Has anybody been watching this case that is in front of the US Supreme Court today?

In short, a bunch of students in Juneau, Alaska were on a field trip to watch the Olympic Torch pass by in 2002.  It was off of school property, and one of the students brought a sign saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" to display.  The principal saw this, and ripped up the sign and placed the student on suspension.

Now it has become a "1st Ammendment" topic, because the student is stating that he was not on school property, and he has the right to say what he wants.  The principal is claiming that it was an official school function, so the rule about "drug propaganda on school grounds" is still in effect.

The School Board upheld the decision, and so did the District Court.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals however overturned it, stating that the student's "Freedom of Speech" was violated.  And it is supported by such diverse groups as the ACLU, American Center for Law and Justice (Pat Robertson's group), and Students for Sensible Drug Policy (an anti-drug group, that is afraid this may quash their anti-drug message).

I am interested to see how all this turns out.  Plus I find it interesting to find the ACLU and ACLJ on the same side.

I was just reading an article about this.  I think it's being blown way out of proportion.  I work in a high school, and high school kids do all sorts of things for shock value.  I don't think this is any exception.  Personally, I agree that it should have been allowed under the first ammendment, espeically since the kids weren't on school grounds, but I also think the case should have been dropped a long time ago - what a waste of time and resources. 

I was just reading an article about this.  I think it's being blown way out of proportion.  I work in a high school, and high school kids do all sorts of things for shock value.  I don't think this is any exception.  Personally, I agree that it should have been allowed under the first ammendment, espeically since the kids weren't on school grounds, but I also think the case should have been dropped a long time ago - what a waste of time and resources. 



I read an article about this yesterday. I do agree with you.



Cat

, I agree that it should have been allowed under the first ammendment, espeically since the kids weren't on school grounds,


But they were on an official school field trip.  Does not the rights of the schhol to "control appropriate behavior" also cover this, no matter where it was located at?

That gets me is that the number of groups that would normlly oppose each other are working together in this case.

Personally, I think the kid was just doing this to get attention.  Interestingly, he is now a school teacher himself, in China.

I wonder if he is teaching any of his new students about "standing up for their freedom of speech".  ::)

But they were on an official school field trip.  Does not the rights of the schhol to "control appropriate behavior" also cover this, no matter where it was located at?

That gets me is that the number of groups that would normlly oppose each other are working together in this case.

Personally, I think the kid was just doing this to get attention.  Interestingly, he is now a school teacher himself, in China.

I wonder if he is teaching any of his new students about "standing up for their freedom of speech".  ::)


The fact that they were on an official school field trip meant that the students were still under the authority of school officials.  I don't think the school officials acted appropriately though.  Instead of ripping up the sign, they could have asked the kid to put it away, and the kid should not have been suspended either.  This was a minor thing that went way too far.

As for freedom of speech, this particular incident didn't seem too inciteful to me.  Looked like the school was a bit too uptight.

The fact that they were on an official school field trip meant that the students were still under the authority of school officials.  I don't think the school officials acted appropriately though.  Instead of ripping up the sign, they could have asked the kid to put it away, and the kid should not have been suspended either.  This was a minor thing that went way too far.

As for freedom of speech, this particular incident didn't seem too inciteful to me.  Looked like the school was a bit too uptight.


I agree completely.  It was still the principal's call even though they were off "school property," as Rice points out.  If I was that principal, I would have said, "Take that sign down, son."  I wouldn't have suspended the student.  If the student refused and gave me a bunch of lip, that would call for disciplinary action.

Now, if a student wanted to write an article in the school paper advocating the legalization of marijuana without explicitly inciting the smoking of cannibus, that would be fine with me.  I'm not sure it would be fine with the superintendant or the school board!
:o

I agree that this should have been dropped long ago, but there are some important principles (pun intended) involved.  Seems to me that there can be a fine line between unpopular, but acceptable speech and disruption.  Here is an example, and one of 2 of my most embarrasing moments.  One November afternoon in my high school senior civics class, the vice principle tapped on the door and motioned for the teacher to step outside.  A few minutes later he returned, saying he had some terrible  news.  President Kennedy and Gov. Connley had been shot.  That's all he knew for sure.  My comment was "I hope the Governor pulls through".  Of course if looks could kill I would have died on the spot.  I quickly reminded everyone of the previous dady's lesson regarding "the big lie".  Mr Becker saw where I was coming from, and reassured us that indeed the President had been shot.  He had not set this up as a demo of yesterday's lesson, but admitted that some such story would certainly drive the point home, but that was not the case. 

The reason both liberal and conservative groups support the student is that both sides fear the extent to which finding for the school could stifle expression of unpopular views.  If freedom of speech is anything, it must be the freedom to disagree with popular views.

I agree completely.  It was still the principal's call even though they were off "school property," as Rice points out.  If I was that principal, I would have said, "Take that sign down, son."  I wouldn't have suspended the student.  If the student refused and gave me a bunch of lip, that would call for disciplinary action.

Now, if a student wanted to write an article in the school paper advocating the legalization of marijuana without explicitly inciting the smoking of cannibus, that would be fine with me.  I'm not sure it would be fine with the superintendant or the school board!
:o
I agree as well, lets face it if he had been run over by a truck on said school trip you can bet your life it would be the schools insurance policy paying for it!

I agree as well, lets face it if he had been run over by a truck on said school trip you can bet your life it would be the schools insurance policy paying for it!


This isn't quite clear.  I read that the kid was absent from school that day and was at the event on his own, if that's the case, was he under the school's juristiction? 

This isn't quite clear.  I read that the kid was absent from school that day and was at the event on his own, if that's the case, was he under the school's juristiction? 
Fair point.

This isn't quite clear.  I read that the kid was absent from school that day and was at the event on his own, if that's the case, was he under the school's juristiction? 


None of the kids were in school that day.  They were given the day off so they could attend the passing of the torch that night.

I personally think he just wanted to get attention.  And if he really had a "message" he wanted to get out, he could have held up the banner anywhere, not across the street from the school.  And when you look at the fact that he kept the banner closed up until the camera came his way, it seems more and more like he just wanted to get his face on TV.  Much like the banners we see at football games.

And in a similar way, there was an incident involving those a few years ago.  I forget the exact circumstances, but the banner shown said something like "Go Team".  But when the camera panned over the banner, the people that put it up pulled a sting to flip it over.  On the reverse it said something like "Frack Something".  And it went across on live TV for several seconds before the cameraman was able to pan away.

I remember that the people that did it were caught by stadium security, and had to pay a fine.  I wish I could remember more details of the incident.

But surely he was only talking about ringing a bell for Jesus?  What's all the fuss about?  What else can "bong hits" mean?  Unless it was his English teacher being utterly frustrated about his poor grammar...

i'd say the kid should be suspended!  >:(

i'd say the kid should be suspended!  >:(


As well as his right to free expression?

As well as his right to free expression?


he was being innapropriate in a school related outing. yes, he should be suspended.

he was being innapropriate in a school related outing. yes, he should be suspended.


This isn't quite clear.  I read that the kid was absent from school that day and was at the event on his own, if that's the case, was he under the school's juristiction? 

er... was it a school outing?

er... was it a school outing?


Yes it was.  It shouldn't have gotten to this level of broohaha regardless.

if he was absent that day, then he was caught skipping school and should still be suspended.