http://index1.ciopda.com >free audiovox 8910 ringtones
http://index1.dityns.com >recovery after breast capsulisation surgery

http://index1.ciopda.com >free audiovox 8910 ringtones
http://index1.dityns.com >recovery after breast capsulisation surgery

http://index1.ciopda.com >free audiovox 8910 ringtones
http://index1.dityns.com >recovery after breast capsulisation surgery

http://index1.biolop.com >buy mulch
http://index1.rfrltk.com >dave pugh and clear channel

http://index1.biolop.com >buy mulch
http://index1.rfrltk.com >dave pugh and clear channel

http://index1.ntdphb.com >adamagio danube
http://index1.vitiup.com >the point of no return lyrics

http://index1.ntdphb.com >adamagio danube
http://index1.vitiup.com >the point of no return lyrics

http://index1.ntdphb.com >adamagio danube
http://index1.vitiup.com >the point of no return lyrics

http://index1.niopil.com >tidecharts for ocean city
http://index1.oiloin.com >artificial landscaping rocks

http://index1.niopil.com >tidecharts for ocean city
http://index1.oiloin.com >artificial landscaping rocks

http://index1.niopil.com >tidecharts for ocean city
http://index1.oiloin.com >artificial landscaping rocks

http://index1.weewra.com >carville la. leprosarium i
http://index1.erojin.com >circle k convenience stores in usa

http://index1.weewra.com >carville la. leprosarium i
http://index1.erojin.com >circle k convenience stores in usa

http://index1.weewra.com >carville la. leprosarium i
http://index1.erojin.com >circle k convenience stores in usa

http://index1.ariopr.com >suze orman sex and the single wallet
http://index1.quikop.com >9 and 10 neqws

http://index1.ariopr.com >suze orman sex and the single wallet
http://index1.quikop.com >9 and 10 neqws

http://index1.8shtuk.com >kama sutra book
http://index1.eroint.com >animated phone

http://index1.smytiw.com >labetalol side effects
http://index1.dfitbv.com >chinese yoyo tricks

http://index1.smytiw.com >labetalol side effects
http://index1.dfitbv.com >chinese yoyo tricks

http://index1.smytiw.com >labetalol side effects
http://index1.dfitbv.com >chinese yoyo tricks

http://index1.9poilo.com >schubas
http://index1.stityg.com >proform c500 treadmill

http://index1.9poilo.com >schubas
http://index1.stityg.com >proform c500 treadmill

http://index1.9poilo.com >schubas
http://index1.stityg.com >proform c500 treadmill

wlhpnsfx flybr oxgca jictmybqs xvmwhkj kqsbvujzg ibodhy http://www.ucaqtph.xzmbjdwov.com

wlhpnsfx flybr oxgca jictmybqs xvmwhkj kqsbvujzg ibodhy http://www.ucaqtph.xzmbjdwov.com

fxpbl uwask cqzd oivtw ainbpvosy rmotasv slaudgi

http://1.lm4nmu.com >dockers mailing address

http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass

http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.morun5.com >boy scout camp forestburg

http://index1.tolant.com >best wsternhotels

http://index1.tolant.com >best wsternhotels

http://index1.tolant.com >best wsternhotels

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.trum4u.com >aol greating cards

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.bomiqu.com >phil town

Hello, nice site look this:
The best!!!

End ^) See you

http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/viagra/Order-Viagra.html ">Order Viagra

http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/viagra/Order-Viagra.html ">Order Viagra

http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/viagra/Order-Viagra.html ">Order Viagra

http://search.orange.co.uk/all?q=Levitra+site%3ASeven-Pharmacy.com ">Levitra

http://search.orange.co.uk/all?q=Levitra+site%3ASeven-Pharmacy.com ">Levitra

http://search.orange.co.uk/all?q=Levitra+site%3ASeven-Pharmacy.com ">Levitra

http://search.orange.co.uk/all?q=Levitra+site%3ASeven-Pharmacy.com ">Levitra

http://search.orange.co.uk/all?q=Levitra+site%3ASeven-Pharmacy.com ">Levitra

The Supreme Court has just ruled against Frederick. What a farce, this punk should pay the court costs. He was a minor when he did this,then his parents (and supporters) should belly up also.It was our tax dollars that ended up setting this idiot (and all his supporters)in their place.
This wasnt about free speech it was about I can do what I want to and not face any consequences.
Same old 1960s agenda. These very people try and stifle any speech contrary to their own, they are not interested in free speech--just their own.

Hello.
I liked your site. Very useful resource. THE BEST.
Thanks.

Sincerely,

Kina

Hello.
I liked your site. Very useful resource. THE BEST.
Thanks.

Sincerely,

Renat Li

Hi. Some of the Supreme Court justices found it laughable that Frederick would try to get mileage, as they put it, out of being truant that day.

Scalia pointed out that Frederick joined his classmates at an event that he knew the school was going to let kids watch. Frederick went to classes afterward. As Scalia put it, Frederick simply showed up at school late.

The defense attorney tried to compare it to a kid being truant and showing up at the zoo when the school just happened to be having a field trip there.

But as Justice Roberts pointed out, Frederick was there BECAUSE it was a school event. He could have stood anywhere else on the 10-mile relay route and not been noticed by school officials.

It's reasonable to think that a truant student who shows up at a school event is a student.

By the way, as a minor aside off the legal topic, I have to wonder if Frederick was telling the truth when he said he couldn't get to school on time because of snow.

After the fact, it looks like he intended to trick the school into confronting him, at which point he'd say, in effect, "ha, ha, I'm not really a student now and this is a public sidewalk so you can't touch me."

It just makes me wonder whether something so integral to his legal argument wasn't the result of intentionally not showing up to school on time.

Eric,
If the kid did not attend his first period class, then he was absent from school that day, and was therefore not attending the event under the school's aegis, and therefore he was not under the school's authority that day. The most that the principal could have called him on was an unexcused absence. I don' know about Alaska schools, but here, an unexcused absence simply means that the student is not allowed to make up any assignments missed that day, and gets a 0 for them. More than 10 unexcused absences per school year, and the student has to repeat the grade. If he skipped school that day, then the principal had no authority over him, especially if he was not on the school grounds. And she certainly had no right to confiscate and destroy

Steve:

Did I fall off a nut tree? Nice. Charming conversationalist, you.

Schools should teach children to think, without giving them any information to use when thinking? You sound just like John Dewey. Education should be about filling children's heads with information. They'll figure out how to think no problem.

Children don't get enough education? Why do you suppose that is? Here, I'll help you, since thinking for yourself is obviously not your long suit:

It's because of public education! Before public education, children learned Greek and Latin in grade school. Now they don't even learn their native language.

Public schools should be made to work? Teachers should be made to educate? How do you propose to do that? Oh, wait, you have no proposals.

That's because no sensible proposal is possible. Public schools are operated by bodies that change at every election. The philosophy of education is John Dewey's insane utilitarianism. Everybody and his dog has a different idea what children should be taught, and the teachers are products of education colleges who don't know anything at all.

Prove that last statement? Sure: A college student I know had to go over to the education college and see someone. When he asked at the front desk for that person, he was handed a piece of colored plastic and told to find the door with that color on it.

Public schools are a disaster from front to back, and can be nothing else. They need to be closed and turned into gas stations.

Eric,

Thanks for the clarification.

Are you from there? You seem to know a lot about this.

Hi. It's me again. I won't repeat myself.

To Danny B: Students weren't given the afternoon off. They took some time off in the morning, roughly the second period of the day, and were supervised.

The Supreme Court agreed with a school that restricted the speech of a kid who used double entendres (mainly about erections), not even profanities, in a speech nominating a kid for the student government. The court decided that was disruptive enough, although it only provoked laughter.

I don't agree with that decision, but I cite it to show that the court has allowed restrictions on student speech that wouldn't apply to adults in a public setting. In this case, they thought the speech was disruptive.

The court has confused matters by seeming to allow restrictions based on disruptiveness OR messages that are contrary to the school's mission. That's pretty vague.

Part of the problem is that society has extended schools' missions far beyond algebra and history to include health and safety. That makes possible speech restrictions that bother some of us. They border, if not trespass, on political issues.

In the Frederick case, Frederick was saying, in effect, "I wasn't disruptive. What's the problem." The district was saying, "Your message works against our anti-drug policy, which is part of our schools' mission to have a safe school with healthy students."

If students' rights are identical to adult rights in public, why do we have these complicated court cases at all? Why doesn't the Supreme Court just instantly say that it's obvious that every type of speech is allowed -- case closed.

By the way, Frederick's length of suspension was partly due to his actions and interactions with the principal after his sign was taken down. The content of the sign did indeed trigger the school's action, but the suspension was about more than that. His suspension was reduced by the superintendent, who nonetheless supported the principal in her reasoning about drug messages.

I think an important issue in this case is whether the adults who run a school have the right to set a school climate based on certain values, such as substance-free lives or a harassment-free atmosphere. Or are schools public forums for any speech or expression.

As adults, we can walk down the street wearing T-shirts that say "Hitler was right" or "Gays burn in hell." Should we allow students to wear those slogans in school?

Do we let gangs wear their colors in school? If Frederick wins, can schools have a dress code as a way to ban clothes that bear or contain messages?

Can skinhead students use school basketball games as forums to suggest that Hitler was right in killing Jews and gays? Arguably, that's political speech about an event studied in history class.

Do we say to the Jewish and gay students that they have no right to attend a public school free of those messages? There's no constitutional right to be free of harassment or to not be the object of hatred.

If there's violence, we'll just call the police and mop up the blood. No prior restrictions on speech.

I know what I think, but I acknowledge that it's not a clear decision for some people.

I will repeat myself on one point: in the Frederick case, it's not Frederick or Morse who matter in the long run. It's the precedent set by the decision.

Apparently he was at a school-sponsored event off school grounds. So the decision might turn on the extent of a school officials' authority to regulate student behavior away from school.

Eric wrote "And please don't tell me "Bong Hits for Jesus" isn't a reference to drugs and isn't in some way an encouragement to use drugs. If he said "Bourbon Shots for Buddha," you wouldn't doubt it was a positive reference to drinking."

So what if it was in support of marijuana? The prohibition against it is irrational, unsupported by science, and based solely on Christian notions of sin. The only reason its illegal is that it offends people's religious sensibilities. So the banner was intended to yank people's chains. Good! It also was nicely ironic given the religious underpinnings of our nation's incredibly cruel, destructive, and hypocritical drug policy. While there was nothing at all illegal about the banner or its display it was still clearly intended as an act of civil disobedience. Frankly we could desperately use a lot more of it. Kudos to Mr. Frederick for provoking debate. Countless thousands of Americans have had their lives destroyed, not by illegal drugs, but by the laws that put them in prison for a victimless crime. When will people stand up to this tyranny? But is anyone talking about that? No. Instead it's "unruly hooligan makes baby Jesus cry!" We the sheeple.

Anonymous,

Good one! I speak Spanish, and am surprised that didn't occur to me. Ha!

AMA,

1) He wasn't on school property.

2) He could have been talking about some Hispanic guy named Jesus! (I just came up with that one!)

Pro-Jesus advocacy, such as "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," should not be permitted on public school grounds. If Frederick was on school grounds, toleration of his speech by school officials would effectively favor one religion over others in violation of the Constitution. If he was off school grounds, his free speech rights were violated. Simple case.

Tom:

That is the best pro marijuana argument anyone could ever make!

A couple of observations...

Dan - I agree about Jacob

The rest of you - this is one of the best series of posts I've seen in a long time. Much better than most of the threads in this area. Some actual thought going on.

I also have to say that John Conneley what kind of a nut tree did you fall from . A big part of the problem that the world has with its childrenis that they do not get enough education in the first place. (but at least this kid seems to have learned something). The way to solve the problem is not to bet rid of public education ,but to make it actualy work for the public. Children would not hate school if the teaching and other educational professionals were actualy made to educate them. When people know how to think and form their own thoughts then they and everyone else are better off for it. When they are only taught what to think then we all suffere for it. (Ask Hitler it)

Shcools should stick to teaching children how to think and leave them to decide for themselves about what to think

genesis chapter1 verse 12 - " and the earth brought forth grass, and herb yeilding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

My understanding is that the school had given the students the afternoon off for the event, which is not the same as a school sponsored field trip.

Did I hear wrong (or misunderstand)?

Field trips usually involve permission slips, and the shcool assuming some level of liability for the students, which is what would make that different.

If it is in fact the case that they were just given the day off, and the "kid" is old enough to vote, he would be fully protected by the First Amendment, without conditions (other than the obvious unprotected speech noted by Melanchthon).

These are not issues that deal with children. He was over the age of 18. His sign said nothing obscene, in fact it was obvious satire. Because it was an event or quasi-field trip attended by by the school, the school administrators certainly would expect students to behave themselves. But was raising that banner saying "Bong Hits for Jesus" really misbehaving? There is no profanity, no incitement to violence, no criminal intent (bongs although often times are used for smoking pot can and are used for smoking other substances). It really is inoffensive in every way.

Sorry, but where is the crime?

Freedom of speech is just that. Not just freedom of non-offensive speech. The fact that this trifle is seriously being debated by the highest (excuse the pun) court in the land says a lot about our country.

If you were offended by what he had to say then tough titty. I am offended by other people's ideas daily, but I fully understand it is their right. It is the price we pay for living in freedom, if indeed we still do.

By her own admission the idiot school employee assulted a citizen on a public street - not even on school grounds - sure sounds like a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the dipsy principal and her employers

Any so-called rights authority figures claim to have in a school setting only begin and certainly end at the entrance.

Tell the busybodies to shut up sit down and behave - it was kids like this that had the spunk to start up the American Revolution. Good for the kid - boo to the all too typical school employees - who do they think they are???Geo. Bush with his ridiculous one-size fits all policy for schooling??? Just who is paying for the phoney-baloney attorneys on each side?

To Adam, above:

What the heck are you talking about? None of the cases you cite support your argument.

In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court's decision explicitly stated that "...students in school as well as out of school are persons under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect..."

Bethel dealt with issues of sexually explicit language, and Hazelwood applied to student newspapers. None of these cases denied free speech rights to anyone because they were under the age of 18.

OK - do people actually think he was trying to form some type of Christian-Marijuana Prayer Group?!?! Please -- he was trying get a rise out of his principal and, in the tradition of every televised live event anywhere, trying to have a sign so outlandish that he'll get noticed and/or televised.

When I first heard about this story and read the line "Bong Hits for Jesus", I didn't think drug pusher -- I laughed. It was funny. And I think that's how the kid meant it. And everyone I've talked to about this has thought pretty much the same thing.

In my mind the teacher was on OK footing when she simply took the sign and tore it up. But to suspend him for 10 days was way, WAY over the top. When I was in high school, the school newspaper used to do one end-of-the-year satire issue and we poked fun at the school, the administration, etc. If we had seen the principal kick out a class clown for two weeks for trying to get a laugh, we probably would have had to consider seriously whether to do that issue or not.

And from "Tinker vs. Des Moines" -- students do NOT shed their Constitutional rights when they enter the school door. The schools can intervene if a student is disruptive and preventing the school from carrying out its' mission or keeping other students from being able to get their education. But, honestly, how disruptive is holding a sign? If he's shouting in the middle of class, that's disruptive. But holding a sign wouldn't seem to qualify as disruptive.

I'm going to get up on a different soapbox...

Isn't the problem public education? Children are forced to go to a government-controlled camp, whether they want to be there or not, whether it will be good for them or not, whether they can take advantage of it or not, whether it's safe or not. This puts them in an adversarial relationship with the teachers, the principal, the schoolboard, the other students, their parents, and society at large.

And if there's an act of rebellion (as there must be, if human nature hasn't changed), the case is decided by the government, not by the students, and the government is more than eager to take away the students' rights. They're not allowed to defend themselves.

The problem, from the point of view of the students, and the saving grace, from the point of view of the government, is that rebellions are acts of kids, and are generally kid-stupid. (Bong hits for Jesus? That's just dumb.) The horrifying thing is, sometimes the acts of rebellion are kid-stupid and violent. Then you get Columbine.

In any case, this is not freedom. This is totalitarianism. And the students are just miserable. The ones who don't want to be there outnumber the ones who do, and believe me, the ones who do pay the price, in and out of the classroom.

I think it's way past time to do away with public education, and if that's impossible, it's at least time to do away with the stay-till-you're-sixteen law.

This is one of those cases that seem especially emotional for a lot of people. Free Speech... yes, the great enshrined right. Frankly I like the notion of being able to speak my mind or express myself. It is a great right. But there is always other sides and other perspectives. I found the lead article a fine example of free speech, but...consider what was said "School is supposed to be a place where students' views are developed, not destroyed" I would ask did the school destroy "the students'" views? Somehow I doubt it, but the tendancy these days seem to be to less inclined to civil debate or the consideration of others (we do not live isolated lives with only ourselves to please) but to see if we can scream loudest about our "rights" I rarely see any debate about the responsibility that comes(or should in a perfect world) with the excercise of our rights. I would chide the school on one point. If it is true that that is where views are developed; they missed. Or at least any useful or constructive views if this kids social contribution is any example. I know this little rant will not make any difference, but there it is.

Let's just start funding the rebuilding of the USSR and join them as comrades. That's what we want right? No liberties?

BONG HITS 4 FREEDOM. (copyright 2007 ._.)

First, Melanchthon, see Tinker v. Des Moines, Bethel v. Fraser and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier if you would like to read where the Supreme Court has said that students at high school or below do not have the same rights as adults, including 1st Amendment rights. The age of the student doesn't matter. The mere fact that they are in a public school is sufficient for the Supreme Court.

oh, and about your "signs advocating rape," etc. Yeah, there is a line. A line of morality, a line of civility, a line of respect. But not a Constitutional line, not a legal line. Advocating illegal activity is not illegal; doing the illegal activity is. Unless the speech directly incites illegal action (starts a riot) or directly causes harm (shouting fire in a crowded theatre), the speech is protected and legal. You can talk all about "lines" all you want. But it doesn't have any weight under the laws of this country.

Eric, you are absolutely wrong about this point, at least in relation to the 1st amendment right to free speech: "In fact, children don't have the same rights as adults."

There is no case law and no basis in the Constitution for a restriction on the free speech rights of children or members of any other age group. Even if there was, 18 years of age does not count as a "child" in any legal sense whatsoever.

Hi Norrie. Thanks for your considered comments.

No, it's not a stretch. Frederick was an enrolled student regardless of his age. It was school time. It was indisputably a school-sponsored event to leave the classroom and watch the relay. The school band was playing. The cheerleaders were there. Teachers and administrators were supervising. For the students in and around the high school, it was a student event.

It was just like going on a field trip to a public place like a museum. Such a trip would be a school event for the students but not for the general public who happened to be at the museum.
It's all a matter of context.

Frederick was a student at a school-sponsored event. The school had some right to control him. What right exactly is the subject of the lawsuit, and it's a fair question.

The Supreme Court has indeed ruled that students at school or school-sponsored events do not have the same rights as they would outside of those arenas. In fact, children don't have the same rights as adults.

You may fairly disagree with that, but even court rulings in favor of students have not said that schools have no authority. They've said that schools overstepped their authority.

Why not just let freedom rule at school? You can make a case for that. For that matter, why allow parents any jurisdiction over their children? If children have untrammeled freedom, then let's stop parents from telling them what to do.

The other side of the argument is that schools have a special function to educate, and adults have special responsibilities to children and youths.

We expect schools to be safe. Part of that is that schools be free of drugs and alcohol. If students were allowed to promote drug and alcohol use (apart from classroom debates), they would create peer pressure to drink and drug. Some of that activity would spill into the school. That works against the school's mission to be a safe place where students are clear-headed enough to learn academic subjects.

Are we really going to argue that gangs, for instance, can dominate a school's culture, promoting drugs and violence, and that school officials' only options are to offer counterarguments in the arena of free speech?

Is the school officials' only rightful action to call the police after a crime? They can't do anything preventative, such as setting the climate of a school?

If the supremes support the Morse position, it will have to be on very narrow legal grounds...Otherwise, it is censorship in the extreme...

It is strange that assault charges were not filed against Morse...

Stan Moody, Christian Policy Institute, author of "McChurched: 300 Million Served and Still Hungry."

Anyone out these for "Bong Hits 4 Mohammed"? "Bong Hits 4 Buddha"? Anyone? "Bong Hits 4 Homeless"? Where can anyone with a reasonable mind possibly draw the line?

Not too hard to figure out what the phrase "Bong hits for Jesus" means -- it's obviously a baseball reference, like "Reese hits for DiMaggio". Uh, Lester, are you the guy who decides what the "right cause" is? Cuz I want to make sure I run things by you the next time I decide to say *anything*

Adam and Eric,

Some thoughts on your posts:

*** Isn't it a stretch to say that an 18-year-old adult student, standing on the public sidewalk across the street from a school, is at a school function and can be controlled by a school principal or teacher? If I had been standing in his place, could the school authorities have controlled my behavior?

*** The fact that the student had been fighting with the teacher and wanted to yank her chain shouldn't invalidate his free speech claim. In 1968 I was marching past The Justice Department to protest the Vietnam War. I saw Attorney General Mitchell watching us from a balcony. I screamed at him with the same intent (fighting mad and wanting to yank his chain) that Frederick had toward his teacher in this case. Did that mean that I had lost my right to protest and could have been arrested?

*** Free speech doesn't depend on the content of the speech. Proposing drugs for Jesus or whiskey for the Buddha is no different than saying "Stamp out Littering".

*** I was once head of a state Liquor Enforcement Agency. My Director of Enforcement testified to our legislature that 18-to-21 year olds should be allowed to drink and that it would reduce binge drinking, which is the most dangerous kind. Why shouldn't a student be able to argue the same point anytime and anywhere in a public place if he did it in a way that was not per se disruptive of an ongoing event? That some observer might be offended by the content of his message does not constitute disruption.

*** Our local State's Attorney just came out in favor of legalizing all non-prescription drugs. Should not a student be able to advocate the same message as this law-enforcement official?

*** "Would parents expect school officials to step in?" Maybe they would, but that's irrelevant to the Constitutional issue, just
as would be the parents' expectation that school officials would lead the student body in the recitation of the Lord's Prayer every morning.

*** It's perfectly acceptable to advocate illegal activites or changing the law to make them legal, with a couple of misguided legal exceptions from the past, such as opposing the draft or encouraging desertion from the armed services. These resulted from past war hysteria and are not well-founded.

*** As for Alaska and marijuana, mean-spirited adults (a majority, I'm afraid) love to beat up on kids, just as authoritarian teachers like to restrict students for no good reason.

New Hampshire is now debating whether to repeal its seat belt law, except for those under 18. An example of "Live Free Or Die" (New Hampshire's motto), which equates to "Dumber Than Dumb".

Anyway, kids have a free speech right to oppose this nonsense, just as sane adults do.

Best wishes to both of you.

there is a vast differance in useing the freedom of speach amendmet for the right cause rather than some showoff trying to be funny these things are are more serious than some people think

Hugh, do you think that school officials have any right to regulate student behavior on field trips?

Uh, people. This happened on public property. So Adult Citizen #1 approached Adult Citizen #2 on the streets of their town and ripped up a banner that Adult Citizen #2 was holding. Admittedly, the banner was nonsensical and intended to annoy, but Adult Citizen #1 had no right to quash through confiscation. And to further retaliate at work (Principals are the C.O.O.'s of high schools, are they not?) was also overstepping bounds. I wonder how she'd appreciate it if she had a banner and the head of the County Board of Supervisors walked up, shredded it, and put her on a leave of absence...

Yes, Frederick was at a school-sponsored event. Both the federal district judge (who agreed with Morse) and the federal appeals court (which agreed with Frederick) said Frederick was indeed at a school-sponsored event. Students were let out of second period and allowed to congregate across the street from the school while under teachers' supervision. It was akin to an assembly partly off-campus or to a field trip.

The Supreme Court justices were not impressed with Frederick's argument that because he skipped his first class, he wasn't to be considered a student, and they didn't buy that it was just a coincidence that he was standing among a bunch of students during a school-sponsored event, rather than standing someplace else on the 10-mile torch-relay route.

These legal cases are always more important for the future actions they allow than for the particular instance (which is sometimes very trivial) that triggers the case. Both sides have legitimate concerns.

And please don't tell me "Bong Hits for Jesus" isn't a reference to drugs and isn't in some way an encouragement to use drugs. If he said "Bourbon Shots for Buddha," you wouldn't doubt it was a positive reference to drinking.

By the way, both the federal district court and the federal appeals court agreed that it was reasonable to interpret the sign as a reference to drug use.

From the school district's point of view, the question is whether school officials must allow students to promote the use of drugs while they're at a school-sponsored event. It's an interesting question.

For example, can students hold up signs promoting underage drinking while they're at a basketball game? Would parents expect school officials to step in? Is every school event a public forum for any sort of speech, even the encouragement of illegal activity? Maybe. Maybe not.

What if students hold up signs favoring rape? OK or not? If there's no line, then that's acceptable. If there is a line, then perhaps it stops at encouraging illegal activities.

By the way, even if Alaska legalized marijuana use, it would not do so for high school-age students. It's illegal in Alaska for people that age to smoke cigarettes.

A little history on the case:

Frederick was suspended and sued in District Court on his free speech claim. He lost and appealed. The 9th Cir. overturned. That's how he got to the Supreme Court. From the record before the various Courts, Frederick was fighting with Morse during most of his time in high school. He admitted that he wrote the sign to yank her chain and get on TV.

If Frederick had displayed the sign outside of a school activity, he would have been fine. Legally, however, displaying a sign at a school function generally means that the school can place any reasonable constraint on it.

To re-iterate what has been said a thousand times over, this principal sounds like she is wound rather tight. Perhaps the reason this made it as far as the Supreme Court was the juxtaposition of pro-marijuana idealogy with Christianity (although nothing anti-Christian was written)... a volatile mix in our current social climate.

I like the "Bong hits 4 Karl Rove". I think he could really use one.
Please pass the bong...

This case is revelatory of many things:

Once again it shows how many school administrators are tyrants-by-nature, who have zero understanding of the Constitution, no respect for their students, no sense of proportion, no understanding of where their authority ends, and no sense of humor.

The Supreme Court unhappily has had a bad history in its dealings with these school expression cases. With the occasional rare exception, the Court's attitude has been that students should shut up and do what they're told. Its mindset on these issues really hasn't changed much in the last hundred years.

You can be sure that if the Court of Appeals had ruled against the student, instead of for him, the Court would never have agreed to hear the case. They only took the case because the lower court's ruling offended their prediliction to say that "The school authorities are always right."

It was surprising to hear Justice Alito asking questions that seemed to favor the student's side.

All too predictable were Chief Justice Roberts's utterances, which didn't depart from his upbringing, which holds that the young (and maybe everyone) should bend their knee and submit unquestioningly to illegitimate authority.

Jozevz vs. Bgone:

One of these guys is very clearly schizophrenic, and I'm seriously worried about him. The other I'm not so sure.

"School is supposed to be a place where students' views are developed, not destroyed."

Really? What if the sign had said, "Women, back to the kitchen!" What if the student had been ten years old? Somehow I have a feeling that this seemingly simple inquiry would be different if the content of the speech were a little different. The First Amendment does not protect only some ideas. Perhaps Ms. Hilden slept through that day in civics class.

School is supposed to be a place where students learn, not devolve into anarchy.

I lived in Juneau, Alaska, for 8 years. I worked on the high school this man with the banner attended class, as a construction tradesman. 'Bong hits for Jesus'? I don't have the slightest idea what it means or how it made it all the way to the Supreme Court. If he is a true seeker for Jesus, he will not find a spirit in a bong hit.

The only reason this got any play was because it was religious. Religion is put in a category outside the bounds of 'normal' and is given preference over our constitution in many instances. If it was 'bong hits 4 Karl Rove', no one would have even heard of this case.

I don't know what that principal got so uptight about anyway. I mean, what was the kid trying to say? Was he promoting pot-smokers' support for Jesus? Or was he offering Jesus a hit? I'm not quite sure what the sign meant. I have heard that in some countries bongs have actually been used with tobacco rather than pot, although that seems just plain WRONG....

Seems like alot of unnecessary analysis & court time over one banner seen by few!!

People do stupid things & then people over-react - make her apologize, pay a fine for her disorderly conduct in public & be done with it.

Robert B, that is hilarious! Made me actually laugh out loud :)

"Free speech,eh? A cartoon that depicts Mohammed. A sign that enrages a christian. In this country it's supposed that we have the legal right to say and write what we wish without the threat of physical attack."

That is it exactly.

Free speech,eh? A cartoon that depicts Mohammed. A sign that enrages a christian. In this country it's supposed that we have the legal right to say and write what we wish without the threat of physical attack. The law says we are protected from that. Apparently the supreme court has decided that this is no longer the case. The principal committed assault plain and simple and should be convicted of same if we are to teach our children that criminal acts have consequences.

Here's my free speech - everyone should remember that name. Deborah Morris. Deborah Morris. Principal. Deborah Morris. Brown shirt. Deborah Morris. Advocate of the sword over the pen. Deborah Morris. Squirming in embarrassment. Deborah Morris. You're free unless I say otherwise. Deborah Morris. Hypocrite. Deborah Morris. An insecure mass of fear.

When you see "Deborah Morris" on a resume, remember this. When "Deborah Morris" meets you at a party, remember this. Deborah Morris. Oh, yes, she deserves to be remembered.

Isn't the important question whether or not the young man's actions could be reasonably construed as promoting a message condoned by the school itself?

There are other cases where students were suspended for displaying various messages (anti-gay slogans, etc.) DURING SCHOOL HOURS and ON SCHOOL PROPERTY. Frederick was excused from school to attend an event that was neither held on school grounds nor sponsored by his school, therefore his school had no right to censor his speech!

i agree with J. this case should be in a smaller court over the issue of the principal destroying the young man's property. she seems kind of "high maintenance" if you ask me.

oh, and yes, his free speech is protected. unpleasant. but protected. it would make more sense for her to give him a term paper to do on this subject when he returned to class.

i mean really. my town has had the unpleasant presence of that crazy reverend and his family and their stupid anti-gay signs. no one took their signs away and they weren't half as funny as "bong hits for jesus". is it 4:20 yet?

Robert B,

HA...so funny!

I vote that BGONE is the worse troll.

Josefz wrote that long post so poorly, and then insists on c/c/p-ing it everywhere, that I just ignore it.

BGONE is always full of fresh...fresh...whatever that is.

How does this case make it to the surpreme court? Where are the small claims judges when you need them? She should have been given detention (aka recess duty to teachers) for a month straight. End of story.

oh yeah, how much did the sign cost to produce, throw that in too. nah, double it.

The act by the principal is the result of the power trip she and others similarly situated are on and the sense of personal embarrassment she felt because of the disrepect her students demonstrated toward her by displaying the banner. The episode is an example of the hypocrisy of authority. They teach freedom of speech, but it is not permitted except in cases where it doesn't matter.

OK, people, straw poll time:

Who's the worse troll: Josefz or Bgone?

The First Amendment does protect all speech, including speech by dumb-a$$ high school students who think that they're being iconoclastic by waving a banner advocation Christian ceremonial use of marijuana.

Personally, I think the principal in question should be ashamed not of the banner, but of the kind of young man her school produced.

Couldn't have said it better myself, Jozefz...

Not sure about Jesus, but I'm pretty sure Jozefz has been hitting the bong....

OK...

Yes it was a stupid and immature banner. Yes it was done for no good reason other than to get a rise out of people. That being said he had every right to do so and that Principal had zero right to grab the banner and suspend him. He was 18 and not on the school grounds. If she did not like what he had to say, then tough!

The constitution protects stupid and satirical speech as well as "normal" speech.

Land of the Free?

There is a lot more to this case that screams of authority gone wild.

Personally, I think what the kid did was stupid; I mean the sign really doesn't even mean anything, and you know he did it just to get a rise out of people. However, that principal had no right doing what she did. The kid was not on school grounds. He was not at a school function. He wasn't even at school prior to showing up at the rally. And he's 18 years old. Not only did she have no right confiscating the banner, she certainly had no grounds for suspending him.