Bong Hits 4 Jesus

[Jason Tate]

MTV has posted an informative article (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1555058/20070319/index.jhtml) (that's not an oxymoron) regarding the current "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" issue that has now hit the Supreme Court.

[BridgeJumper]

Let free speech win..


..ya Bong Hits 4 Jesus!

[64 % chance]

i hope the kid wins.

[SoCoSquid4]

beautiful article.

we talked about this is my constitutional law class today, and its a touchy subject, but i am in favor of the kids in this one. obviously the principal and school has an argument---obviously you don't want kids running around flaunting drug use at school functions. my worries with the court ruling in favor of the student is what social implications this will have...

[dang]

the case was argued yesterday in front of the supreme court. according to my friends who were actually there in the courtroom, kenneth starr killed it and frederick doesn't stand a chance. im saying 7-2 in favor of morse.

[mrzippo3]

bong hits 4 jesus hahaha

[Jess6man2000]

I"m glad I'm out of high school...

[Joel Ion]

I went to JDHS. I know Joe. Regardless of the fact free speech is an issue here, he was an idiot at the demonstration. He knew he was pressing buttons, and he knew it was at a school sponsored event, where the banner would be in full view. While we all laughed it off then, it has reached a ridiculous point now. Principal Morse is a bitch. Out and out. A ridiculous conservative cunt that cannot take a joke to save her life. Did she have a right to do what she did? No. Did Joe call down the thunder? Yeah, he kinda did. Honestly, it's hard to say who's right in the situation. Joe's and idiot, and Morse is a bitch. It just seems ridiculous to me that a retarded joke some dipshit I know played turned into a Supreme Court Case. Only in Juneau...

[myworstmistakes]

i've been hearing about this case quite a lot today. (talked about it in 2 of my classes and now here)

i'm kinda anxious to hear the decision.

[Joel Ion]

Oh, and go to JuneauEmpire.com if you want to hear any of the ranting occasionally from both sides... some of the opinions are even more ridiculous than my own...

[WCC335]

If you read closely, it's funny how the author tries to make it seem like the issue is putting right wing evangelical conservatives against the Bush administration. That doesn't seem to be the case at all. Just because the banner says the word "Jesus" doesn't mean that the boy was a right-wing evangelical, or that anyone defending him is. There is very little support in the body of the article for these statements. Anyone can say the name "Jesus." But what do you expect from mtv news?

[Shooter McGavin]

This was an issue I want to say in the 70's at a high school in St. Louis County (MO). Some students wrote some stuff in the student newspaper and the school wouldn't allow it to run. The students sued and made it all the way to the supreme court where it was ruled that the school has the right to censor anything it wants. Since the kids were on a school sponsored "field trip" the school can reprimand them however they want. I'm surprised this made it all to the supreme court seeing as there is already a case that set the precedence for this kind of thing

[myworstmistakes]

This was an issue I want to say in the 70's at a high school in St. Louis County (MO). Some students wrote some stuff in the student newspaper and the school wouldn't allow it to run. The students sued and made it all the way to the supreme court where it was ruled that the school has the right to censor anything it wants. Since the kids were on a school sponsored "field trip" the school can reprimand them however they want. I'm surprised this made it all to the supreme court seeing as there is already a case that set the precedence for this kind of thing

well in discussing this in class today, the event wasn't school sponsored or run by the school and in addition to this there were apparently no permission slips signed about this event where the students agreed to abide by the rules when they were taken out of the school.

and i'm not stating this to argue with you as i do not know enough about the case to do so, however i just wanted to bring in the other side from what was discussed in one of my classes today about it by people who researched it a bit.

[starcrossdlovex]

The content is what's made this issue get so much buzz. You have a "drug reference" mixed with a "religious reference." Then you throw in an issue of free speech in schools & mix that with the issue of free speech while not technically IN school.
It's kind of like when they cast The Real World. It has everything controversial, from all ends of the spectrum, all thrown into one place.

If Morse wins, this is gonna set one RIDICULOUS precedent.

[b32ben]

The kid should clearly loose the case based on the handbook restricting kids from talking about drugs. I'm not sure about the religous part, but i think he should loose. Some kids are just to outspoken, i know in my parents time there would not be a supreme court trial about free speach in school, it has been recognized (until now apparently) that students are to follow the school handbook

[secretemily]

this was all over the news yesterday...fox and other news sources were spamming it like crazy.

[CorporateFish]

My personal view on the situation aside, that's just hilarious.

[Brxtt]

Bong hits 4 me.

[sionic]

This was an issue I want to say in the 70's at a high school in St. Louis County (MO). Some students wrote some stuff in the student newspaper and the school wouldn't allow it to run. The students sued and made it all the way to the supreme court where it was ruled that the school has the right to censor anything it wants. Since the kids were on a school sponsored "field trip" the school can reprimand them however they want. I'm surprised this made it all to the supreme court seeing as there is already a case that set the precedence for this kind of thing

In that case (Hazelwood v. Kulmeir) the students published the paper as part of a journalism class. The supreme court has held since Tinker that the school does have a right to censor information if they believe it interferes with the educational goals of the school. It cannot censor speech that based on personal opinions, so i don't think that precedent is relevant since there was no actual learning going on and there was no "class" in session.

I do think its important that the banner in question was advocating an illegal act, and i could see the supreme court somehow tying that into the whole "positive learning environment" argument that they made in Hazelwood, i just think it would be a bad one since holding up that banner didn't really interfere with anything, and (as was mentioned earlier), this was not a school sponsored event, just faculty supervised.

The kid should clearly lose the case based on the handbook restricting kids from talking about drugs.

i think obeying the u.s. constitution is a little more important then obeying a school handbook.

[dang]

just if anyone is curious, my high school every year has what we call "case day" in which the AP gov classes actually have a mock trial and its a very big deal in the school as well as the community. this years case was morse v. frederick. as we live so close to dc, we always have important people there. justice scalia's wife was there, the solicitor general spoke, an abc news correspondant spoke. check out the website for a lof of info about this case: www.caseday2007.com

by the way i took all the pictures haha

[Joel Ion]

The kid should clearly loose the case based on the handbook restricting kids from talking about drugs. I'm not sure about the religous part, but i think he should loose. Some kids are just to outspoken, i know in my parents time there would not be a supreme court trial about free speach in school, it has been recognized (until now apparently) that students are to follow the school handbook

I'd like to see this "handbook" you speak of.

Nowhere in the JDHS "Handbook" does it mention the restriction of kids "talking" about drugs. It does however note that any student advertising drugs, paraphernalia, or substance abuse will be reprimanded. That goes for Alcohol and Cigarettes as well.

The action was not committed on school grounds. While the school allowed kids to attend the event, no permission slips were required or issued, regardless of Morse's insistence that it was a "school sponsored event". Her only standing justification is the fact that this took place during the time when morning classes WOULD HAVE BEEN (she canceled them after learning the torch would be passing the school, to allow kids the once in a lifetime opportunity to witness this event in our town).

The school was not a sponsor of the event. Coca-Cola was. Students didn't have to go. Staff/faculty didn't either, and they were barely monitoring kids anyway.

Joe, viewed always as the button pusher/trouble maker, had the right as an 18 year old, off school grounds, to say whatever the hell he wanted. The issue is simply that Principal Morse didn't like Joe. She didn't like the "message" that Joe was sending to "America", and how it made our town look during a "historical event".

It was wrong of her to do what she did, no matter how retarded the joke was. She should have shook her head in disgust and left it at that... most of us are doing so at her.

[PMFD]

The kid should clearly loose the case based on the handbook restricting kids from talking about drugs. I'm not sure about the religous part, but i think he should loose. Some kids are just to outspoken, i know in my parents time there would not be a supreme court trial about free speach in school, it has been recognized (until now apparently) that students are to follow the school handbook


The banner said "bong hits for jesus" its not like it said "Jesus would love it if we all legalized and smoked pot" and he wasnt handing out jesus shaped bongs. This issue isnt about drug speach its about free speach in general. EVERYONE should be able to tell that this was clearly a joke. The fact of the matter is that it was not done in school or on school property. Schools should not have the right to restrict free speech and ideas especially outside of school.