No, I can't think of a single written phrase that is not a specific threat of violence, that when displayed on public property would justify punishment by government authority (which includes, in my view, public schools).

And according to the opinion written, the examples you gave scaeagles, would almost certainly have been protected by the court because they are purely political in nature. The quibble the majority got to hind behind is that the Bong Hits 4 Jesus sign was supposedly an encouragement to illegal activity.

So, interestingly, apparently a sign saying "Everybody do smack" is punishable but a sign saying "Legalize smack so everybody can do it" is
not.

I think the problem here is that we're so scared of letting natural consequences take hold. If you want to hold up the sign, fine by me, but I just might help beat your ass up. Instead, our society wants to stop people from dealing directly with each other on things like this, and wants the government to either do their own version of beating up the sign holder, or punish anyone who beats them up because saying things that piss people off is protected.

IMHO, people just don't understand that freedom is a two way street. You should be free to say stupid things, I should be free to react. When any authority gets involved, it destroys natural human interaction.

Well, if you beat someone up because of something a sign says then I hope you enjoy the time in jail.

That's what I'm trying to say - if something like that went to court and you said "look, the guy was saying that God hates me because I'm gay, so I kicked his ass", the court should, in my obviously out of favor opinion, rule that "hey, that guy was being an asshole and had it coming to him."

You seriously think that inflicting bodily injury on someone else shouldn't be punished?

Interesting view. Who gets to decide which expressed points of view are worth an ass kicking?

Let's leave it to the capricious whim of the Supreme Kourt.

Methinks that with this court most of us would not be pleased with their tilt in deciding which viewpoints are sufficiently egregious to justify violence.

Though that is the idea, to some degree, behind hate speech regulations. That some thoughts are so horrible that the violent can't be held responsible for their behavior so the onus is on the speaker to be silent. The bad thing is that once such an idea exists, the contest it to get any speech you don't like put in that category.

I gather you'd take most sex offenses off the books.

Oh, the USSC is hardly capricious these days, IMO - especially when you've got (what I'm going to start calling) the Roberts 5, 'cuz that's how they roll.

Regarding the Bong Hits 4 Jesus, if school was open, if he was on campus, if this was a school event, I could see the school's jurisdiction over the student. But it was not. I hardly think students consent to losing their rights off-campus. Though I think what he said was nonsensical and at best was a message to lighten up on the War on Drugs - it hardly matter what he says. (And seriously, a statement like that isn't going to convince anyone that wasn't already into smoking weed to just light up... leave that to peer pressure, not big stupid banners).

In previous eras, this wouldn't have gone this far, IMO. You could have stronger statements, and they would be protected, now - we can't even hold up ridiculous signs about bongs.

And as for the other possible slogans... sure, I've seen similar. They have their rights, too. If I want mine, I must protect theirs.