In summary, as I understand it, a few students displayed a "bong hits for jesus" sign across from school property. He was suspended for it, under because the principal said it was promoting drug use. Do you think it's free speech or subject to the school's jurisdiction? Why or why not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bong_Hits_4_Jesus
2007-03-22 07:36:57 · 24 answers · asked by Brandon 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I think the principal of the school was too easily offended. What a whiny bleeding-heart conservative.
---
Isn't it amazing that the conservatives say that the liberals are intolerant, and then get all upset when someone exercises his constitutionally-protected right to free speech? If the banner had said "Jesus Loves You" the conservatives would be up in arms about a suspension; had it said "I Disagree With George Bush's Tax Policy" then the conservatives would be happy about the suspension. Why is it that the conservatives pick and choose what is protected speech and what is not?
2007-03-26 05:39:07 · answer #1 · answered by Sevateem 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What was Fredericks motivation for unveiling the banner that read 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' in front of the TV cameras that day? He says that it was designed to provoke reaction and it certainly did that - I mean, this happened 5 years ago now.
- There have been comparisons between this case and Cohen vs. California (1971), where a man who had the words 'F*ck the Draft' emblazoned on the back of his jacket, referring to the VIetnam War, was jailed for a month. But I don't get it, why bother to test the limits of free speech just for the sake of it? 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' has no real message to it - The sign was blatantly designed for the sole purpose of provocation.
- Whereas Frederick has done this for attention, I think it's safe to say that Cohen had a much more important issue to tackle. I am all for free speech but only when it doesn't infringe on other people and it has a valid point to make. I think free speech for the sake of free speech is senseless and a waste of time.
- Honestly, I will be shocked if the Supreme Court judges in favour of unconditional free speech - if that happens, we will see people testing the limits further and further. And for what?
- There's no real debate here apart from the fact that a kid has got it into his head to argue that he should be allowed to say whatever he feels like. I'm sure, if they had have looked hard enough, they could have found a more deserving and relevant case than this to try in the Supreme Court concerning the grey areas on free speech.
2007-03-22 08:23:18 · answer #2 · answered by deathbyrazorblades 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It absolutely was free speech. There is no age or education requirement for free speech. It was not at the school so it couldn't be interfering with the learning environment. High school students are people, and the more we treat them like people the more likely they are to act responsibly.
Just the facts, how is this remotely like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre? The only imminent danger is to narrow minded christianists. And offending sensibilities is not imminent danger.
By the way, the uncontested facts are that this was not at the school or a school sponsored event.
I mean, Kenneth Starr is arguing this case. Everyone should realize by now that he is on the wrong side of everything. Look him up. Before the Whitewater/McDougall Svings and Loan/Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky waste of 80 million dollars, he was a tobacco lawyer arguing that cigarettes don't cause cancer.
2007-03-22 07:45:29 · answer #3 · answered by billycrypto 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should be protected under free speech. He was not on school property. Also I drove by blockbuster one day and there were people with this HUGE (like the size of a van) picture of an undeveloped fetus supposedly from an abortion promoting their choose life campaign. If I have to see bloody unborn babies as well as the children on the school bus in front of me and they are protected by the 1st amendment so should the bong hits for Jesus. What Bong hits did made me laugh, what I saw was disturbing for myself as well as what the poor children on the bus must have thought. There are better ways to get you message across, bong hits was harmless.
2007-03-29 14:48:21 · answer #4 · answered by Kat412 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am 100% completely for free speech and the rights of students. However, I think it was completely in the right for the school to take action against the student. Everyone has rights, but not everyone understands that in school it is a different situation. It's not the same as just being out in public. Every school I can think of has rules set up to discourage the display of anything that promotes drug use. As far as my knowledge knows, even though he was not in the school he was still part of a group school event, in which case the school's rules still legally apply. So even though I am for free speech and student rights, these students clearly stepped over the line and broke a school rule, in which case the school is legally allowed to take disciplinary action.
And for everyone who thinks that just because he wasn't on school grounds means that he is no longer under the "jurisdiction" of the school, that is completely false. Any school outing or event, regardless of where it is, comes under the "jurisdiction" of the school, and the rules still apply. I have not followed the case as close as I could, but last time I knew this was a school event, during the school day. It was NOT during out of school hours as some of you seem to think. And assuming the school has anti-drug rules, this student broke them. They had been let out of classes and were accompanied by their teachers. It WAS a school sponsored event. It makes no difference whether or not it was in a public setting.
2007-03-22 07:43:24 · answer #5 · answered by soulintent 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I do support the Supreme Court decision, even though what they Westboro Baptists protestors are doing is morally reprehensible. We have to be willing to allow unpopular speech, regardless of how distasteful it is. Besides, the best way to get these people to go away, is to stop giving them a forum to speak, and do what those bikers who ride for the troops did, and counter protest by drowning out their voices with the motorcycles. By the way, I am a conservative who comes from a military family.
2016-03-28 23:52:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
free speech. 1) not on school property, 2) none of the students standing thereabouts were smoking pot, 3) it was a joke used to attempt to get on television during the Olympic flame parade down that street - that worked by the way, they were all over television, ergo the school finding out & suspending the student responsible for the sign.
2007-03-22 07:40:42 · answer #7 · answered by SmartAleck 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was one student, and he should be able to put whatever he likes on a banner. He wasn't on school grounds, but if he were it would still be free speech. Freedom doesn't stop once you enter a school.
And Jesus would heartily approve of bong hits.
2007-03-22 07:40:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You said across from school property right. So if he wasn't on school property then the principal didn't have power over it. No it is not promoting drug use, it is simply stating what they believe. It is free speech.
2007-03-22 07:39:55 · answer #9 · answered by Fiesty Redhead 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
All this touchy-feely, offended, emotional crap has to stop!
This is so miniscule, it should be ignored.
If a principal is that friggin weak, they have no business working around kids!
Cases like this, allowed into the courtroom, are turning a strong nation into a bunch of whiny, snivvling little punks!
2007-03-22 07:50:00 · answer #10 · answered by Bonnie Lynn 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋