Public School = Facism?

[Diamond Cross]

High court hears 'Bong hits 4 Jesus' case

POSTED: 2258 GMT (0658 HKT), March 19, 2007

By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Adjust font size:



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Monday debated the case of a high school principal who suspended a student over a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," banner displayed at a school-sponsored event.
The free-speech case tests the limits of student messages officials could try to suppress.

Joseph Frederick, then 18, unveiled the 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school. Principal Deborah Morse confiscated it and later suspended the young man.
At issue was whether Frederick's free-speech rights were violated and the discretion schools should be allowed to limit messages that appear to advocate illegal drug use.

(Watch why "bong hits" are on the court's plate )

"Bong," as noted in the appeal filed with the justices, "is a slang term for drug paraphernalia."

"It was completely disruptive of the message, of the theme that the school wanted to promote," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, in support of the school.

Justice David Souter expressed some concern. "It's political speech, it seems to me," he said. "I don't see what it disrupts, unless disruption simply means any statement of disagreement with a position officially adopted by the school."

The incident occurred in January 2002 just outside school grounds when the Olympic torch relay was moving through the Alaska capital on its way to the Salt Lake City, Utah, Winter Games.

Though he was standing on a public sidewalk, the school argues Frederick was part of a school-sanctioned event, because students were let out of classes and accompanied by their teachers.
Morse ordered the senior to take down the sign, but he refused.

That led to a 10-day suspension for violating a school policy on promoting illegal drug use.

Frederick filed suit, saying his First Amendment rights were infringed. A federal appeals court in San Francisco agreed, concluding the school could not show Frederick had disrupted the school's educational mission by showing a banner off campus.

Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr argued for the principal that a school "must be able to fashion its educational mission" without undue hindsight from the courts.

That brought swift skepticism from some justices.

"There was no classroom here," said Kennedy.

"This was education outside a classroom," replied Starr of the torch relay observation.

"What did it disrupt on the sidewalk?" asked Souter of Frederick's banner.

"The educational mission of the school," was Starr's answer.

"The school can make any rule that it wants on any subject restrictive of speech, and if anyone violates it, it's disruptive?" asked Souter.

Justice Samuel Alito, alone among his conservative bench mates, appeared sharply critical of the school's position

"I find that a very, very disturbing argument," he said, "because schools have and they can define their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all sorts of political speech and speech expressing fundamental values of the students, under the banner of getting rid of speech that's inconsistent with educational missions."

Several on the bench tried to test the limits of what kinds of speech the schools could control. Many were clearly grasping at a proper balance.

Justice John Roberts wondered whether a button that said

"Legalize Marijuana" would be political speech.
Souter asked about whether a "substantial disruption" would exist if a student flashed a small sign in class saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

What about a button that advocated rape, asked Kennedy.

Or a button that read "Extortion is profitable" said Justice Antonin Scalia.

"Suppose that this particular person had whispered to his next door neighbor, 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus, heh heh heh,' " speculated Justice Stephen Breyer.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested Frederick's banner was ambiguous enough not to support claims he was promoting illegal drug use. "One can look at these words and say it's just nonsense," she said. "It isn't clear that this is 'Smoke Pot.' "

Souter called it "just a kid's provocative statement."
Frederick's lawyer, Douglas Mertz of the Alaska ACLU, received equally tough questions from most of the justices when he suggested the case was "about free speech."

"It's a case about money," said Roberts of Frederick's lawsuit against his former principal.

Kennedy asked Mertz whether his client "would waive damages against this principal who has devoted her life to the school, and you're seeking damages for her for this sophomoric sign that was held up?"
<H3>Schools can limit student speech</H3>While the Supreme Court has said students do not give up all their First Amendment rights when they enter the classroom setting, they have ruled schools have the power to limit their speech.
Starr, who is representing the school free on behalf of his Los Angeles law firm, urged the high court to clear up the "doctrinal fog infecting student speech jurisprudence."

Morse, who attended Monday's court session, is hoping for closure.

"I was empowered to enforce the school board's written policies at that time aimed at keeping illegal substances out of the school environment," she said afterward. "As a consequence, that day in fulfilling my duties I found myself a defendant in a lawsuit that's gone on for over five years. I'm hopeful that the court's decision will give administrators better guidance and clarity on their roles."

Frederick is teaching English to students in China and did not attend the oral arguments. The 24-year-old told reporters two weeks ago that he displayed the banner in a deliberate attempt to provoke a response from principal Morse.

"I find it absurdly funny," he said. "I was not promoting drugs. ... I assumed most people would take it as a joke."

A ruling is expected by late June.

High*court*hears 'Bong hits 4 Jesus' case - CNN.com

I feel that the public schools should keep out of the private lives of their students. Parenting is not their job. Anything that happens outside of school grounds is overreaching their authority and intrudes upon parent's rights.

[thomez]

Some of us have talked about this before - we decided that since it was a school event that he deserved to get in trouble - basically it was like a field trip.

[JaJae]

It was a school related function. The school has authority there. If it were his backyard that's one thing.

[Ardentfrost]

I'm not sure what you're talking about Thomez, I know I've always said the problem with having gov't-run anything is that they need to abide by all rules for the gov't, including freedom of speech (no matter how disruptive the message). This is why private schools are better because private organizations are completely allowed to infringe on personal rights as long as they don't force the people to be a member of the organization (eg., slave labor isn't ok, but telling someone they can't say shit else be fired/kicked out/etc... is ok)

The gov't run school system is forced on people who can't afford private schools (except in those states who offer vouchers), therefore it is pretty much the same as slavery anyway (without the manual labor... usually).

[Ardentfrost]

Oh, I forgot to say that if we allow schools to infringe on personal liberties, we might as well be brain-washing children into thinking it's ok for the gov't to tell them what to do. Again, it's different in the case of private schools.

[Thorgrim]

quick side note i know ill regret posting

it's not just a matter of money Arden, the best private schools don't want public school kids, you know who does? Religious and otherwise sectarian schools, sometimes who run worse programs than their public school counter-parts

There are many catholic high schools that are in pretty bad shape right next to shiny better-equipped, better paid faculty public high schools

you wanna talk about charter schools? they cut out expensive students or their benefits (kids in wheelchairs) which is not only pretty pathetic but absolute greed...this is why the market shouldn't have absolute control over schools\

There are wonderful suburban high PUBLIC elementary schools that send kids to the neighboring PUBLIC high schools that send those kids to Harvard, and they end up at Yale Law or John Hopkins Med School...these are not freak occurances

We just need to multiply what those schools do, and implement what PUBLIC japanese and european schools do to get success, and we'll have a much better system

[thomez]

The kid has no right to disturb a school related function. I'm in schools every single day, if kids were allowed to do whatever they wanted and use the Bill of Rights as an excuse, nobody would be able to learn anything.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

it's not just a matter of money Arden, the best private schools don't want public school kids, you know who does? Religious and otherwise sectarian schools, sometimes who run worse programs than their public school counter-parts

There are many catholic high schools that are in pretty bad shape right next to shiny better-equipped, better paid faculty public high schools

you wanna talk about charter schools? they cut out expensive students or their benefits (kids in wheelchairs) which is not only pretty pathetic but absolute greed...this is why the market shouldn't have absolute control over schools\

None of this is true. It has been proven, over and over again, that private, religious, and charter schools run better programs and have better results than public schools.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by lew

None of this is true. It has been proven, over and over again, that private, religious, and charter schools run better programs and have better results than public schools.

on average, this of course is true

affluent public districts seem to do rather well too IMO

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by thomez

on average, this of course is true

affluent public districts seem to do rather well too IMO

So you are saying that more money means better schools? Shocking.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

So you are saying that more money means better schools? Shocking.

I would say better administrations mean better schools. And the better administrators probably like to make the most money that they can.

[kinggovernor]

of course Kennedy supports the school

[Roonie]

bong hits for Jesus.........

[Rouger2]

The law says schools can restrict the free speech of students and I think that is very right. The vast majority of students are not in full control of themselves. They are not grown and they need direction until they are. So they are not given full rights. In all states they cannot drive or drink until they are grown. The schools along with the parents are part of their maturation process. We teach our children all about being free but we should be teaching them much much more about responcibility.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by thomez

The kid has no right to disturb a school related function. I'm in schools every single day, if kids were allowed to do whatever they wanted and use the Bill of Rights as an excuse, nobody would be able to learn anything.

This is a very close call. First of all Freedom of speech and expression is a personal right not to be infriged by the government. That does not give anyone a licence to express themselves in anyway shape or form on property and in institutions they do not own. Try your disruptive freedom of speech in a court room and see how fast you are held in contempt! So in that way the school has every right to control the orderly functions of a school environment for the purpose of learning. That is their mandate.

What bothers me is this was an after school event and it occured off school property. The young man was being disrespectful, but I think he had that right. I vote this is out of the reach of the school.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

What bothers me is this was an after school event and it occured off school property. The young man was being disrespectful, but I think he had that right. I vote this is out of the reach of the school.

It is not out of the reach of the school if it is a school function, accompanied by school staff. That appears to me to be what this was.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I feel that the public schools should keep out of the private lives of their students. Parenting is not their job. Anything that happens outside of school grounds is overreaching their authority and intrudes upon parent's rights.
[/b]

I totally agree. But this kid fucked up by intentionally doing it at a school function, WELL WITHIN the school's jurisdiction.

Please get your facts straight before forming an opinion.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The gov't run school system is forced on people who can't afford private schools

They can always home school.

...... therefore it is pretty much the same as slavery anyway (without the manual labor... usually).

This is idiotic. You're equating compulsory education with slavery? Are speed limits another form of slavery, too?

[7960]

Originally Posted by lew

None of this is true. It has been proven, over and over again, that private, religious, and charter schools run better programs and have better results than public schools.

None of this is true. It has been proven that public school, up until high school, does the same or BETTER than private school.

[7960]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

What bothers me is this was an after school event and it occured off school property.

1. it was during school (kids were let out of class to go see it)

2. the event was chaperoned by school faculty/staff/administration

3. although the kid wasn't in school in the morning, he intentionally chose to join his class, so HE decided to make himself part of the school event.


He could have kept himself separate from the school activity and displayed his sign and it would have been perfectly fine. But HE chose to involve himself with the school activity so HE chose to fall under the school's rules.