Light up, or lighten up?

[blueerica]

Bong Hits 4 Jesus!

I would have liked the chance to post this sooner, but just didn't get around to it. There is a sea change going on in the Supreme Court, so my goal is to seek out what others say on LoT, and I'm going to do it one case at a time.

Of course, I have my own opinions, which I will reserve - at the moment, I'm more interested in everyone else's perspectives.

Here's some background for those not familiar with Bong Hits 4 Jesus:

MSNBC article from this past summer.

MSNBC: One more, with feeling... This time just after the Justices heard the case - March 19th of this year.

I actually think Wikipedia as of this moment (who knows if it will be vandalized by the time any of you read it), has a pretty good handle on the topic.

CNN's take on the March 19th hearing.

BAMPF! The U.S.S.C. Decision. It's a PDF file, just so ya know. Skip to the end for the best pieces of cake.

What do you guys think?

Did Frederick mean it literally?
Did the school have the grounds to suspend him? (He was off of school property. The event was the Olympic Torch Relay.)
Is it political speech? If so - what kind of impact might this decision have?

Any other opinions and lines of thought are very welcome.

[Ghoulish Delight]

"Pose as a high school principal who has to choose whether to punish
students for a series of banners about drugs and drug policy"

http://daregeneration.blogspot.com/2...esus-game.html

[Alex]

I personally am of the opinion that to a certain degree children do lose their rights as they walk in the school doors, and that to an even larger extend children do not have the same rights as adults.

All that, however, is moot for me on this one since the kid was not on school property (and I believe not in school custody) when he did it.

[Alex]

And if he was on property then suspension would seem excessive. Just take the sign away.

And blueerice, if you haven't seen it, Slate hosted a discussion between Dahlia Lithwick and a couple other court watchers last week with the topic being all the end of session rulings. You might find that an interesting read as many good points were raised.

[Kevy Baby]

I looked through some of the stuff in the OP's links. I may have missed some details, so correct me if I did.

Was the event a school sanctioned event and under the direction of the school? If Frederick was there as part of a school event (which, according to the Wikipedia entry, he was), then I believe that the "not on school grounds" argument does not apply. He was "on school grounds" by extension of it being a school sanctioned event and would normally have been under the jurisdiction of the school. I give a parallel to the definition of "US Soil". Susan (my wife for those who don't know) was born in Germany, but it was on a US military base and to parents who are both US citizens (biological father was in the military at the time). She is considered a full US citizen just as if she were born in the California (or any of the other 49 US states).

So is this censorship/were Frederick's First Amendment rights violated? Like Alex, I believe that the school has a right (if not responsibility) to limit expressions which could be reasonably interpreted as promoting illegal drug use. Unlike Alex, I don't believe the 5-day suspension was unreasonable. Frederick made a flagrant and intentional effort to display the banner in such a way as to make the message more highly visible (to TV cameras). Had the banner just been hung in the school and only visible to students and/or faculty (not TV cameras), that would have been different (from a punishment perspective).

Finally, I believe that Frederick knew that what he was doing was wrong and would illicit negative response. He should have not been surprised when he got busted!

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Like Alex, I believe that the school has a right (if not responsibility) to limit expressions which could be reasonably interpreted as promoting illegal drug use.

I don't believe that. I was just saying that I don't necessarily agree with the court's previous positions on speech in schools and therefore there might be something to talk about with this case but that is unnecessary since the kid was not on school property. Even if the school gave permission for the student to leave property for this event. Similarly, through high school I had permission to leave campus for lunch and to attend classes at a nearby community college, even though my presence in those places was sanctioned by the school I do not think they'd have any right to punish me for any speech (or even any actions) I might commit during that time.

However, even if he had been on school property I likely would have come down on his side since even though I think schools need to have an ability to control disruptive speech I don't think this would have qualified. Though it would be fuzzier for me.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Alex

I don't believe that.

With apologies for the misinterpretation.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I am an idealist when it comes to free speech. It really pisses me off that certain speech is not ok. Either you can express your opinion or you can't, in my book. I know the world is never black and white but I can't help it in this case.

[Jazzman]

Among the factors that could weigh in the decision, Frederick was standing on public property, not school grounds when he displayed the banner. The school said students were allowed to leave class to see the torch pass by, making the event school-sanctioned. Frederick, however, never made it to school that day before the event.

This makes the school's case moot in my opinion. He was across the street and not present on the day's role, and therefore was simply another citizen making a statement, albeit a pretty stupid one. The principal had no right to suspend, though I'm betting she didn't know at the time that he hadn't shown up for classes that day and was therefore not participating in the school function. If I were ruling on the case, I would say that his rights were violated and that the suspension should have been reversed, but that the principal and school are not liable for damages as they made a decision based on facts known to the principal at that moment. I would also rule that a school's ability to act on students' actions is limited only to those actions occurring on school grounds or during school run, not simply school sanctioned, events.