The Supreme Court Gets it Right

[comericatigers]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070625171239.87j0a1gu&show_article=1

Kid loses in "Bong Hits for Jesus". Smoke weed, don't smoke weed--it doesn't matter. This type of shit has no place in public school and could have led to a huge crack in the dam if the court ruled differently.

Oh and by the way, **** the ACLU.

[JLB]

:rofl:

[Meathead]

crack hits for jesus

[г]

How about 'Priests Screw Young Boys For Jesus' ?

That would be more apropos...

[г]

Frederick was 18 when he displayed his huge banner just outside the school grounds at Juneau, Alaska in front of television cameras as the Olympic flame passed in front of a crowd.

Doubleplusgood!

[TRIPLE P]

I wish Jesus would come back so I could get him really baked.....and then steal his wallet.

[ckg68]

A. As D3 pointed out,this was OFF school grounds(yet was a school-sponsored event).

B. If they're going to say "oh,this could lead to further drug use",you could also argue(with the "for Jesus" part)that it was also promoting religion.

So,basically,the Court's logic is illogical. Mr. Spock thinks it's :censor:ed up.

[JLB]

I wish Jesus would come back so I could get him really baked.....and then steal his wallet.

http://www.dogma-movie.com/pics/church/images/buddychrist1sm.jpg
Ok who stole it?
Oh I forgot I don't need to ask!!

[comericatigers]

A. As D3 pointed out,this was OFF school grounds(yet was a school-sponsored event).

B. If they're going to say "oh,this could lead to further drug use",you could also argue(with the "for Jesus" part)that it was also promoting religion.

So,basically,the Court's logic is illogical. Mr. Spock thinks it's :censor:ed up.

A. So what is your point?

B. There is no promotion of religion there.

So basically your logic is illogical.

[ckg68]

A. The event was off school grounds,not on it.
B. Again,if you're going to say the thing has a drug message-then one must conclude that it gives a religious message.

[comericatigers]

A. The event was off school grounds,not on it.
B. Again,if you're going to say the thing has a drug message-then one must conclude that it gives a religious message.

A. It was a school sponsored event and the school system is responsable for the student on their watch. Hence, the student should be suspended. His free speech is not absolute, especially in a publicaly funded institution.

B. You give the kid too much credit to think he is giving a religious message. He is a dopey teenager who wanted to be a smart ass, got busted, and lost.

[ICRockets]

A. It was a school sponsored event and the school system is responsable for the student on their watch. Hence, the student should be suspended. His free speech is not absolute, especially in a publicaly funded institution.

B. You give the kid too much credit to think he is giving a religious message. He is a dopey teenager who wanted to be a smart ass, got busted, and lost.

The kid wasn't sending ANY type of message, you dumbass. If you bothered to read the many articles about the case, he says it was all about free speech, and exercising his with a nonsensical phrase he saw on a snowboard. There was no more intention to promote drugs than there was to promote religion, so you can either flame him for both of them or neither of them. Can't pick and choose based on which one you think is worse.

[TRIPLE P]

His free speech is not absolute, especially in a publicaly funded institution..

Is this in the constitution?

.B. You give the kid too much credit to think he is giving a religious message. He is a dopey teenager who wanted to be a smart ass, got busted, and lost.

Being a smart ass is protected under the constitution.

[comericatigers]

The kid wasn't sending ANY type of message, you dumbass. If you bothered to read the many articles about the case, he says it was all about free speech, and exercising his with a nonsensical phrase he saw on a snowboard. There was no more intention to promote drugs than there was to promote religion, so you can either flame him for both of them or neither of them. Can't pick and choose based on which one you think is worse.

The "speech" was done in a school supervised event. If it was not done during a school supervised event there would be no problem--dumbass.

[г]

So why not make everything a 'school-sponsored event' so that the pole-smoking principal can impose his values on anyone at any time ?

[comericatigers]

Is this in the constitution?

.

Being a smart ass is protected under the constitution.

The Supreme court has decided in previous court cases that students rights are lessened when they are in public school

[ckg68]

The Supreme court has decided in previous court cases that students rights are lessened when they are in public school

Yes,but they don't totally give up their rights either. Unless that 1969 case regarding the Vietnam-protesting students skipped your mind.

[TRIPLE P]

The Supreme court has decided in previous court cases that students rights are lessened when they are in public school

Which case... just asking so I have the same knowledge you do.

And in any case...he wasn't in school, he was off school grounds...if anything he ditched class.

Also, what if this had taken place on a saturday? Should kids get suspended for things they do outside of school?

[comericatigers]

Yes,but they don't totally give up their rights either. Unless that 1969 case regarding the Vietnam-protesting students skipped your mind.

Symbolic speech, during the most controversial war, and part of the liberal Warren Court. No it has not skipped my mind.

[comericatigers]

Which case... just asking so I have the same knowledge you do.

And in any case...he wasn't in school, he was off school grounds...if anything he ditched class.

Also, what if this had taken place on a saturday? Should kids get suspended for things they do outside of school?

It was a school supervised event. He went there with the school! Please read before you make comments!

[gilchristfan]

Is this in the constitution?


At least that's how the SC determines it. Going back to the 60's the Court has ruled that there is a free speech right in school's, but its more limited.

The general rule is, if it can affect the educational mission at the school, or disrupt the educational process, the school can limit speech.

A black armband was considered free speech and protected, but a jacket that said "**** the draft" was considered disruptive. This led to the line "you can wear Tinker's armband, but not Cohen's jacket".

Lewd speech can be considered disruptive and can be censored.

In this case, the court followed its precedent. They didn't really change anything. Even Alito gave a cautionary warning not to overturn the doctrine of limited free speech rights for students.

But if you left it to Thomas, he would have thrown out all civil rights for students (read his concurring opinion).

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf

[nehemiah]

But if you left it to Thomas, he would have thrown out all civil rights for students (read his concurring opinion).

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdfmore evidence of the lunacy of clarence thomas.

but at least he's not a woman like ginsburg. that would be awful. she's stupid and crazy b/c she has a vagina.

FACT.

[JLB]

At least that's how the SC determines it. Going back to the 60's the Court has ruled that there is a free speech right in school's, but its more limited.

The general rule is, if it can affect the educational mission at the school, or disrupt the educational process, the school can limit speech.

A black armband was considered free speech and protected, but a jacket that said "**** the draft" was considered disruptive. This led to the line "you can wear Tinker's armband, but not Cohen's jacket".

Lewd speech can be considered disruptive and can be censored.

In this case, the court followed its precedent. They didn't really change anything. Even Alito gave a cautionary warning not to overturn the doctrine of limited free speech rights for students.

But if you left it to Thomas, he would have thrown out all civil rights for students (read his concurring opinion).

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf

Great information cleans it up pretty good. :rockon:
Gil showing off again take it easy on the mortals!!

[ICRockets]

The "speech" was done in a school supervised event. If it was not done during a school supervised event there would be no problem--dumbass.

Maybe I missed something, but this has absolutely ****-all to do with my post that you quoted.

[anEinherjer]

His free speech is not absolute, especially in a publicaly funded institution.

Holy shit, comerica, if theres' ONE place that government BETTER ****ING BE defending the right to free speech it's in public institutions...


The nice part is some of the justices getting to rip on the stupidity of the drug war in their opinions.

[Green Lantern]

Damned conservative courts ignoring precedence and interpreting the constitution to defend an ideological point of view.

I thought they were supposed to defend us from this crap.

[comericatigers]

Holy shit, comerica, if theres' ONE place that government BETTER ****ING BE defending the right to free speech it's in public institutions...


The nice part is some of the justices getting to rip on the stupidity of the drug war in their opinions.

Holy shit, anEinherjer, the Supreme Court better stifle that student's speech--the public doesn't want to pay for that shit.

[gilchristfan]

more evidence of the lunacy of clarence thomas.

but at least he's not a woman like ginsburg. that would be awful. she's stupid and crazy b/c she has a vagina.

FACT.

He is a freaking nutcase, isn't he?

[gilchristfan]

Holy shit, anEinherjer, the Supreme Court better stifle that student's speech--the public doesn't want to pay for that shit.

"The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures - Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes." 319 U.S., at 637 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=319&page=637#637).

~~Justice Jackson, West Virginia v. Barnette,

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=393&invol=503

I agree with Justice Jackson

[35Pete]

It was a school supervised event. He went there with the school! Please read before you make comments!

See this is where ideology drives me nuts. Two years from now some kid will wear a t-shirt with an abortion photo on it, the court will rule the same way and you'll go nuts. Or they'll rule in favor and I'll have to listen to three pages of "yeah butts".

[anEinherjer]

Holy shit, anEinherjer, the Supreme Court better stifle that student's speech--the public doesn't want to pay for that shit.

..... are you seriously suggesting that that Supreme Court could/should limit the 1st amendment because the public doesn't want to hear a particular viewpoint? Seriously?

[Ru]

Would they confiscate a banner saying "Viagra for Jesus" or "Wellbutrin for Jesus"? Should fall under the same standards right?

Plus, the banner was OFF school grounds so WTF?!?! Besides from being such a trivial ****ing matter for the GD Supreme Court to be ruling on, how the **** can they come to the ruling they did?? It makes no sense to me.

[JLB]

The Spreme Court should :stfu: