Bong Hits 4 Jesus
The Supreme Court today hears arguments in a case about a teenager's right to annoy his principal by displaying a banner saying: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The youth was suspended, thus starting a five-year free-speech battle. The dispute between Joseph Frederick, who in 2002 was a high school senior, and principal Deborah Morse has become an important test of the limits on the free speech rights of students.
The Court famously ruled 40 years ago that students do not leave their First Amendment Right behind when they enter school. Schools do, however, have a legitimate interest in maintaining an educational environment and they are allowed to define the educational purposes of the school.
The Bush administration, backing Morse, wants the court to adopt a broad rule that could essentially give public schools the right to clamp down on any speech with which it disagrees. Principal Morse suffers from having no sense of humor, but are there limits to free speech in the public schools? For instance, should schools be allowed to limit religious proselytizing for the sake of the educational environment? Would this case be different if a student held up a sign reading "Jesus Died 4 U"? What are the dangers of too much free expression in schools?
The Court famously ruled 40 years ago that students do not leave their First Amendment Right behind when they enter school. Schools do, however, have a legitimate interest in maintaining an educational environment and they are allowed to define the educational purposes of the school.
The Bush administration, backing Morse, wants the court to adopt a broad rule that could essentially give public schools the right to clamp down on any speech with which it disagrees. Principal Morse suffers from having no sense of humor, but are there limits to free speech in the public schools? For instance, should schools be allowed to limit religious proselytizing for the sake of the educational environment? Would this case be different if a student held up a sign reading "Jesus Died 4 U"? What are the dangers of too much free expression in schools?
Labels: drugs, free exercise, free expression, free speech, freedom, jesus, Mill, political theory, Supreme Court
posted by Richard Stanislaw at
7:49 AM
68 Comments:
Yes, this dicussion would be very different if the banner had read "Jesus Died 4 You". I doubt that anyone that was offended by the hypothetical banner's message would have been given so much as a second thought, much have an appeal heard before the Supreme Court.
...much less have had**
Controversial speech has always been at the forefront of American political tolerance. It's just unfortuante that that speech can range from this to I support the KKK.
I think the school administration is overreacting to the whole situation about the sign. Apparently the sign wasn't even on school property it was held somewhere else. So why is the school prinicple upset? I really wish that people would stop overracting over the slightest little things.
I do agree that the school is over stepping its boundaries. Discourse is the most important thing in academia and free speach is the most important dynamic of the populus. If we start censoring students speech...where will it go from there? We can tall them what to eat, how to dress and what subjects are socially important. Are we now going to tell them what they can and cannot think or say? Last I check even china was slowely evolving away from these practices.
I am almost positive this principal has more things to worry about such as pot smokers in the bathroom, the odd trend of teachers sleeping with their underage students and the on going rise in teen pregnancy rates.
Let’s agree that there are obviously more important things then some punk kid’s boredom being shown through a creative banner to worry about. Should we continue to dull our children’s creative mind by shoving TV and video games in their face and then take away their freedom of speech in a world they live in everyday for 8 hours?
I agree that children need guidance and should have limits but who should enforce those limits is the question. I grew up with pot smoking, hippy, no rules, kind of parents but I know it made me a better person today.
We live in a world that can not continue to cover children eyes and close their ears to things we believe as adults are not appropriate for their age. Media, newspaper, books, and internet are allowing today’s youth to gain knowledge of things we never thought possible.
The words on the banner mean nothing if no one pays attention to it and no one gives it value. I am sure that if the principal said nothing and removed the banner, the next morning during home room the high school students would be talking about the next big thing, bobby dating sally or Britney shaving her head.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. No age limits. Allow the parents to decide when the line is crossed.
Their are issues in this country that far exceed the issue of a 17 year old holding up a "Bong hits for Jesus" sign. I mean honestly, WTF?! It sickens me to hear stories like this. Let the kid be. Christians should embrace this kid. He may be opening up new eyes to the teachings of Jesus. I don't smoke weed, but pot is natural, and I'm sure if "Jesus" was around today he'd probably favor blazing it up with mother nature rather than smash facing beers in a case race. On the other hand if the sign says "Jesus died for you," we wouldn't be hearing a damn thing about this case. Maybe their would be a dissenter or 2 in the school district who would raise a fuss, but other than that all would be well. Their is still this religious stigma placed around instances of this nature. Put a picture of a man dead on a cross on a sign and tell everyone how Jesus died for our sins would be feaseable for a 17 year old high schooler, while a sign incorporating natural herbs with the name Jesus, immediately draws negativity. I my friends, am lost in this one!!
I understand the right or responsibility of the school to keep an educational environment for their students. So in the classroom I think the school does and should have greater control over students rights then the law does over an adults (within limits). With this particular issue however the school had already determined that these students wouldn’t be learning anything that day as they were watching someone run. So I fail to see how a banner saying anything from “bong hits 4 Jesus” to “I just shit myself” could have disrupted a teacher’s ability to teach.
In regards to whether this issue would get the same press if the banner read, “Jesus dies 4 U” I think would be dependent on how the principal reacted to that banner. Chances are she would have done nothing, but if she had taken it down and the student was as adamant as he is in this case, I believe the story would have received the same if not more press. –Matt De Pompei
I do believe that the responce would have been very different if the bammer read "Jesus died 4 you", however in responce to the free sheach issue its my opinion that the school is simply overreacting.I do believe that there does need to be some limit on free speach in a public school inorder to maintain an educational environment. I believe that this banner "bong hits 4 Jesus" is more humorous than disruptive. The only part of the story that was disruptive to the educational environment was the schools overreaction, and without it the banner would have been seen and most likely forgotten.
-Sean McCarthy
I think that there are limits to the amount of free speech within school because certain kinds of free speech inherently disturb the educational process. The problem is the ability to define what is and what is not disruptive. In this particular case, the principal of the school attracted more attention to an otherwise little-noticed banner. How many high school students actually read banners anyway and reflect upon them? The principal brought on this dilemma for themselves by reacting so harshly to something minor and mundane. Meanwhile there are many students who think and speak out loud violent thoughts each day and nothing is done to them. The problem with the regulation of a learning environment is having to pick and choose what speech is appropriate and what is not.
I agree that this is offensive to all christians, yet it isn't a crime to offend christians. If christianity wasn't the major religion in this nation, this surely wouldn't be heard. Since this is clearly more a religous argument than law; I think its fair to say that Jesus wouldn't be offended and therefore neither should christians nor the Supreme Court. Now for law; its freedom of speech, inwhich we are all entitled too. Although if this phrase was a catalyst for a school riot then yes, but it was not and won't be and the school has better things to concentrate on like teaching.
I understand both sides of the story- on one hand, the student was expressing his right to free speech, on the other hand, because the sign had to do with condoning drug use, the school had a right to limit it. Students should be allowed to say whatever they would like, but drug use is a larger issue. However, because the student was not on school property and does not even attend said high school anymore, why is this issue even in the spotlight anymore? Hopefully, the rule that the Bush Administration is backing will not pass, as this administration has already limited our right to free speech enough.
I remember reading about this case last semester and finding it fairly interesting. After reading the original post and catching up on the developments from other news sources, I am even more intrigued.
Earlier, goodapollo wrote: “Christians should embrace this kid.” It turns out, while they are not necessarily embracing Joseph Frederick, and certainly not for the reasons goodapollo provided, many of them are indeed backing him in this case. As reported in the New York Times, organizations that have submitted briefs in support of Frederick’s case include the American Center for Law and Justice (Founder: Rev. Pat Robertson), the Christian Legal Society, and the Alliance Defense Fund, whose stated mission is “defending the right to hear and speak the Truth.” (I am taking this straight from the article "Free-Speech Case Divides Bush and Religious Right". If you have a moment, Check it out.)
The reason that many religious groups are backing Frederick is they fear that a ruling in favor of the School District could lead to the damaging of student’s religious freedom within the public school system.
From this I believe the answer to the hypothetical of if the banner read “Jesus Died 4 U” arise, assuming that Principal Morse’s actions did not change. Matt De Pompei had it right on; the story would likely have received more press.
Overall, it is a pretty interesting case. Society certainly has an interest in producing an educated populace. To do so most effectively, a disturbance-free learning environment is necessary. Free speech can certainly be disruptive. Consequently, there is an interest in limiting, to some extent, speech within schools. So far, the Supreme Court has told us students can wear black armbands as a form of protest. As for a student mixing THC with JC on a banner across the street from a school, the justices are still out.
On my end, it looks like Pat Robertson and I might find ourselves on the same team this time around (*shudders*).
:)- Jonathan Duffy
Free speech is guarenteed by the 1st ammendment, so that should apply to all, whether in school or not. Just because some may not agree with the banner "bong hits 4 Jesus" that is his right to express his viewpoint and stated by Mill. Mill says that any an all viewpoints should be heard and none should be oppressed. By punishing him for displaying the banner his freedoms are being curtailed and he is losing liberty. Mill also says that actions should not be curtailed unless they harm others and his banner is not harming anyone. It is just a topic for discussion so he should be able to display the banner if he feels the need to do so.
personally i don't believe in stifling someone's right to free speech, whether it be in high school, college, a newspaper, whatever. high school administrations worry too much about things like this and not enough about the quality of education in their schools. students have been told time and time again that they are not enetitled to the same rights as adults. take Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District for example. kids were suspended just for wearing black armbands as a sign of peaceful protest against the vietnam war. it was eventually ruled that the suspension was a violation of the first amendment, and even though this was over 30 years ago, things like this happen all the time. school administrations act as if they want their students to believe in nothing at all.
Yes, but Morse would probably still take the banner down. It's not beyond imagination to see something like 'Bong Rips 4 Jesus' being challenged by a principle, but should it really go to the courts? It was obviously a joke, and a policy of 'no posting in the hallways without discretion' would be a comprehensive solution to these sorts of jokes, and would still not take away from the already depraved rights of public school children.
Because this school is a public school, it is hard for the administrators to limit free speech and expression, but they do have the power to do so. I think that the principal was doing something she found to be in the school's best interest. This kid obviously knew he was going to cause controversy by holding this sign and it seems like he did it for attention. If the sign read "Jesus Died 4 You" i'm sure the situation would have ended differently. It's illegal to smoke weed but it's not illegal to be religious.
A girl was suspended last week from a public school in Napa for wearing socks with a Tigger logo on them. The dress code called for "blue, white, green, yellow, khaki, gray, brown or black" only and she disobeyed. She was put in the school suspension program called "Students With Attitude Problems." (I'm not making up that title!)
I understand that kids in schools have to practice discretion in what they say/do/wear... but I don't think a girl with Tigger socks on should be in an attitude problem program; nor do I think "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" deserves all of the attention it is currently receiving. Let kids hit bongs, let kids make fun of Jesus, because when you prosecute them and make it a crime it's just that much more attractive.
Let's focus on putting the REAL problem children in the attitude problem class, and leave alone the ones with no bite.
The school should have the right to curtail free speech when it is disruptive to the learning environment of other students. In this case however, from what I understand, this sign was held up off school property. I think the prinicpal was in the wrong. Clearly this sign was not hurting the academic integrity of the school or it's students. School administrations already tell their students what they can and cannot wear, what hair colors are acceptable, etc. Is it really worth it to take away their freedom of speech simply because you don't like what a student has to say?
~Danielle Hurley
I dont think it makes a difference what the banner said. Because he was told not to hold up the sign and he did any way he is being punished. Knowingly and purposefully disregarding the pincipal is grounds enough for the suspenion, dispite the message.
This kid most likely does not have a case.
I think it is important for Principals to be able to maintain an educational environment, but schools should only be able to stifle a student’s free speech, which is the basis of our liberty, in extreme cases where a student’s action is detrimental to other student’s education. I think in 99% of the cases Principal’s are oppressive and take away student’s liberties because they are headstrong and enjoy the power.
There is no way that an editorial criticizing the school, student’s clothes, or a kid holding up a ridiculous sign is taking away from other student’s right to an education. I am not sure why society has accepted the tradition of allowing principals to deprive 17 and 18 year olds of the basic principals of America, but hopefully the Supreme Court will rule in favor of liberty and end the tyranny of school boards and principals.
The Supreme Court case, Frederick v. Morse is interesting case in that it has the potential to establish definitive boundaries for civil liberties in public schools. The question is not so much whether Joseph Frederick should be able to display a sign that says, “Bong hits for Jesus,” but whether public school can constitutionally suppress freedom of speech. Schools have the legal obligation under the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act to stop speech that promotes drug use and illegal behavior, however, the implications of schools deciding what speech can be punished is what makes this case so important. Ironically, this case puts the ACLU on the same side as fundamental Christian organizations, who are both worried that this decision could severely limit students’ free speech in schools, whether it is of a religious nature or not.
I personally think Frederick made an irresponsible decision in making and holding up the sign during the Torch ceremonies in Juneau. Frederick himself admitted that the sign was not a religious or political statement, but was just a way to get on TV. In fact, he was asked once to take it down by the principal, Morse, but did not. His statement, whether he meant it to advocate drugs or not, is irrelevant and unnecessary and should not be protected constitutionally.
On the other-hand, I am not in favor of schools being the deciders of what kinds of speech is for the benefit of public discourse. My experience with public schools is that they can be rigid and severe in what kind of speech they allow. When instead they should be advocating students to think critically and voice their opinions, even if it does go against the schools’ policies and beliefs. Frederick’s sign did not serve this purpose, and the administrator was correct in taking it down.
If he would have put " Jesus Died 4 You " it would have been a different response to him. Since many people believe in Jesus they would have considered it better and may not have said anything to him. I do not believe he should have been suspended because of that; they even could of told him that it may make other people uncomfortable. But to much free expression can cause riots.
Clamping down on free speech in schools is just a step toward clamping down on free speech everywhere. I agree that free speech can go too far and be disruptive or even dangerous (yelling "fire" in a movie theater). But seeing as how this was off school property and this student didn't even attend school that day makes him more of a citizen than a student when the incident occurred. The sign may have been disruptive but it really is out of the control of the school's administration, which is why I think that the school will lose the case.
I say the school doesn't have a case. The kid was clearly off of school grounds, and if he was off of school grounds, school rules do not apply. The most that should have happened was that he should have had a meeting with the principal (not a detention) and other parts of the administration. Free speech includes the right to offend people with your speech. Political correctness is why the school's mad. The statement "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is not politically correct, so the school is, to put it politely, supervolcanically angry about the matter.
Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights Americans have. Having the freedom to say whats on your mind (as long as what you say does not encourage violence or harm to others) without the fear of being persecuted is such a rare thing in this world. The school's response to the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" sign was way overblown. The principal overreacted to the situation. The dispute over the sign should have never left the school, let alone made it all the way to the Supreme Court.
There is no doubt in my mind that the response would have been very different if the student was holding a sign that said "Jesus Died 4 You." The principal probably would not have been offended by a "Jesus Died 4 You" sign and, therefore, it would have never been a problem.
The fact is that the student had every right to display the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" sign. I'm Catholic and I am in no way offended by this sign and I can't understand why anyone would be. The people that were offended have to remember that EVERYONE'S right to speak freely is protected under the First Amendment. If a hateful and racist organization like the KKK has the right to hold public rallies in Toledo, then high school students certainly have the right to express their views on religion. My hope is that the Supreme Court will recognize this fact while making their decision.
-Kevin Higham
I believe that becasue the student was off school grounds that he should not be punished by the school...Becasue it said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" that is not really in my mind something that is that bad..If anything the school just just check if the kid walks into school high on occassion..
David Turkovic
I think the prinicpal was doing what was in the best interest of the school. Since its a public school, it is hard to limit free speech, however some things may be deemed inapproiate. Obviously the kid knew that this would controversy by holding the sign. If the sign had read " Jesus Died 4 You" that, I feel, is a whole different situation. Of course some people will not agree with that, just like they don't agree with "Bong hit for Jesus"
I’m going to play the devil’s advocate and take the opposite side. I think the school has every right and even a responsibility to regulate student speech. The sign “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” was fundamentally disruptive and disrespectful as the Olympic torch was passing. Someone needs to teach this kid some manners. In Singapore, this kid would have been lashed. The U.S. schools are failing because they don’t have the authority to regulate and punish like they used to. We need to make these punks take school seriously again. The U.S. is loosing significant moral ground. The purpose of our public school system is to socialize good little democrats so that our society can exist tranquilly. “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” undermines the purpose of a public education.
To relate this to class, Hobbes said that the government that rules by fear is the most effective. He also said that an absolute sovereign is needed. In “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” the school is the state, and it needs to discipline the children severely for stepping out of line. Without this, the students fall back into the state of nature, which is where this country is heading now. The schools have lost all authority, from not being able to spank kids, to loosing ground on dress codes to not being able to embarrass kids if they didn’t do homework.
Although it's obviously a very controversial issue that probably many schools have dealt with, I have an opinion on both sides. I agree that it was inappropriate and minor disciplinary action would be suitable, however the whole thing was blown out of proportion. It's obvious that the kid who did it was only trying to be funny, knowing that most likely he would deal with some consequence. Because no one was hurt they should have dealt with the situation and got over it. Some schools blow things up just to prove a point that they have the authority to do what they want, and control the lives of its students.
I believe that the school is indeed infringing on the free speech rights of idividuals. Even though the sign may be offensive to some, it is no more offensive than the Nazi party demonstrating publicly when they march through city streets. As far as I know, the student was not harming anyone and I also do not think that the student making the sign jeopardizes the learning environment of students. The students have the choice with what they choose to believe and retain. I just think that the school was trying to set an example on how much authority they are under the impression they possess.
-Mike Rudolph
I agree with the principle in this case. The principle is obligated to provide a undisrupted learning environment. However, this banner was believed to be disrupting the learning environment and the principle acted accordingly.
Now the issue with freedom of speech, Yes you do have your right to say anything as long as it does not incite anything.However, this is a public school and they have rules. They have rules for a reason...it's called having a sense of decency.
I know not to many people know what this means anymore but public schools have that obligation.
For those who say that this is not a big deal I strongly disagree. A problem like this test what kind of society we are at this point. It makes us rexamine the extent of our rights as citizens.
I believe there can be restriction on the freedom of speech because there are restrictions on other rights like freedom of religion.
Oh and about the quote "Jesus died 4 you" there should be no problem with this quote cause there is such a thing called the right to freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
Following the Anna Nicole Smith drama in the nation’s highest court and now the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case in the school system, it’s becoming clear that the Supreme Court really needs to adopt new methods of selecting pressing and important cases. Now that the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case has made national headlines, we are now facing the ongoing issue of free speech- this time in a publicly funded institution. Truthfully, the student, Joseph Frederick, at the center of this controversy probably initiated this prank in order to test the limits of local high school officials.
Frederick probably did not realize the scope of this experiment when it reached the eyes of the justices on the United States Supreme Court. In any event, Frederick’s stunt, although odd in nature, should be protected by the First Amendment because the student’s speech in this case does not incite violence or suggest anarchy in any shape or form. Frederick’s message does not promote hatred and does not inform students of an inevitable attack on the school. Therefore, Frederick should not be sanctioned in any way even though his message can be perceived as strange, non-productive and even confusion under a religious tone.
The only action schools should and must take concerning religion on campus involves cases where students proclaim and publicly declare that one religion (their own perhaps) is better than another religion. School Administrators have a duty and obligation to keep biased views concerning religion out of the academic environment involving religions in a superior context.
Too much freedom of expression in schools has the dangerous potential for students to cause tensions by spreading religious propaganda onto other students which is a recipe for harsh conflicts. The Bong Hits 4 Jesus case is simply a publicity attempt that has no deep significance on an average student’s academic learning experience.
In my opinion, schools have a very large role in shaping a student and the adult that he/she is to become.perhaps this particular school encourages free speech - in the sense we know it as, by thinking and analyzing critically and asking questions when required.
In this case, "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is rather inane, perhaps fun.But who draws the line in deciding whats fun and what isnt?
It could set a precedent for another student, who will write something violent tomorrow. and then the debate will be - was it reaaally violent enough for the fuss it created? where does one draw the line? so perhaps "bong hits" isnt serious enough. will gunshots and racist slurs be?
i do not think the school administration was incorrect in the way it handled the situation.
The boy's intention wasnt even to make a valid statement.just a dumb punk trying to act cool.
-Krittika Chatterjee
Its interesting to me that so many people are quick to say that they "believe" in free speech and think that the principal has no basis for his/her actions. It seems that there is a little more to this question than whether we believe in and want to protect the right of free speech.
I really fail to see how "Bong Hits For Jesus" is in any way helpful to the learning process. It was simply nonsense from what I can tell, a practical joke by a bored teen. And, if that was the nature of the incident then there seems to be no reason for the principal to tolerate a sign that would have been offensive to students from a religious and civic standpoint. Not simply because it offends them, but that it is a distraction from learning and a way of marginalizing a group of students because of their adherence to a specific religious experience. I think that the analysis would be different had the sign been purposefully questioning the laws against smoking pot or the philosophy of an important historical figure. Then the school would have to evaluate whether how helpful the sign was. In the case of a practical joke? We may have the freedom of speech, but teachers have always had the right to regulate the educational environment by making students raise their hands and enforcing that rule.
Also, it seems to me that if the sign had read "Jesus Died For You" the response to this issue would have been entirely different. I would think that most people would consider that proselytizing and be completely behind that kind of censoring...and probably for good reason. But perhaps that betrays the real nature of this discussion. If we are not offended by "Bong Hits 4 Jesus", and perhaps even think its humorous, then we call this an over reaction. But if we feel intolerated and uncomfortable with "Jesus Died for You" then we say its proselytizing in schools and jump on the other side.
-Anna Dowell
Schools should be a place where students can freely express thoughts and ideas. If schools supress topics of discourse because they are "controversial" then schools simply become institutions of indoctrination, and not learning.
The sign was across the street from the school so she really had no right to tear it down. I think the problem is everyone has become so politically correct about everything. If I saw someone wearing a shirt that said..I don't know.." Hitler was God" I would find that offensive but I would probably just think" wow , what an ignorant prick!!! " Then,I would probably tell him that I thought he was an ignorant prick.... However, I wouldn't go around trying to get a law passed outlawing those shirts. I wouldn't demand that he change his shirt....because in the end...if I decide to internalize his message and make a big deal about it , he is getting the reaction he wants. As long as the message isn't advocating direct violence or destruction ( like " Blow up the school")then it doesn't matter all that much. He is expressing his opinion, it has nothing to do with my opinion and in no way is going to have any influence on my opinion. I think people just like to be offended to be offended..if we all just realized that there are always going to be annoying little pricks in the world, maybe we wouldn't take them so seriosuly.
-Rebecca Alexander
Free expression is one of the most important tools in our society. Even if some people don't agree with what was said, our society should tolerate it because of the importance of that freedom.
Brendan Mewhinney
The Bill of Rights (and its incorporation through the 14th Amendment due process clause) protects citizens from any ‘state actor’ from taking away our rights. As far as I can see this applies to government employed principles trying to take away students free speech rights. Not that this case should even had ended up this far, because the sign was across the street from the school, off school property, and therefore not under the principle’s jurisdiction. But why should that little detail get in the way of Dubya’s administration trying to take away more rights? I think this case boils down to age. If this sign would have been posted at a college campus it would have been seen as a great joke. So when is it okay for those in high school to have an opinion and express it? At what age do we become citizens with protected rights? Oliver Wendell Holmes said in the Abrams case that we should have an open ‘market place of ideas’ were ideas can be put out and tested, regardless of whether we ‘buy’ them. School should be a place where we learn at this marketplace and start choosing which ideas to buy.
Schools do have an interest in keeping an environment conductive to education, but often take it too far. Hormones and text messages are distracting- not pink hair or banners. It does not surprise me Dubya had jumped on this, what better thing than starting at young age to brainwash us into thinking free expression is a privilege given by those in power. There is deep irony in the fact that the same people that are looking to restrict free speech when it involves Jesus and weed would have been falling all over each other saying the boy’s free expression of religion was taken away if the banner would have said “Jesus died for you.” That’s right, Pat Robertson and all those other televangelist would have parked their asses in front of the TV cameras and raises almighty hell about the government interfering in religion if that sign said that. There is something frightening about people that only want you to have rights if you agree with them.
One of the best ways to stir up a heated argument is to bring up the topic of free speech, and I love that. Unless the message is instructing people to commit violent acts, I'm totally for freedom of speech and expression.
I don't care if the sign says "bong hits 4 jesus", "gay marriage killed the dinosaurs", or "hitler is my homeboy". Even 99.9999% of the population doesn't agree with someone's opinion, they still have the right to voice it.
This kid wasn't in school, so it was in no way disrupting the learning process. It doesn't matter if he was trying to voice his opinion about religion or drugs or if he was just doing it for shits and giggles. The fact is that even expression for the purpose of a practical joke is still protected by the Constitution.
I Forgot to sign that last post.
-Tom Banyas
The constitutional rights of juveniles are treated differently than those of adult citizens, so I am not surprised. More specifically, the constitutional rights of juveniles in public schools is limited even greater; and is ultimately at the discretion of the adults or the administration. So the actions of the principle should be expected, and the rights of that student suppressed.
The Supreme Court case, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier where the Court ruled in favor of censorship in student press because students have fewer rights as juveniles. Therefore, if administrators think that censorship is needed, it is permitted, because they are given more allowance to censor. Take away the issue of censorship a little and constitutional law supports the principal's actions and the student's speech is not protected by the first amendment.
Even though "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is offensive it's part of that kids free speech to have it written on a sign. If schools are given the right to start placing restrictions on free speech, it's going to cause a very bad chain reaction.
Freedom of speech is one thing, but speech aimed at eliciting a reaction is another. I really don't understand what this student was attempting; to me it seemed he just wanted to be on TV. Our founding fathers did not intend freedom of speech to be used in this manner; he is being a nuisance not expressing his beliefs. Although I do not agree with this kid's sign, I do believe the political implications or ruling against the kid are too severe. This administration has already attempted to limit personal rights through surveillance and abortion, so giving them the opportunity to limit more freedom would be a very bad idea. By ruling against this kid, future student’s ability to express their beliefs will be limited, resulting in violations of speech that the founders wanted to be protected.
John Fellabaum
The kid under fire here did not attend school the day of the event from what I heard on the news and therefore the school cannot begin to tell him what he can and cannot do at a nonschool function. They are completely overstepping their boundaries with this and it's getting ridiculous.
-Sam Kerns-
I think the high school education environment should be controlled by the school. If kids are given too much freedom it would take away from the learning experiences of other students. Kids do try to get away with a lot and therefore need more control in there lives until they are mature enough to control their own life. Growing up is a process and as you grow you are given freedoms to show your age such as driving a car , buying cigarettes , and eventually drinking and gambling. Having less freedoms in high school is just another process of growing up.
I can understand why the student was suspended for the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner. A school has the responsibility to promote a drug free environment. At my high school we weren't allowed to were shirts with beer brands on them, so I can understand the suspension for the banner. However, I do believe it was kind of blown out of proportion. I mean I not naive enough to think that the suspension signifcantly helps an anti-drug atmosphere but at the same time most schools want to promote an anti-drug atmosphere at all costs.
I would disagree, however, that there is a seperation of church and state issue here, because the school is not promoting the banner it is the individual student which I believe has the right to discretely promote religious messages.
For the Jesus Died 4 U banner question. Like I said before because the situation would involve an individual student I believe no action should have to take place. In the same way that banners displaying messages of Allah or Yahweh should be allowed by an individual student. But of course if a particular school hung a Jesus Died 4 U banner. Then I think action should take place.
- Dave Grager
WHile i too believe that the school may be over reacting, the principle is what many are concerned with. Public schooling is the basis of socialization for the young. Free speech i free speach, no matter where you go. ALthough schools claim that its because they want to provide a learning environment, then where will it all stop. First schools, then on to other property.
"Jesus Died 4 You" still mostly likely offends someone, like the non christian community. Just as "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" did. That's why the first amendment is so important, it shouldn't be trumped.
Why should the Supreme Court have an intolerant approach to some stupid sign while allowing the KKK to spread hate and down right evil accross our country?
Like it or not, the first amendment is important. It might bring controversy but it also guarantees one of our most important freedoms.
Quite frankly, I've always been somewhat uncomfortable with any shirt that promotes any religion. While I have friends of many different religions (Christian, Muslim, and Buddhist, at least), I've always been somewhat secure in my guess that if I had worn a t-shirt to my high school that said "There Is No God, You're All Wasting Your Time" I would have been suspended promptly. As I should have been. I would be offending others' religious beliefs. Somehow, everyone seems to think it's ok to offend mine though, as long as lots of other people agree with them. To make my point clearer, how 'bout if I had a shirt that said "Satan Is The True Salvation; He Is The Bringer Of Light", would that still be ok with everyone? I know some good, decent people whose sincere belief it is that the real reason Satan was expelled from Heaven was that he dared to question God's infallibility (sp?) and thus he is the true source of truth and light, railing against fundamentalism and ignorance wherever it stands. And yet, you throw the word Satan around and everyone gets offended. Don't they have a right to express their religious beliefs in public school too? Either I can share my religious beliefs along with everyone else, or no one can, is my opinion. I know it doesn't go directly to answering the question about the kid with the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" shirt, but I guess my response is that if no religious shirts were allowed of any type, which is obviously not the case, then the boy should have been suspended, and if that's not the case, then the principal should be fired for discriminatory practices. There's also the issue, not mentioned in the original post here about how the boy wasn't at school at the time, which takes the issue even further. I've never heard whether this was during school hours (I know they were let out early to go see, I think the Olympic Torch passing through town(?), but I am not aware of whether this was during the time class would have been in session). If it was during that time, which I suspect it was, I think a reasonable case could be made that they were acting in representation of the school, and that their behavior should reflect as much, which is most likely why the principal suspended him. However, embarassed or not, if other religious shirts were being allowed, then I feel that, unfortunately for the principal's dignity, my initial argument stands.
Oh, and I also feel I should point out, in response to several people's posts, that in addition to the fact that there are some stoners out there, a few of whom I've met myself, who genuinely believe that Jesus would be supportive of smoking pot (whether this kid was one of them or just trying to make a point, I can't say), the kid wasn't even in school, and thus COULD NOT have been disrupting the learning process. One person wrote about our initial inability to agree on what's free speech and what's disruptive, saying that what one person may consider a benign act may be a disruption to another. This was said, I'm assuming from the context, in support of the boy's being suspended. Doesn't the same argument also dictate that people wearing a "Jesus Died 4 U" shirt may be disruptive to someone else though? It's an initial assumption that everyone is ok with an atheist, a Buddhist, a satanist, etc., being told by a Christian that despite their ignorant beliefs, Jesus went ahead and died for them anyway. This is tough for a lot of those people, because, on the one hand, to many people Jesus seemed like a pretty cool guy, but on the other hand, having the religious beliefs of his followers force fed to them might be a little bit hard to swallow. So I guess my point is that as long as Christians or Muslims continue to assume that non-Christians or non-Muslims are ok with their religion, I don't see why others' beliefs are the ones that are "disruptive."
What the banner said should be irrelevant at this point. The banner was displayed during the '02 Winter Olympics torch relay ACROSS THE STREET from the school...therefore, the principal had no authority to do anything.
It was not on school property, so the kid should not have been punished for anything, regardless of what happened, unless it was illegal.
Last time I checked, holding up banners was still legal, even given what it said.
The real problem here is that the principal was trying to contain a PR nightmare given the proximity to the school and the exposure of the event.
Tough.
If it's not on school property, you can't do diddly-squat about it.
In high school, there was a group of four girls who decided to publish an underground paper. However, rules said they could not distribute it on school grounds.
What did they do? They stood across the street and handed them out to cars as people pulled in. It was classic - the school couldn't do a thing.
More importantly, I am slightly disturbed at the notion that we can just censor whatever we don't like, especially in our schools. The idea that we don't have rights while we're in school is bull...they are limited, but there are still rights.
The principal clearly overstepped the bounds on this one.
If it was off the property, then I don't see anything that can justifies action against the kid. No matter what a banner says there will be people taking offense to what it says. It's sad really.
Ideally, the student's freedom of speech would take precedent over the schools anti-drug policy. But if I remember correctly, high school teachers have a pretty difficult time maintaining order while, 'baby'sitting, not to have to deal with stunts that incite chaos. At least it was a good Social Studies lesson. The student's learned a good way to get kicked out of school, and also something about civil liberties. I wonder if the "bong hits" student had any idea how political he would end up being?
Emily Clark
Free speech is a right that all of us have and take for granted in America. Unfortunetly, some speech is publically tolerated and some is not. I believe that if the young man's poster said Jesus loves you, there would be no contorversy. So I have to ask, are we really as free as we think? Or do our American freedoms only apply to certain places and situations?
schools tend to step over the line and infringe on some rights frequently to maintain order basically because the students are the school's responsibility at least while theyre on school property... the day they are able to restrict a fundamental, inalienable right such as speech will defy all values this country is supposedly based upon
-justin finlen
What if some one stood up in the middle of class and yelled something to the effect "embrace Jesus or burn in hell", would it in turn be a violation of freedom of speach if they were then punished. I see no difference in this case and the one i have described.
Craig Myers
The school has no right to get involved here because the event is a NONSCHOOL function. The school was not sponsoring the event and therefore have no legal rights to punishing the kid. Maybe if the people or organization sponsoring the event had a problem with it, then they should be fighting this legal battle.
-Sam Kerns-
Deviance is not the act, but the reaction to the act. Humans make words on T-shirts offensible and vulgar. "If we don't believe in free speech for people we despise, then we don't believe in it at all." -Chomsky
Freedom of speech has always been protected by our constitution therefore I can see how this argument has gotten this far. However, the school that the boy attended had a policy against offensive signs on school grounds and at school functions. The sign may not have been held up on school grounds but it was at a school function. When the principal asked the boy to take the sign down he refused citing that he had freedom of speech. But what if someone went to a wedding and held up a sign that said "The bride is a whore"? Sure they'd be protected by the constitution for free speech but is that appropriate for a wedding? Same principle here, the sign that the boy held up was not appropraiate for a school function so his principal had every right to tell him to take it down. In this particualr situation the argument shouldn't be about free speech, it should be about what should be considered appropriate and what's not. In this case, it is not appropriate.
I feel like this shouldn't be a big deal at all. Schools are supposed to be a safe environment that allows students to develop ideas and talk about any issue they choose. I feel like this is just exercising first amendment rights and it shouldn't be trumped.
-Katie Shale
I think that the principal was just on a power trip and wanted to show off his authority. I do understand that there should be a certain kind of atmosphere in a school but it was a harmless sign its not like it was advocating murder. And if the sign would have read "Jesus died 4 you" that would also cause some problems because that bring religion up but in a different sense, not a mocking way.
I believe that the school is overreacting. Was it in bad taste to write "Bong Hits 4 Jesus?" Maybe, but I believe that it is within the realm of free speech that should be allowed. I also believe that if the sign said "Jesus Died 4 U" then this may not have been an issue. Our country has a issue with drug references and feels the need to persecute people that use them. In America there is also a huge sympathy for allowing Christian speech without taking offense. Sometimes I get the feeling that in America to be accepted as a good person you need to align yourself with Christianity. One may often get the sense that a person is better for being a Christian and that is often used as a excuse or a defense. "But i am a Christian." Thus implying that because they believe in Jesus that they are therefore a good person. I am not trying to bash Christianity but only pointing out some observations that I have witnessed.
As for the Bush adminsitrations idea to clamp down on speech I do not support that idea at all. Haven't we given up enough freedoms after September 11th?
- Heartless Romantic -
Bong hits for everyone!!!What ever happend to this?
I think it has all been said already. The kid, though an idiot, was within his rights to have the sign. The school overreacted in typical public school fashion, and everyone loves a good media controversy.
Although the student's statements may be offesive to some people, it doens't change the fact that our country allows him the right to voice his opinion. Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental freedoms our country is based upon. As to effecting the educational enviornment, if anything the student's statments evoked thought and consideration on matters such as freedom of speech and religion. I dont belive the boy's words are harmful in any way.
I believe school has a role to play in discplining students.
schools shouldn't only be viewed as a place for theory. infact schools second biggest role should be discpline.The best schools not only give education but they teach students how to be respectful to other opnions and ideas.openmindeness is centre stage at this point.Are students openminded enough to accept other views without critisizing other peoples views.the only way students will learn is through parents or school.i firmly beleive the principal desreves thumbs up.
I imagine that the content of the message would matter differently, but free speech is not an inalienable right in the school the same as it is on the street. A teacher and principal has a responsiblity to, in part, maintain control and keep out things that are legitimately offensive, even though I do not find this statement to be so, some might.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home