So forgive me for not having read the ruling, but did it declare that any student of public schools has lost their free speech rights so long as they remain a public school student?

Well said. And it reminds me very much of classifying any behavior you don't like as being "terrorist".

No it essentially said that the school has a compelling interest in limiting speech when students are advocating illegal behavior.

This requires:

1. The interpretation that Bong Hits 4 Jesus is an exhortation to do drugs
2. That since the school gave permission for kids to leave the school to attend this event that the school somehow maintains that interest.

At least, that's my interpretation of it. Tinker (the 1969 case that allowed anti-war speech) isn't explicitly overruled. Not only was it 5-4 but the 5 had some splits.

Thomas felt that Tinker should have been overrruled. Alito and Kennedy limited their finding to the very narrow instance of advocating drug use but said that they still view political and social speech as protected.

Breyer, assented but disagreed with the grounds. He simply viewed the principal as having official immunity and therefore the other issues were moot.

So, nothing other than this specific case was really settled and a very similar case with slightly different wording could have a different result ("Bong Hits 4 Jesus if the Government Legalizes That")

Cites can be taken out of context... just look at Michael Moore's body of work ;)

Yeah, yeah, took my opinion to an nth degree. Yeah, we shouldn't have free reign to kick the sht out of each other for things said. But I still feel that there's something to the idea of personal responsibility, and personal consequences. I think Alex said it better:

I'm all for personal responsibility for the things you say. And I certainly agree that there are things that if said in certain places or ways you should not be surprised if someone kicks your ass.

But that doesn't mean the ass kicker is off the hook for their actions either. And in that exchange only one of the two people has committed a crime.

I'm can't quite tell if you think I'm endorsing the idea behind hate speech regulations, so I want to be clear that I don't.

Obviously society in general has decided that there are certain things that shouldn't be allowed. If there are to be restrictions (and I'm certain there always will be), who else should decide?

I don't mean the rhetorically in the least. Assuming there will always be limitations, who should decide? It's so vastly complex I don't know if there is an answer.

Here's a juicy tidbit of Capitol Hill gossip/news:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19675580/

Is it just me or does this guy sound just a wee bit desperate?

Here's to hoping we make Binnie a "Happy Man" :cheers:

I hope so.

It is interesting, though, the conflicting information out there. Some reports say the surge in Iraq is working, some say al Qaeda is at pre 9/11 strength, so it's very tough to tell. It does seem like it is a call to his followers to die for their cause, though.

I envision the half Romulan child of Tasha Yar assisting Ursa and Betor (spelling?) in the Klingon civil war. Once caught red handed, they had to cease their assistance. I think Iran has been caught a few times now and may be forced to stop their support of those fighting in Iraq because of their own nuclear ambitions. The last thing Iran wants is an attack against their facilities because of their assistance to al Qaeda related groups in Iraq.