# 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus'



## Bubba Bear (Mar 19, 2007)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17687386//


*Supreme Court hears 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case*

*Breyer concerned ruling could encourage kids to be absurdly disruptive *








As the Olympic torch approached in Juneau, Alaska, in 2002 on the way to Salt Lake City, then-high school student Joseph Frederick and friends, excused from class at the high school across the street for the event, hold up the banner in the incident that started the case that will be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday








WASHINGTON - A high school principal was acting reasonably and in accord with the school's anti-drug mission when she suspended a student for displaying a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner, her lawyer told the Supreme Court Monday.
"The message here is, in fact, critical," the lawyer, former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, said during a lively argument about whether the principal violated the constitutional rights of the student.
On the other side, attorney Douglas Mertz of Juneau, Alaska, urged the justices to see the case as being about free speech, not drugs.


Justice Stephen Breyer, addressing Mertz, said he is struggling with the case because a ruling in Frederick's favor could encourage students to go to absurd lengths to test those limits.
A ruling for Morse, however, "may really limit free speech," Breyer said.

Click for related content

Bong Hits 4 Jesus to Supreme Court?
Live Vote: Is Bong Hits 4 Jesus banner OK?
The Bush administration, backing Morse, wants the court to adopt a broad rule that could essentially give public schools the right to clamp down on any speech with which it disagrees.
Scores of students waited outside the Supreme Court on Monday for a chance to listen to arguments in a test of student speech rights - a high school senior's display of a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."
The message connected drug use and religion in a nonsensical phrase that was designed to provoke, and it got Joseph Frederick into a lot of trouble.
After he unfurled his 14-foot banner on a Juneau, Alaska, street one winter morning in 2002, Frederick got a 10-day school suspension. Five years later, his case made it to the Supreme Court and what is shaping up as an important test of constitutional rights.
*At issue
*Students do not leave their right to free speech at the school door, the high court said in a Vietnam-era case over an anti-war protest by high school students.
But neither can students be disruptive or lewd or interfere with a school's basic educational mission, the court also has said. getCSS("3088874")
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




INTERACTIVE


​ 

How to strike that balance is the question, particularly since the Columbine massacre and the Sept. 11 attacks have made teachers and administrators quicker to tamp down on unruly or unusual behavior.
Other student speech cases making their way through the courts include a student who was pulled from class after taping an anti-gay message to his shirt and a middle schooler who got into trouble for a shirt that uses symbols of drugs and alcohol to criticize President George W. Bush.
Unlike the Vietnam protesters who won their court fight in the late 1960s, Frederick says he was not staking out a political position with the banner he fashioned with pieces of duct tape as lettering.
"What the banner said was, 'Look here, I have the right to free speech and I'm asserting it.' I wasn't trying to say anything religious, anything about drugs," Frederick said in a telephone news conference from China, where he now teaches English and studies Mandarin.
*Previous run-ins
*An array of groups, from advocates of drug law changes to gay rights backers to supporters of religious freedom, have lined up behind him. "This case is not about drugs. This case is about speech," said Douglas Mertz of Juneau, Frederick's lawyer.
The Bush administration, school boards, anti-drug groups and former drug control directors William Bennett and Barry McCaffrey are supporting the Juneau schools and principal Deborah Morse. They say that the court should support school administrators who impose reasonable limits on student expression and that those limits should extend to promotion of illegal drugs.
"It was the wrong message, at the wrong time and in the wrong place," said former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who is representing the school district free of charge, in court papers.
Frederick had previous run-ins with school administrators before the banner dispute. He said he first saw the slogan on a snowboard and thought it would make a good test of his rights because, though meaningless, it sounds provocative.



*Civil rights, financial liability*
Frederick chose to display the banner during a school-sanctioned event to watch the Olympic torch relay as it passed through Juneau on its way to the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City.
Morse saw the banner, confronted Frederick and suspended him. Frederick said she doubled the suspension to 10 days when he quoted Thomas Jefferson on free speech.
Frederick, helped by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the principal and the Juneau school district. He lost in federal district court, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Frederick's rights were violated and that Morse could be held financially liable for her actions.
Among the factors that could weigh in the decision, Frederick was standing on public property, not school grounds when he displayed the banner. The school said students were allowed to leave class to see the torch pass by, making the event school-sanctioned. Frederick, however, never made it to school that day before the event. getCSS("3053751")
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Supreme Court Fact Finde

The other issue in the case is whether the principal should have to compensate Frederick. The appeals court said Morse should have known that her decision to suspend Frederick ran counter to Supreme Court precedent. But Starr said she made a reasonable, on-the-spot decision that, even if wrong, should not subject her to a "potentially ruinous damages award."
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 pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nagodoches, Texas, according to court records.


----------



## night501 (Mar 19, 2007)

The Bush administration, backing Morse, wants the court to adopt a broad rule that could essentially give public schools the right to clamp down on any speech with which it disagrees.

 sounds like cencership and brainwashing to me.


----------



## the_riz (Mar 20, 2007)

night501 said:
			
		

> The Bush administration, backing Morse, wants the court to adopt a broad rule that could essentially give public schools the right to clamp down on any speech with which it disagrees.




Thus breaking the "freedom of speach" rule.... which i thought couldnt be changed?!...i smell civil war


----------



## Runbyhemp (Mar 20, 2007)

> The Bush administration, backing Morse, wants the court to adopt a broad rule that could essentially give public schools the right to clamp down on any speech with which it disagrees.


 
One thing comes to mind after reading that : George Orwell, 1984


----------



## LaserKittensGoPewPew (Mar 20, 2007)

Runbyhemp said:
			
		

> One thing comes to mind after reading that : George Orwell, 1984


 
You said it. I seriously think the future is going to be an orwellian society. People are so easy to control because they believe almost everything they're told when it comes through the media. The Patriot Act pisses me off just as bad as this if not more. Just another bit of our freedoms being taken away little by little. UGH


----------



## Runbyhemp (Mar 20, 2007)

Luckily we don't have "thought police" just yet !


----------



## GrewUp To ScrewUp (Mar 20, 2007)

1984? oh pls.. the banner is free speech but its idiotic and deserves detention probally. if ur best defense of your speech is your freedom to have it, you really dont know what its about... you can quote me on that.


----------



## the_riz (Mar 21, 2007)

oh yeah but the american civilisation has been built upon the freedom of speech thing, and the declaration of indipendance.. surely this goes against that? no? or just say as in the movie "the majestic", can the US government just "change the contract" for individual situations


----------



## GrewUp To ScrewUp (Mar 21, 2007)

u have it but u need to use common sense. freedom of speech is more a political idea and allows for  important dissident views. you'll probally ask me what constitutes "important" and ill ask you what constitututes "constitutes" snd we'll have to aggree to disagree.


----------



## Runbyhemp (Mar 21, 2007)

> u have it but u need to use common sense. freedom of speech is more a political idea and allows for important dissident views. you'll probally ask me what constitutes "important" and ill ask you what constitututes "constitutes" snd we'll have to aggree to disagree.


 
Man, I'm really confused. That statement makes no sense to me. Would you care to explain what you mean by that ?


----------



## GrewUp To ScrewUp (Mar 22, 2007)

its about speaking out against not simply speaking out. its the right to oppose. this is mostly for the truly old fashioned political arena most free speech today isnt relevent or is overly stereotypical anti stereotypic artyism.


----------

