What do you think about the Supreme Court trying to limit free speech?

Question

http://www.yahoo.com/s/612383

Answer 1

That's a good question. On the one hand, I can understand why the school officials wouldn't want anything encouraging drug use. On the other hand, it seems that the Supreme Court's decisions about the constitutionality of certain actions and legislation are mainly arbitrary. One year, they decide that it's unconstitutional to forbid students to wear black armbands and another year they decide that it's perfectly OK to forbid students to engage in other forms of self- expression. What gives?

Answer 2

There have always been limits on free speech, and those limits are tried and tested during times of war. The problem with this court (including the predecessor Rehnquist court) is that the systematic suppression of all of our civil liberties began long before the war, as did the systematic dismantling of the basic economic protections that LBJ started. The Civil Rights Act has become a joke. You can lynch young black men and unless you have overwhelming proof that there was no other reason than blackness, the US Courts will dismiss the indictment (in the unlikely event that a W-appointed US attorney would actually seek an indictment).

I hold dual citizenship. That's why I can sleep at night. Those who don't have an escape path to a free country should be thinking about what they're going to do when the goosestepping starts on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Answer 3

I love the ridiculous argument made by Proud Conservative in the first answer, that "Your rights can not infringe upon mine."

How is "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" an infringement on your rights, skippy?

That said, I don't have a big problem with the decision. After all, it's not like you could walk up to your high school principal and say "You know what Mr. Brown? I think you're a fat fukcing idiot!" and expect not to be punished.

Same thing here.

Answer 4

Speech that encourages people to commit a crime has never been covered by the rules of free speech. If the sign had been more political, like "Legalize Marijuana For Jesus!", then I think it would have been protected as a political slogan. But "Bong Hits for Jesus" is just advocating the use of weed, in this case among minors. The school was correct to take the sign down.

Answer 5

I don't think this is limiting free speech. Under your views of free speech, I should be able to say anything at anytime. So I should be able to go into a theatre and yell "FIRE!" at anytime.

You are not allowed to do that, but it is a socially acceptable limitation on Free speech. Most high schools limit T-Shirts and advertisements that promote alcohol, drugs, sex, etc. So this is just another socially acceptable limit in our schools.

The kid had a drug problem and therefore he was suspended over it.

Answer 6

You're right. You can and should be allowed to say anything. Schools should not have a code of conduct, and we should be allowed to slander anyone regardless of fact. Nice biased question. It's the kind of simple mentality that defines the Left.

Answer 7

It's already been determined that students (high school and under) do not have the right to privacy. I think this is just an extension of previous rulings. I would be worried if the ruling applied to those over legal age.

Answer 8

I agree, they are just high school kids. They can't even vote, because they are not old enough.

Why should they have unlimited free speech?

Answer 9

I guess they don't appreciate the Constitution.