Ron "I was merely repeating the post of the fellow who had mocked himself for being stupid. We were having light-hearted fun with word play."

No, Ron. You were taking words out-of-context and then calling the poster stupid. That's just verbal abuse, and a true Buddhist should be ashamed of such passive-aggression.

This seem particularly ridiculous when a nonsensical but harmless example of speech is prohibited and punished while the public calling for mass murder and the purposeful uttering of lies which lead to mass murder go unpunished.

"Oh Gawd, save us from your followers!"

Sure the kids were just having fun, but I had been the principal, I would have confiscated the banner for different reasons. As a teacher in the public school system in Canada for thirty years, I subscribed to the rule that you could not violate other people's sensiblities by being disrespectful in my classroom. Christians could not proselytize, atheists could not ridicule religious kids, and my example of respectful behavior and language was always open to discussion. Freedom of expression must subscribe to the basic tenets of a democratic culture, which subjects our rights to those of others. And questionable taste should always be a standard for all decent people to consider.

If we in the school system can plant seeds in kids' minds to behave and speak more intelligently and and with a sense of dignity, perhaps we can move toward a world which is less belligerent in its partisan divisiveness; what the Bush administration has taught us, echoed in the shrill voices of Pat Roberston, Jerry Falwell, Nancy Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and a host of others on both left and right, might be a trend worth bucking.

When we bait the 'opposition' we simply perpetuate a culture of disrespect, which in turn leads to entrenchment instead of a growing open-minded consideration of others' persectives, regardless of whether or not we agree.

It serves no pragmatic end to express inner thoughts which grossly offend. For example, I might alienate a lot of folks were I to voice my disgust with the idiocy of dubbya and company, or that of the religious right, so I'll just share that here amongst friends rather than create a deeper chasm between 'us and them' by painting a banner for public display.

The message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" now have far greater exposure than if the U.S. Supreme Court would have just ignored it.

and if you disagree w/the gov'ts anti-drug message, as millions and millions of people do? where does this crap end? are you allowed to resist military recruiters on campus? corporate junk food? the Big Ag supporting diabetes causing school lunch policy? NCLB?

also, from my understanding, the student was not in school that day, and was not even on school property, but was across the street from the school on private property while the olympic torch passed by the school. can i have a bong hits 4 jesus banner up on my wall at home while doing homework? or is that "school" too?

the policing of expression is the policing of thought.

i bet if he had a sign who would jesus bomb, no one would say a word, bc promoting mass killing is so much more respectable than promoting a drug that cures cancer. ESPECAILLY WHEN EVERY OTHER ADD ON TV PROMOTES DRUGS!!!!

one more tho't: isn't alaska decriminalizing marijuana? maybe he was supporting state law?

If the sign read, "Tequila shots for Jesus", it would have been a different story but with a really harmful drug. The conservanazis keep pulling ahead. When is that damned pendulum going to swing back? Must the liberal majority take fifty more years of conservative rule? Or:

http://ni4d.us/

What a waste of courtroom time and resources. Who really could take that banner so seriously?

I used to think these nine revered, honorable justices of the supreme court of the land would have more important business to attend to. This case doesn't even merit consideration at school arbitration.

No, "who would Jesus bomb?" would get taken and the student suspended too because it is antiwar.

We need to break this into two issues -

1. the removal of the banner, and
2. the suspension.

The removal of the banner is not a big deal, but the suspenson seems to be far too harsh.

This may suprise younger readers, but when I was in high school, in a upper middle class DC suburb in the early-mid 70's, marrijuana use and talk of it's use, was virtually universal, and even tolerated to some extent by school principals. They were helpless to control it's use anyway - at best thet could do was to keep it out of the hallways. They even allowed cigarette smoking in a designated areas of the school Nonetheless, we probably got a better education than kids get now.

From one of the original stories on the subject:

"She suspended Frederick in 2002 when he unfurled the banner across the street from the school in Juneau, Alaska."

Either the story is misleading or Justice John Roberts disregarded or didn't understand or the facts of the case:

"He said a principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event when it is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use."

The student's speech was not restricted for something he did at school. According to the story, he was not at school at the time and was participating in a public event. Some clarification of this conflicting information would be welcome.

Marijuana is Alaska's biggest cash crop. Somebody up there must be using it.

I agree that the principal has a right to some censureship within the school, where this ruling gets into the fuzzy area is that this sign was not posted at school, but at a school sponsored event. Were there clear guidelines on what speech was permitted?

I find it ironic the court ruled for free speech for corporations & unions, but against free speech for individuals.

Wow. I'm speechless. By decree!

If the Supreme Court made it legal to wear black arm bands in classrooms to protest the Vietnam War in 1969, then it must still be perfectly legal for students to wear arm bands in classrooms to protest the War on Drugs. That's about all the wiggle room students have left to voice their opinion about behavior that is currently illegal.

What if it had been "Bong hits 4 Allah"? Or since he was recently knighted by the British monarchy, how about "Bong hits 4 Salman Rushdie"? I guess it would only be appropriate to put some fresh water in the bong for Sir Salman.

Many teachers and administrators consider it their job to produce docile Epsilon semi-morons. When students stand up, it is time to slap them down.

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0220-22.htm

"...Frederick never made it to school... But he did make it to a sidewalk across from school..."
"...The school principal crossed the street, grabbed Frederick's banner, destroyed it ..."

War and Censorship at Wilton High
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/13/1841/

Not on school propety -- and the banner itself is private property which the principal "violated".
Still, I think the student should have been even more severely punished for not spelling "for" correctly and for using the name of the Son of God in vain.

If these nine wise judges want to do something about the abuse of free speech how about making all campaign contributions illegal. Publically funded campaigns would save us money and safeguard our freedoms---what's left of them.

Once again, kids take the hit. This has been a bad day for the first amendment. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Scotus-Faith-Based.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Separation of Church and State got narrower.

The Drug Exception to the Bill of Rights strikes again! But remember, it's not judicial activism because the right wing is doing it. Only us liberals can be judicial activists.

Message from the Supreme Court: Don't even talk publicly about the fact that some plants - in fact hundreds - contain juices that makes you feel good when used.

The problem with that kind of juice is it makes people feel good without "working for the man" or otherwise paying for the good feelings in submission, money and "blood, sweat and tears".

Drug-abuse? - No problem, with proper instructions disseminated in a legal setting encouraging instead of hindering the spread of factual knowledge about how to optimize the use that happens anyway.

A drug-free society has never existed, never will. But control the ways people influence their moods and minds deliberately, and the minds are under control. Predictable consumers ensue.

Now maximum attention is drawn to drugs through media-comments on all aspects of the illegality, while minimum instruction in best use is given due to the same illegality.

The prevalent policies promote the worst of all possible outcomes, combining drawing attention to drugs with hindering optimal use. Even deliberate planning couldn't cause worse results.

What I find interesting is that this issue was taken to the Supreme Court, when it had already been ruled on by the 9th Circuit: ruling in favor of the student. The school filed an appeal to the USSC.

A person, regardless of age, can say "bong hits for jesus" and not intend to promote drug use. USSC majority thinks differently. There is the intent of the messenger, which frankly they cannot prove. There is the legality of marijuana regardless of the age of the student (it is legal for 18 y/o to smoke tobacco or marijuana in AK [State v. McNeil]- the student was 18 y/o at the time), and there is school authority at an off-campus event., even though from the principal to the USSC, rulings stated Franklin was at a school event when he had not attended school that day.

School was dismissed so students could gather for the torch passing. Had no other students who had attended school that day participated in the sign waving, I would think it would have been very hard to prove the school's case. At that point all the petitioners for the school would have is young people standing on the other side of the street waving "bong hits for jesus"....

OMG! The outrage!

Isn't this the Supreme Court that is made up of Opus Dei members? I hear they flagellate themselves. I know they sent the country a message in 2001 that they would decide an election, if necessary. This court told the voters to sit down and shut up, so why wouldn't it tell a school kid that?

When we were in school, we were not allowed to debate the merits of the American war on Vietnam. We could only turn in papers in support of the domino theory or we would receive an F. My civics teacher drummed into our heads that union members were all communists--since my father was in a union, I knew that was a crock of crap. My response was simply to draw pictures of that teacher with a Bozo outfit on holding balloons. He was, in a word, a clown. Needless to say, I received an "unsatisfactory" in my citizenship box on my report card. I've been an unsatisfactory citizen (from the fascist point of view) ever sense.

Schools in this country should not be taken seriously. Neither should their ridiculous grading system. If kids were smart, they would get out of those concentration camps as soon as possible.

While fascism drowns out our Republic, principals and teachers worry that some kid might have free speech--might offend someone's sensibilities by "promoting drug usage." Like one senator said way back yonder: "I send your kids to Vietnam, you don't say a word. But if I say a four letter word, you want to kick me out of office." Yep, sounds like our country, yesterday and today. Priorities are all screwed up. It takes real schizsophrenics to behave like our people do.

When I graduated from High School in 1971, I wore a peace sign on the back of my rope. The assistant priciple (football coach) tore it off just as I walked through the door.

Now it seems to me, my freedom of speech rights were violated!

Forty years ago it was whining over "Puff the Magic Dragon" and "Mellow Yellow"--we never seem to learn.

So free speech does not extend to signs that are reasonably construed as promoting drug use. The Justices got that one right and the fact that they are conservatives is irrelvant. No freedom is absolute. And the ruling applies widely, not just to this particular sign; that's why they took up the case. I am happy to live with a law that says freedom of speech does not protect drug-promoting speech. Now if they would just apply the same logic to war-promoting speech. That would silence the Bush administration.

Yea for the principal. Why is a banner like that a good thing? Our environment is tasteless enough without having banners like that one.

SEEMS to me that chief justice roberts is legislating from the bench.was the kid advocating drug use,or trying to get attention? which possibility is the most reasonable? do the facts here,taken from the point of view of the school administration,justify limiting real life first amendment rights? why not take this up in the legislature,and see how willing elected officials are to monkey with the bill of rights? as opposed to some ideological fringe guy who is appointed for life? roberts has outdone his mentor,rhenquist on this one,and thats saying a bunch.

Ron/lobster, the sign was not advocating universal drug use. it's bong hits 4 JESUS. he needs it from the nausea his followers are causing him.

Once again, schools are granted permission by our Supreme Court to become little crypto-militaristic police states. This only serves to alienate the young even further in society, not just in the institutions that are designed to nurture them which are increasingly hostile to them.

The whole point of free speech is that no one else gets to say what's tasteful or tasteless, or what's good and what isn't, etc. You only have free speech if speech is free. If the rule is that speech as to be 'in good taste', or other than 'tasteless', then the whole thing gets tangled up in everyone's opinions on what is in good taste or not. It leads to both self-censorship and censorship based on what is 'tasteless' or not. And of course the opinions on what is 'tasteless' will always be made by those with money and power.

Fascinating this comes at almost exactly the same time as another SCOTUS decision where they refused to restrict corporate speech that can influence an election. Tasteless banners by a parade route that can't really influence a society other than during the brief second they might get on TV can be curtailed. Deliberate corporate attempts to influence an election and to make sure the elected politicians are friendly to corporate interests can not be curtailed.

One other note. Notice how when it comes to a discussion about 'drugs', any other view than the official state opinion is barred from being expressed. This of course means that a democracy can not function, at least not on the topic of drugs. Your leaders have made the decision as to what the country's drug policies shall be, and no one else is allowed to express any other opinion on the matter. Later, we have periodic elections where the major candidates all have almost identical views that match the official state view, and the voters get to choose which one has the hair style that they prefer.

For a democracy to function, the citizens must be free to discuss anything. If power and direction for the nation flows upwards from the people, then the people must be free to discuss anything and to take any position in public. If debate and discussion is limited to only one side of an issue, a democracy can not function. At that time, its the opinions of the politicians and the police chiefs being forced downwards onto the citizens.

holymoly could not be more right. US schools are concentration camps. They are institutions of confinement, not education. We even have an epidemic of school-aged suicide bombers who are crying out for help just as desperately as the people in Palestine and Iraq. Our schools are some of the most dangerous places in this country. Is that because some kid carried a banner that said "bong hits 4 jesus", or is there some other reason? Should we blame the victims, or blame the perpetrators? Everything the US government touches turns to human rights abuses, torture, civil war, and genocide. Representative democracies are dinosaur governments doomed for extinction. Hopefully they will die off before all of their citizens do.

Ron wrote: "I am happy to live with a law that says freedom of speech does not protect drug-promoting speech."

I'm glad I don't work for "High Times" magazine. What's next, shutting down any website that questions drug laws?

This could come back to bite you, Ron. The US is, after all, a Christian nation. I could see the practice of Zen being prohibited -- or at least making it illegal to have a banner promoting it.

Would you have felt different if the banner had read "Bong Hits 4 Buddha?"

Having viewed several of your postings, I find it difficult to reconcile your conservative ideology with Zen Buddhism. The website linked to your name states (in part) "To be spiritually awake means that you are not subject to the laws of birth and death." But I guess you're still willingly subject to the laws of the US Supreme Court.

Don't you just love the "conservative" justices of the radical right? "Strict constructionists" unless it's overturning Florida election law, expanding immunities for Cheney, trampling free speech, or overturning less than 10 year old precedent in the abortion rights case. Yes, folks, 'we like them conservative on the issues we like', not so on all of the others. What hypocritical puke! What unethical liars: Scalia- 'let me rule even though my brother-in-law is a partner in a firm presenting the case'; Thomas- 'so what if my wife is employed by the Bush transition team- there's no conflict in voting here'; and the Big Douche', Reinquist (turn me off, dead man)-'there is no such legal concept as "substantive due process" until I want it to make Bush king!
How do they keep a straight face making these arguments, and where is the MSM in informing the public; oh, yeah, the MSM is now owned by 6 entities, silly me...

The principal was completely in the wrong, and should have been arrested for harassment and vandalism. The sign seems rather funny to me, and I fully believe in subverting "school events" in such a way. Schools need to be places of freedom democratically run by the students.

I have a sudden desire to make a banner and go stand in front of my old high school...

Nuke the Gay Whales For Jesus!
Peace out ,and in.

This is an abridgement of our first amendment rights,the begining of the end of free speech for the proles. Peace jah

Same old thing; you get all the free speech you want as long as you don't use it.

In Nazi Germany you could say the stuff popular with Hitler and his regime.

This is a particularly harmless if stupid example of free speech. It is amazing how much time and effort was put into something that would have disappeared if ignored.

As Lenny Bruce taught us: "If the government bans the word 'fuck', they also stop you from saying 'fuck you'."

NoahVail, Lenny Bruce said "Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government"

so much more funnier and prophetic

Lenny Bruce is the comedian's prophet, man.

Jan: Yes, if the sign said do drugs for the Buddha I would of course feel the same way. The point is that freedom of speech, like all other freedoms, is not absolute. I am not a conservative but I am not afraid to recognize it when the conservatives use their powers of reason and get an issue right. We Buddhists admire discipline and restraint, and have no problem with the freedom of speech being limited if that freedom is used to promote things that cause harm. Do you want me to march in front of your house with a sign that says "Kill Jan as soon as you can - kill her for the greater glory of Allah - she is an infidel and deserves to die today!"? Good grief - it's a darn good thing that freedom of speech is not absolute! Let's give the SCOTUS its due when it gets it right. As it so seldom does.

Shakker - They take cases like this for the principle it stands for. They know this was a silly stunt but they wanted to make a point and they did a good job of making such point.

Yeah, burn a bud for Buddha!

I wasn't aware that changes or exceptions to the First Amendment had been made, but it is stated very clearly that: "First Amendment – Freedom of religion, speech, press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If any reference to drugs was a violation of the First Amendment, I wonder how many songs, books, or movies would be deemed illegal?

The student was clearly violating the concept of a division between church and state. Mentioning Jesus at a school related function overstepped the student's right to free speech when it violated other students' rights to not be subjected to religious christian dogma in a government funded institution. Bong hitters may be of any religion or nor religion at all. The student was showing bigotry and intolerence for diversity. He should have been expelled.

Ah, Ron can engage in "reductio ad absurdum." Quaint.

But of course, calling for someone to be murdered -- as well as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre -- is exactly equivalent to suggesting someone indulge in some harmless intoxication. How could I have been so stupid as to think killing someone and smoking dope were not of the same gravity!

I'm glad I don't live in your country, Ron. People take personal freedom more seriously here.

Ron, on response to SHAK., the USSC did not take the case for the purpose of making a point. If that was the true, which is absurd, then I see no reason to have any court hearings. To hell with the concepts of argument and defense. Let the court pass points of interest!

Judgment was already passed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. The Alaskan District Court was overruled. What the USSC granted was for the case to be argued in front of them. The Justices voted. The majority voted in favor of principal Deborah Morse. The minority voted in favor of a dissenting view.

By the way, the sign did not say do bong hits for jesus, just like the analogy made by Jan did not say do bong hits for the buddha. Extremely crucial point now, the ruling was over a school district's power over the student, and not a ruling for the general population. Bong hits for Jesus is still okay to have on a banner, a shirt, or a snowboard. Please note it is okay to print it in the newspaper. It is not okay for a student to wave the banner during school hours at a school that has specific rules that disallow such acts. During school hours, the school has the authority to limit the student's speech, even set uniform standards if the schools enforces such laws.

The reason the student argued he had never gone to school that day is because the law states, once the student enters school he/she is under the school's authority until the student reaches their home. Fredrick attempted to argue the school's authority did not apply to him because he had never attended school that particular day. Even the 9th district appeals court did not find his "off campus" argument valid.

Very big differences between general public and the student at a public school and when and where someone is given the freedom to speak. Remember the old argument over "fuck the draft" was ruled freedom of speech. Had the young man wore the clothing article in the court room, the court may have voted to restrict his speech. Because he took off his jacket (?) during the court precedings, but wore the message outside of the courtroom, he was protected. There a particular rules of the court that must be followed. Outside of the court house, the man was free to say, fuck the draft

Someone outside of school hours, when no longer under the "guidance" of the school, can still say, Bong hits for Jesus. Just like they can say, Bong hits for the Buddha. They can't make a threat to murder someone and think they are acting in a lawful way.

ps the name Jan can be given to both males and females.

"presumptions., assumptions
what's their function.,"

Jan the man: Nice try at an insult, but surely you can do better than that. You made my point - no freedom is absolute. That is well-grounded in the principle of reductio ad absurdum. It isn't quaint, like the Geneva Conventions. It is fundamental. So intoxicants are harmless? I wish I had known that when I saw my daughter's best friend lying in a casket at the age of 15 thanks to a drunk driver. You and your harmless intoxicants can take a hike to a country far from where I live. The point I was trying to make is simply that the Justices had to draw a line somewhere and they did. They arrived at the conclusion that advocating drug use is right up there with crying fire in a crowded theater or advocating killing. Killing and smoking dope are very close to one another in gravity; how stupid of you to not realize that. But I forgive you. Go and sin no more.

old guy's gotta point........