Oh Noes! 1st Amendment Curbed

[JakeHero]

WASHINGTON -- School principals may punish students for holding up signs that favor the use of illegal drugs, the Supreme Court said today in narrow decision limiting the free-speech rights of students.

The 5-4 ruling rejects a free-speech claim from a former high school student in Juneau, Alaska, who was suspended for unfurling a banner outside school that read, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

The student, Joseph Frederick, hoped to show up on the local television news because the Olympic Torch parade was due to pass by the high school. Instead, he ended up in the principal's office and suspended for 10 days. He later sued the principal, Deborah Morse, contending that she had violated his rights under the 1st Amendment, and he won before a federal appeals court in San Francisco.

Awhile back a thread was made by the ungoing case, in which I supported the principal for getting rid of the banner, needless to say I had a couple of assholes saying I'm against free speech. I asked them would it curb my free speech if I wore a shirt to school with racial slurs, in response, the school administrators make me wear another. They couldn't adequately answer me on that point.

I agree that schools have a right to scrap speech that is disruptive. If this kids wants to organize a rally on his own free time, so be it, just don't expect people to tolerate it on school sanctioned events.

Comments please.

[Tancrisism]

Most of our rights are curbed in public schools. The forth, for instance; teachers have a right to search us at any time with probable cause. Overall, the first isn't curbed, it's just in public schools.

The topic you mentioned took place outside of school grounds, that's why it was such a big debate. I wouldn't say this one is so much.

[stafffighter]

Been done before.

[SmilezRoyale]

if they're going to try drugs then they better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

[fahrenheit]

At 6/25/07 09:01 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Most of our rights are curbed in public schools.

More like public buildings.

Your rights are limited in public buildings, which include schools.

[JakeHero]

At 6/25/07 09:01 PM, stafffighter wrote: Been done before.

I acknowledged this in my post. I posted this thread because it actually has been concluded.

[RydiaLockheart]

It's clear he was just doing it to be a dick. When assholes do things like this to attract negative attention, it makes everyone look bad, not just him. The principal had the right to try and keep her school from looking bad.

I'm glad this decision came down, if only to discourage all the fucktards that would go copy him.

[ForkRobotik]

This is dumb, and the school overreacted, IMHO.

[rubiksphere]

I think both the kid and school overreacted. The school shouldn't have used such a harsh penalty, and the kid shouldn't have sued. He was being stupid and should've expected to be punished for it.

[Demosthenez]

I applaud the kids. That shit is funny. And if you cant have fun in life and laugh at yourself, whats the point in living?

Sounds like it should be made into a t-shirt on tshirthell.com :P

[HogWashSoup]

you saported the principle and she lost.
lost that one didnt you?

well i think the drug thing was extream, but if it was outside of school grounds, school cant do anything. its public.

[Memorize]

At 6/26/07 12:33 PM, HogWashSoup wrote:

well i think the drug thing was extream, but if it was outside of school grounds, school cant do anything. its public.

The students were allowed outside to see the event under school supervision.

[HogWashSoup]

At 6/26/07 12:36 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/26/07 12:33 PM, HogWashSoup wrote:

well i think the drug thing was extream, but if it was outside of school grounds, school cant do anything. its public.

The students were allowed outside to see the event under school supervision.

but if the banner was in public grounds, off school grounds, then its out of the school's jurisdiction. if the students were allowed to see it, that's their problem.

but the kid won in the end so debating it is kinda pointless now.

[Memorize]

At 6/26/07 12:46 PM, HogWashSoup wrote:

but if the banner was in public grounds, off school grounds, then its out of the school's jurisdiction. if the students were allowed to see it, that's their problem.

No. Because the students were taken out and under school supervision. It's almost like a field trip. YOU HAVE RULES TO ABIDE BY.

That particular kid claimed he couldn't make it to school because of the snow. Yet he somehow ended up right where the school was with his banner.

He ditched school and put up the sign in front of his school.

but the kid won in the end so debating it is kinda pointless now.

No, did you read the title of the topic?

[Hollow-Ichigo-777]

actually dis is sort of a good decision. half of the population is already made up of crack heads. we don't need anymore. trust me, it is VERY HARD to get me to agree when rights are limited even more. drug related stuff shouldn't even be expressed in public schools (or public buildings for that matter) in the first place because it tears the world and ppl apart. in fact, my grandfather died from smoking about 10 years ago and ever since, I made a promise that I would NEVER take drugs outside of prescribed and over the counter. I'm still upholding dat promise so I'm glad that they curbed the 1st amendment so dat ppl can't hold up drug related signs and what not. I say keep it this way.

[stafffighter]

Ok apparently this isn't getting locked so I can just do my thing.
This is fucking ridiculous. The supreme court, which had once meant the peak of law an order, which set about abortion rights and voting statutes and other things that actually affect people lives has been reduced to arguing "bong hits for jesus."
He was just being a dumbass looking for attention and you all gave it to him because the dumbass thing he said was something you like to talk about because then you'll look hip and aware of youth culture. Go listen to some fucking fall out boy in a house your parents paid for if you want youth culture.
Yhis is not about free speech. No one beleives this is about free speech. You're not fooling us. This wouldn't have become the issue it was if he said something against the war or something sexual or anything else. this is because it was about drugs and as young people we like to talk about drugs. You are all fucking sheep.

[HighlyIllogical]

Student was outside.

Done.

The student should have won the case on those grounds alone. Kids have the same rights under the first amendment as those who have reached the age of majority, but only outside school.

[Memorize]

At 6/26/07 08:28 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

The student should have won the case on those grounds alone. Kids have the same rights under the first amendment as those who have reached the age of majority, but only outside school.

If that's the case, then I should be able to parade banners like that (or even worse, much worse than that) when I get off the bus for a field trip.

[HogWashSoup]

well its not like the government pays attention to the constitution anyways.

[packow]

The decision is simply wrong because it curbs the student's right to talk about drugs in any manner other then the way the school talks about it. A kid had actual research in his report about Marijuana being less dangerous then alcohol (which is true). He didn't use the government-sponsored anti-drug scare sites, he used factual scientific ones. And these didn't cast marijuana as "THE DEVIL'S WEED" but put it in a scientific perspective. The school didn't like this and called it "promoting drug use" when all the kid was doing was presenting scientifically verified facts. He didn't tell peopel to smoke pot, just that pot was less dangerous then alcohol. But the school called that "promoting drug use." The kid was suspended and failed the paper.

That's why I am against this decision.

Of course there are rules in school. The "bong hitz" kids were idiots and I don't give a crap about their right to free speech. But this decision lets the schools squash all research and fact that disagrees with their archaich view on substance abuse.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 6/28/07 01:03 AM, packow wrote:

That's why I am against this decision.

Your really just a single issue person arent' you?

[Demosthenez]

At 6/26/07 08:28 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Student was outside.

Done.

Agreed. I thought they were on school grounds. If they werent, it was a wrong decision.

[InsertFunnyUserName]

I can believe this. Kids should be allowed to express their opinions on whatever subject they choose. The student should not have been punished. He was doing no harm and in addition, he was off campus.

Here's a genius idea. How about instead of hiding our kids from drugs, we actually teach them about its dangers.

Its like everyone's getting equal rights except our children. They're getting thrown to the shitter and treated like idiots with autism; like they have no ability to judge a situation. People don't seem to realize that kids are smart enough that (if tought the proper information) they should be able handle the responsibility.

[Memorize]

At 6/29/07 08:22 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: I can believe this. Kids should be allowed to express their opinions on whatever subject they choose.

Um... no.

If they're in school and they either say or wear something that causes disruption or is against school code or policy, then they should be dealt with.

[RydiaLockheart]

At 6/29/07 04:31 PM, Demosthenez wrote: Agreed. I thought they were on school grounds. If they werent, it was a wrong decision.

It was a school-sponsored event. At a school-sponsored event, regardless of whether or not it was on school grounds, students are expected to abide by school rules. He didn't, therefore, the teacher had every right to punish him.

[SmilezRoyale]

'kids should be able to express they're opinions all of the time'

How about

"You look ugly"

or lets make it even better

"Your retarded"

[InsertFunnyUserName]

At 6/29/07 09:46 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/29/07 08:22 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: I can believe this. Kids should be allowed to express their opinions on whatever subject they choose.

Um... no.

If they're in school and they either say or wear something that causes disruption or is against school code or policy, then they should be dealt with.

Wearing a shirt that supports the legalization of marijuana (as an example) should not be against the rules. It's not causing a disturbance.

As long as the message is strictly political, then they should be able to portray it.

[JakeHero]

At 6/30/07 12:08 AM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: As long as the message is strictly political, then they should be able to portray it.

Is that so? Does this mean I can wear a tshirt to school that says "I support Jim Craw laws and the lynching of (insert n-word)s"?