is going to smell like burnt goats. And this is the good place?

that the Religious Right has been shitting themselves about this issue because it might limit their kids from telling everyone that god hates fags.

... at the last supper.

they could have gotten by with the original amount they had but Thomas brought some of the "kind" with him that day and he smoked up the whole hill. Big J had to come up with some more goodies quick so he hit up dad for some supplies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da_kine

I'd like to see the Supremes grapple that one.

:smoke:

,,,

"Ey, I no can da kine if you no like da kine, too!"

I think I'm seeing him now. There's white lights and sparkly things anyway.

hehehe And the kid would of been hired and become a spocksman.

Sign me up.

Bonghits for Snuffelupagus for all I care. Any excuse. B-)

:smoke: