Bong Hits For Jesus

[01WhiteCobra]

The Supreme Court examines Monday a case raising questions over free speech rights in US high schools as it hears arguments over a student's unfurling of a quirky banner proclaiming "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070319061327.jx0uhc16&show_article=1

Interestingly the article states that religious groups are siding with the student. Which I guess is the right thing to do.

[Jester]

Freedom of speech needs to be just that.

[AL P]

"He lost the first round when a trial judge ruled for Morse, saying she did not violate the student's rights, and even if she had, cannot be held personally responsible for her decisions as an educator. "

I always like it when people try to hide behind their jobs.

[lowthreeohz]

BONG HITS FOR JESUS?!!?!


dude i'm waaaaaaaaaay in.

[46Tbird]

"He causeth the grass for the cattle, and herb for the service of man." (Psalms 104:14)

[Denny]

"He causeth the grass for the cattle, and herb for the service of man." (Psalms 104:14)
Ahhh... beat me to it, fucker!

[BLAKE]

"He causeth the grass for the cattle, and herb for the service of man." (Psalms 104:14)

Now this sounds like a psalm I can get behind.

[01WhiteCobra]

http://jitcrunch.cafepress.com/jitcrunch.aspx?bG9hZD1ibGFuayxibGFuazoxNTJfRl9jNi5 qcGd8bG9hZD1MMCxodHRwOi8vaW1hZ2VzLmNhZmVwcmVzcy5jb 20vaW1hZ2UvMTQzMDU0MzJfNDAweDQwMC5wbmd8fHNjYWxlPUw wLDEzOSwxNTAsVHJhbnNwYXJlbnR8bG9hZD10bS1MMCxibGFua zoxNTJfRl9jNl90bWFzay5qcGd8Y29tcG9zZT1MMCx0bS1MMCx UZXh0dXJlTWFzaywtMTY1LC0xMDJ8Y29tcG9zZT1ibGFuayxMM CxBbHBoYUJsZW5kLDE2NSwxMDJ8Y3A9cmVzdWx0LGJsYW5rfHN jYWxlPXJlc3VsdCwwLDQ4MCxXaGl0ZXxjb21wcmVzc2lvbj05N Xw=

[Geor!]

"He lost the first round when a trial judge ruled for Morse, saying she did not violate the student's rights, and even if she had, cannot be held personally responsible for her decisions as an educator. "

I always like it when people try to hide behind their jobs.
He caused a disruption to the institution. You still feel that his right to free speech was infringed upon? With that type of mentality, it would be unlawful for a teacher to tell a student "shhh" and give him detention when he doesn't pipe down. That is doing nothing but welcoming and promoting chaos within the school system. There has to be boundaries, as the freedom of speech bullshit can only go so far.

[TexasDevilDog]

He caused a disruption to the institution. You still feel that his right to free speech was infringed upon? With that type of mentality, it would be unlawful for a teacher to tell a student "shhh" and give him detention when he doesn't pipe down. That is doing nothing but welcoming and promoting chaos within the school system. There has to be boundaries, as the freedom of speech bullshit can only go so far.

Personal liberties are bound by time and place considerations. It wasn't a safety issue or a public nuisance. Would any banner disrupt the function of the school at the time that it was done? I think not, it was probably only due to the message. The disruption to the school was due to the over reaction to the banner.

[Geor!]

Personal liberties are bound by time and place considerations. It wasn't a safety issue or a public nuisance. Would any banner disrupt the function of the school at the time that it was done? I think not, it was probably only due to the message. The disruption to the school was due to the over reaction to the banner.
Haven't seen you around in awhile. Good to see you back.

What if the banner displayed a message that said "Fuck your mother with a piece of frozen shit." Do you think that this issue would still be discussed? Both are made to offend and distract. When you're trying to hurt someone else, freedom of speech goes out the window at that point.

[99SVTour]

It's unclear from the story if the students were told they can leave and some chose to stand outside for the event or if they were told they could leave class to go outside for the event and they were still supervised similar to when students are released from class to go to a pep rally.
If they were simply released then he could pretty much say what he wanted to on his sign. If it were a pep rally type release where they were still being supervised by school employees then I dont think anything was infringed upon.

[openroadracer3]

What if the banner displayed a message that said "Fuck your mother with a piece of frozen shit." Do you think that this issue would still be discussed? Both are made to offend and distract. When you're trying to hurt someone else, freedom of speech goes out the window at that point.

actually i think that would be considered obscene and that's a whole different story. and the fucking FCC will get involved! :D

[Mustangman_2000]

i think he is correct when he said it is absurdly funny and makes no sense.

i think if it is disruptive it should be within the schools purview to handle the matter however they deem fit.

funny how the ACLU immediate jumped on the story from the beginning.....typical.

however, i don't see why the u.s. supreme court even has to deal with such a frivolous issue of a teenager using a puerile statement as a freedom of speech experiment.

high school is somewhat oppressive anyway and understandable so dealing with teenagers. if i would have pulled that shit at my high school i would have gotten 3 days of suspension and that would have been the end of story.

that was just a dumbass kid being a dumbass kid, nothing more.

[AL P]

He caused a disruption to the institution. You still feel that his right to free speech was infringed upon? With that type of mentality, it would be unlawful for a teacher to tell a student "shhh" and give him detention when he doesn't pipe down. That is doing nothing but welcoming and promoting chaos within the school system. There has to be boundaries, as the freedom of speech bullshit can only go so far.

I would say it is pretty obvious that he was outside of class and not in a school building from this quote:

"Joseph Frederick drew the ire of his school principal in Juneau, Alaska, on January 24, 2002, when the then 18-year-old student unveiled the huge banner in front of television cameras as the Olympic flame passed in front of a crowd.

Principal Deborah Morse, whose school had authorized the students to leave class for the event, was not amused by Frederick's linkage between Jesus and a bong, a pipe used to smoke marijuana.

Morse crossed the street, destroyed the banner and suspended Frederick from school for 10 days. "

Granted, he could have still been on campus but who knows. That "freedom of speech bullshit" is what makes our country one of the best places to live on the planet. I'll agree that it would be dusruptive in a school setting but IMO this is just another example of the school thinking that it has some sort of authority over kids while they are not at class or at school events. I don't agree with that.

[Geor!]

You also leave class for a field trip. If I were to smoke a joint at the aquarium on my 7th grade field trip, I would be suspended. The students were released from school for the event, but the school is still ultimately responsible for the kids until the kids are actually sent home, correct?

[AL P]

You also leave class for a field trip. If I were to smoke a joint at the aquarium on my 7th grade field trip, I would be suspended. The students were released from school for the event, but the school is still ultimately responsible for the kids until the kids are actually sent home, correct?

Uhhhh... I don't know about all that. I agree with you on the field trip thing btw. I just think this is a situation where the event happened to be going on in front of the school and the principal said to go out to the street and see it. That's just a guess though.

Plus smoking a joint is against the law anywhere. If you were to take a field trip to an aquarium and roll out this banner it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as smoking a fatty. And since that is an official school function I think the principal would be justified in making the kid remove the banner. At the end of the day I just don't think this qualifies as a school function. And if its not a function the principal is just another clown on the street.

[Geor!]

Uhhhh... I don't know about all that. I agree with you on the field trip thing btw. I just think this is a situation where the event happened to be going on in front of the school and the principal said to go out to the street and see it. That's just a guess though.

Plus smoking a joint is against the law anywhere. If you were to take a field trip to an aquarium and roll out this banner it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as smoking a fatty. And since that is an official school function I think the principal would be justified in making the kid remove the banner. At the end of the day I just don't think this qualifies as a school function. And if its not a function the principal is just another clown on the street.
If that is the case, I don't see how this case will stand up in court. It would be considered a school function at that point.

I'm not arguing that I don't like freedom of speech or anything... shit, I like saying whatever the fuck I want, whenever the fuck I want.

[AL P]

Here is a good find regarding the case, she cites some cases that support the idea I posted:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20060918.html

The "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Student Speech Case: With Kenneth Starr Seeking High Court Review Of The Ninth Circuit Decision, Is Someone Blowing Smoke?
By JULIE HILDEN
----
Monday, Sep. 18, 2006

Last Monday, September 11, former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr - now a lawyer at Kirkland & Ellis -- asked the Supreme Court to review a March 10 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in the case of Frederick v. Morse. The decision upheld a public high school student's First Amendment right to display a banner off campus. Starr represents the school district on a pro bono basis.

In a two-part series of columns, I'll explain why I believe the Ninth Circuit was right to rule as it did. I'll also put the decision in the context of two other controversial decisions the Ninth Circuit has issued this year regarding public school students' speech.



The Facts of the Frederick Case

The Frederick case grew out of an incident in which Juneau, Alaska high school senior Joseph Frederick unfurled a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" on a public sidewalk. He did so during a privately-sponsored rally where townspeople watched the Olympic torch pass by. Students were released from school to attend the rally. The high school's "pep band" and cheerleaders performed there, but the court found that teacher supervision of other students at the rally was "minimal or nonexistent."

Frederick and his friends made sure they unfurled their banner when TV cameras were passing by - but the school's Principal, Deborah Morse, who was also attending the rally, went up to Frederick, grabbed the banner, crumpled it up, and suspended him for ten days.

Frederick later sued, invoking the federal civil rights statute that allows plaintiffs to seek money damages for government infringements of their constitutional rights, including First Amendment rights.

In my view, the principal's conduct was appalling. She didn't just tell Frederick to put his sign away, or that it was inappropriate, nor did she warn him that he could be suspended. Rather, she actually went right up to him on a public street and destroyed his banner.

This is the kind of thing that we believe cannot happen in this country. Is it suddenly acceptable simply because the victim is eighteen? What happened to school officials' duty to try to convince students - first, by setting the right example -- to solve their differences with reason, not violence? Ironically, if Frederick had ripped up another student's poster on school grounds, he surely would have been suspended for doing so.

In short, the example this principal is setting is a very ugly one. No wonder the Ninth Circuit held - on the separate question of the principal's claim to immunity under the federal civil rights statute - that "it would be clear to a reasonable [principal] that [her] conduct was unlawful in the situation [she] confronted." (As a result, the principal herself may face liability for damages; she is a co-defendant in the case, along with the school board.)

How could this kind of behavior strike Starr, or Kirkland & Ellis, as so worthy of protecting, that it was worth taking this case on for the school district as a pro bono project?

The Legal Standards for Public School Students' Speech

There are three Supreme Court cases setting forth standards for public school students' speech -- which were considered by the Ninth Circuit - but only one is relevant here.

One of the cases, Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier - addressing school-sponsored speech -- doesn't apply because neither Frederick's banner (nor the rally itself) was school-sponsored in the sense that, for instance, a school-funded student newspaper is.

A second case, Bethel School Dist. No. 3 v. Fraser - which was relied on by the district court, but distinguished by the Ninth Circuit -- doesn't apply because it addresses only vulgar, lewd, obscene, and otherwise "plainly offensive" speech, and because the Ninth Circuit has interpreted that to mean, in essence, obscenity or, at least, speech involving four-letter words or similarly profane language.

Finally, there is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.. Its rule is simple: Student speech -- other than speech that falls under the precedents noted above - can only be punished or otherwise regulated if it "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others." Moreover, to support the punishment or regulation, school districts must cite "evidence that [the punishment] is necessary to avoid material or substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline."

Applying the Legal Standard in the Frederick Case

The Juneau School District had an exceptionally weak case under Tinker.

In support of its case that Frederick's banner was disruptive, the District claimed that the banner would be read by many at the rally as "advocating or condoning illegal drug use."

Similarly, School Superintendent Peggy Cowan recently told CNN that this case is appropriate for Supreme Court review because it raises "an important question about how the First Amendment applies to pro-drug messages in an educational setting."

But even if this was, to some extent, a pro-drug message, that wasn't all it was. The district itself acknowledged that Frederick could have been not just responding to, but parodying the school's anti-drug message (and parody is strongly protected by the First Amendment). Moreover the "for Jesus" part shouldn't be left out of the analysis; juxtaposing "Bong Hits," the informal "4" for "for," and "Jesus" may also send a message that religion shouldn't be taken so seriously, and a message that Jesus was more laid-back, and would have been more sympathetic to the counterculture, than some authoritarians would admit.

I'm not, of course, claiming that this message was well-thought out. To the contrary, it reads like a spur-of-the-moment lark, a prank. But I do think that it meant something different and more complicated, than just, say, a "Smoke Pot" banner would have. (Frederick himself said the banner was intended to be meaningless and funny, and he just wanted to get it on television. However, as many First Amendment cases have shown, words often have an impact beyond their intended meaning.)

The District also claimed that if the principal had done nothing, the district would have been seen by many as giving its imprimatur to Frederick's pro-drug message. But that claim seems ridiculous: If the District was as avid about spreading its anti-drug message as it claims that it was, no one would believe that it had suddenly changed its policy by merely deciding not to rip up Frederick's poster. If anything, onlookers might believe the District tolerated Frederick's poster out of a healthy respect for the First Amendment, or that the school district simply wasn't worried about its own message being undermined by a poorly-thought-out sophomoric sign.

Why the Ninth Circuit Is Right, and Starr Is Wrong, In This Case

Because this case is such a clear First Amendment violation, and because the Ninth Circuit rightly sided with the student, there's no good reason here for Supreme Court review.

In explaining why review was sought, Eric Hagen, an attorney from Starr's office who also worked on the Supreme Court petition, told a reporter, "It makes it a little harder when teachers and principals in their daily duties might be subject to a damages lawsuit and be held personally liable." But it's only harder for teachers and principals to perform their daily duties when the lines for liability are unclear.

As noted above, there are few First Amendment violations clearer than a government employee's crumpling up someone's banner at a privately-sponsored rally on a public street. That's censorship with a capital "C." If the Supreme Court does want to make the line between permissible disciplinary action and impermissible First Amendment violation clearer, perhaps it should wait for a subtler, closer case.

Ironically, I think most schoolchildren, if taught a bit about the First Amendment, could easily identify this as an obvious violation. Their teachers and principals ought at least to be able to do the same.

In the second of this series of columns, I will discuss two other controversial decisions the Ninth Circuit has issued this year regarding public school students' speech, and consider whether the Ninth Circuit's reputation of being "too liberal" was justified in light of this case.

Julie Hilden, a FindLaw columnist, previously wrote a column for this site on the related topic of the First Amendment rights of public school teachers. - Ed.

[lowthreeohz]

just fwiw, anything you do once you leave your house in the morning on the way to school, and anything you do on the way home after school is considered "school property".

I got a simple assault charge in elementary :rolleyes: for hitting a kid in the face with a bicycle chain on the way home one afternoon. I also got suspended for school for 15 days, even though we were in our neighborhood on the way home.

[TexasDevilDog]

Haven't seen you around in awhile. Good to see you back.

What if the banner displayed a message that said "Fuck your mother with a piece of frozen shit." Do you think that this issue would still be discussed? Both are made to offend and distract. When you're trying to hurt someone else, freedom of speech goes out the window at that point.

Freedom of speech protects speech that offends. If everyone agrees on a topic there is nothing to worry about nor nothing to protect. It protects to ability to have the discussion of differences. Freedom of speech allows someone to advocate against what ever I hold most dear. No where is there a protection of someone's feelings.

[SouthernSVT]

just fwiw, anything you do once you leave your house in the morning on the way to school, and anything you do on the way home after school is considered "school property".

I got a simple assault charge in elementary :rolleyes: for hitting a kid in the face with a bicycle chain on the way home one afternoon. I also got suspended for school for 15 days, even though we were in our neighborhood on the way home.
LMAO.....a bike chain huh.



btw im buying me one of those shirts :D

[lowthreeohz]

LMAO.....a bike chain huh.



Yeah, the thick kind we used to lock our bikes up @ school

[HobieF3]

I wish I had more time, I would start quoting USSC cases.

One of my favorites "FUCK THE DRAFT" bueller, bueller, bueller, anyone???

[Geor!]

I called it.

[lefty1300]

LITTLE F#%#@er WAS WANTING ATTENTION ..THATS ALL .....HOWEVER I WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED ...____BASEBALL BAT hits for JESUS :D

[01WhiteCobra]

Interesting thing was this kid was convicted of selling marijuana at Stephen F. Austin U. and is now living in China teaching and studying.

[Todd]

I agree that everyone should have freedom to speak... but everything has a proper time and place. If you are in an institution where there are rules, then you must follow those rules. If you dont like it you can figure out a way to leave and go somewhere else. At a school where there are rules against doing or saying anything that promotes drug use would nto be the proper place to do this. He was not within his rights to freedom of speech in this case.

it is similar to exercising your freedom of speech by yelling "I HAVE A BOMB" as you board an airplane. you are free to yell "I HAVE A BOMB" as much as you want, but if you are in a place where there are rules against something like that , then you will have to deal with the consequences of your actions.

Sorry, but this is a crappy argument for freedom of speach.

[Denny]

I agree that everyone should have freedom to speak... but everything has a proper time and place. If you are in an institution where there are rules, then you must follow those rules. If you dont like it you can figure out a way to leave and go somewhere else. At a school where there are rules against doing or saying anything that promotes drug use would nto be the proper place to do this. He was not within his rights to freedom of speech in this case.

it is similar to exercising your freedom of speech by yelling "I HAVE A BOMB" as you board an airplane. you are free to yell "I HAVE A BOMB" as much as you want, but if you are in a place where there are rules against something like that , then you will have to deal with the consequences of your actions.

Sorry, but this is a crappy argument for freedom of speach.
Actually, yelling "I HAVE A BOMB!" can and should get you arrested anywhere. It's deemed a threat.

[Geor!]

I'm surprised that it was even a 6-3 vote. I was thinking it would be a unanimous decision, at the most, 8-1.

[Denny]

I'm surprised that it was even a 6-3 vote. I was thinking it would be a unanimous decision, at the most, 8-1.
I'm sure a vote or two wasn't necessarily against the issue at hand, but against another person voting, knowing that it would go that way anyway. Welcome to politics of today, where personal feelings far outweigh what is right.

[Todd]

Actually, yelling "I HAVE A BOMB!" can and should get you arrested anywhere. It's deemed a threat.


Well the yeller would not necessarily be going to detonate it.

But the principal of it is what I was talking about. It is a poor example on my part.

[Todd]

Man, I just read all that long post now. I had heard it was on a campus previously. Now that I find it was on public property, I may have a different opinion. hummmmmm

But still he was a student at a function with the school attending, so he kind of represented the school. But that is still weak.


hummmm

[AL P]

The idea that the school principal has some sort of authority on public property outside of the school is fuckin absurd at best. What is next, is the principal going to be at the grocery store telling kids what to do? This supreme court full of right win fuckwads is starting to get on my nerves. Some of them need to die soon.

[Geor!]

The idea that the school principal has some sort of authority on public property outside of the school is fuckin absurd at best. What is next, is the principal going to be at the grocery store telling kids what to do? This supreme court full of right win fuckwads is starting to get on my nerves. Some of them need to die soon.
It was a school sanctioned event, therefore the school still has authority. What's so hard to understand about that?

[AL P]

It was a school sanctioned event, therefore the school still has authority. What's so hard to understand about that?

The appeals court ruled that on the grounds that it wasn't. Doesn't sound all that clear to me. In fact, if you read the decision it seems that the Supreme Court thinks as long as there are some school administrators and students present then anything can be a school sponsored event. Which brings me to my point, which is.....that's a lot of horseshit.

[Casper]

He caused a disruption to the institution. You still feel that his right to free speech was infringed upon? With that type of mentality, it would be unlawful for a teacher to tell a student "shhh" and give him detention when he doesn't pipe down. That is doing nothing but welcoming and promoting chaos within the school system. There has to be boundaries, as the freedom of speech bullshit can only go so far.

Same as westboro fucks causing their own disruptions and being protected by the law.

Fuck schhool, they are an abomination anyhow.

[Casper]

It was a school sanctioned event, therefore the school still has authority. What's so hard to understand about that?

The sanctioning does not override private property rights.

[99BRINGIT]

Jesus packed my bong once.

[98COBRA#770]

They are giving schools more power GREAT :rolleyes: they are not high on my
doing a god job with what they have list.

It was a joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Damn talk about your over reacting I mean like it's unheard of college kids pulling a prank.........dear god no not that!

Simply put why is this an issue we have much bigger problems they should be looking at other than what a bunch of stoned college kids paint and hold up.

[Geor!]

The sanctioning does not override private property rights.
You would get reprimanded at your job if you do some stupid shit at a company picnic. You guys are saying that the same reasoning should NOT apply for kids at a school function?? Explain that one to me.

[AL P]

You would get reprimanded at your job if you do some stupid shit at a company picnic. You guys are saying that the same reasoning should NOT apply for kids at a school function?? Explain that one to me.

I'm arguing that is wasn't a school function. They let school out for the students to watch a parade down a public street through the middle of town. That's not a school function. If it were in fact, a school function, then what rules were in place? By the school's own admission, there were no rules for attendance of this function, since not all students attended. Also, no rules were in place dictating the behavior of event attendees who weren't students since this was in public on a public street. If this were a true school event wouldn't the school have the right to oversee members of the public who showed up (like at a pep rally or football game)?

Essentially this is the Supreme Court looking for a reason to keep students from making statements about drug use and claiming free speech. Which I am for. Unfortunately, the decision extends the definition of what a school function is in order to do that. That's something that is going to be a problem in future cases.

[Sean88gt]

Jesus loves potheads too, why can't the SCOTUS?

[Casper]

You would get reprimanded at your job if you do some stupid shit at a company picnic. You guys are saying that the same reasoning should NOT apply for kids at a school function?? Explain that one to me.

The banner was still his property. She destroyed his property and it, as well as his actions, had no connection to the school. Any "disruption" is overshadowed by the disruption of the olympic parade itself which prompted the principal to let class out. In fact, the people supporting the cunt would turn 180* if some parents said the school were at fault for letting him out early.

[lowthreeohz]

I duno how much this has to do with anything, but the schools consider you 'on school grounds' from the moment you leave your house in the morning on the way to school, up until you return home in the afternoon from school.

I got in a fight in jr high and ended up fuckin this kid up with a bike chain lock pretty bad (he was way bigger than me) and they tried to press charges on me like i'd done it in the gym or something. pretty gay IMO.

[Casper]

I duno how much this has to do with anything, but the schools consider you 'on school grounds' from the moment you leave your house in the morning on the way to school, up until you return home in the afternoon from school.

I got in a fight in jr high and ended up fuckin this kid up with a bike chain lock pretty bad (he was way bigger than me) and they tried to press charges on me like i'd done it in the gym or something. pretty gay IMO.

Repost!

That's enough with the bong hits :D

[AL P]

I duno how much this has to do with anything, but the schools consider you 'on school grounds' from the moment you leave your house in the morning on the way to school, up until you return home in the afternoon from school.

LOL, I bet they would have went to court and wasted shitloads of money trying to prove they were right too. Another problem with this issue, how much taxpayer money was wasted with this bullshit?

[Geor!]

LOL, I bet they would have went to court and wasted shitloads of money trying to prove they were right too. Another problem with this issue, how much taxpayer money was wasted with this bullshit?
You can blame the retarded kid for that, not the school.

[AL P]

You can blame the retarded kid for that, not the school.

So schools should defend every effectively meaningless lawsuit to the Supreme Court? I'm not sure what the entire case accomplished outside of the principal not having to pay for damages to the "Bong hits 4 Jesus" banner that probably had a market value of $3.

[Geor!]

So schools should defend every effectively meaningless lawsuit to the Supreme Court? I'm not sure what the entire case accomplished outside of the principal not having to pay for damages to the "Bong hits 4 Jesus" banner that probably had a market value of $3.
If you were being sued, would you defend yourself or would you just go ahead and let some other lawyer run all over you? The kid is the one who brought suit against the school, rather than doing like any normal person would do and just chalk it up in the "tough shit" category and be done with it. If you want to place blame on someone for wasting tax dollars, it's all on him. If you don't feel so, your directions seem quite misguided and maybe you should get on board with this guy: :D

http://static.rateyourmusic.com/album_images/481463.jpg

But seriously, that seems a whole fuck of a lot clearer of a choice to make than the decision was.

[AL P]

If you were being sued, would you defend yourself or would you just go ahead and let some other lawyer run all over you? The kid is the one who brought suit against the school, rather than doing like any normal person would do and just chalk it up in the "tough shit" category and be done with it. If you want to place blame on someone for wasting tax dollars, it's all on him. If you don't feel so, your directions seem quite misguided and maybe you should get on board with this guy: :D

http://static.rateyourmusic.com/album_images/481463.jpg

But seriously, that seems a whole fuck of a lot clearer of a choice to make than the decision was.

You'd have a very valid point if the loss of the lawsuit had any real consequence to the school district but it doesn't. You'd also have a point if the school district hadn't appealed to the Supreme Court. IE, it takes two to tango in this case. We aren't talking about what I would do or you would do, we are talking about an entity here, in this case that entity is the school district. I contend that the managers of that entity wasted a lot of taxpayer money on a case that was, for the most part, a bigger dick contest with a student who graduated 5 years ago. A school is much like a private company in that dollars vs. return should be weighed by anyone with competent management skill. Assuming there is any competency in that regard. Then again this is local government we are talking about, it has no incentive to be efficient. I really don't see how spending one dollar on this case beyond the the appeals court level made any sense in that context.

Think about it, the appellate court decision gave the district the perfect out. The question of free speech wasn't answered. The parade was ruled to not be a school event. Punishment for the student occured years before. I'm not real sure exactly what the hell they were trying to accomplish by wasting more money. I guess the prinicpal wasn't responsible for that $3 in damage.

[AL P]

An interesting development today. I don't really see much difference here. I can see someone saying that "Bong hits 4 Jesus" promotes drug use while this shirt does not promote. I'm of the opinion that "bong hits" is a parody just as much as the shirt is.

Either way you slice it, this is a fucking odd ruling when you consider how they ruled the other case. Could they all be going senile at once? LOL

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q2HBP80&show_article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - Putting its recent ruling on student speech into practice, the Supreme Court on Friday rejected a school district's appeal of a ruling that it violated a student's rights by censoring his anti-Bush T-shirt.
A seventh-grader from Vermont was suspended for wearing a shirt that bore images of cocaine and a martini glass—but also had messages calling President Bush a lying drunk driver who abused cocaine and marijuana, and the "chicken-hawk-in-chief" who was engaged in a "world domination tour."

After his suspension, Zachary Guiles returned to school with duct tape covering the offending images.

Williamstown Middle School Principal Kathleen Morris-Kortz said the images violated the school dress code, which prohibits clothing that promotes the use of drugs or alcohol.

An appeals court said the school had no right to censor any part of the shirt.

On Monday, the court said schools could regulate student expression if it advocated illegal drug use. Justice Samuel Alito cautioned that schools could not censor political speech.

The case is Marineau v. Guiles, 06-757.

[lowthreeohz]

I had to turn my shirt inside out many times through school. I also had them pull the duct tape trick and made me cover up 'offensive' images.

fags.