'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' Case...

[IminWonderland]

High court to get 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case?

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) -- Former Whitewater special counsel Kenneth Starr petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Alaska's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, a dispute involving a high school student, a banner and a tough school policy.

Starr, who gained national prominence while investigating former President Clinton's Whitewater land deal and relationship with Monica Lewinsky, filed the petition Monday on behalf of the Juneau School District in response to a March ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court sided with a high school student who displayed a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" during an Olympic torch relay in 2002. It ruled former Juneau-Douglas High School principal Deborah Morse violated former student Joseph Frederick's free speech rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court petition must receive a minimum of four of the nine justices' votes to be heard.

Frederick, then a senior, was off school property when he hoisted the banner but was suspended for violating the school's policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event.

"The principal's actions were so outrageous, basically leaving school grounds and punishing a student for a message that is not damaging to the school," said his attorney, Doug Mertz.

Superintendent Peggy Cowan said clarification is needed on the rights of administrators when it comes to disciplinary action of students who break the district's drug message policy.

"The district's decision to move forward is not disrespectful to the First Amendment or the rights of students," she said. "This is an important question about how the First Amendment applies to pro-drug messages in an educational setting."

Starr, of the Los Angeles-based firm Kirkland & Ellis, took the case pro bono.

The outcome could have implications on how student-conduct policies are enforced around the nation, said Eric Hagen, one of two other attorneys from Starr's office named on the petition.

"It makes it a little harder when teachers and principals in their daily duties might be subject to a damages lawsuit and be held personally liable," Hagen said.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


CNN.com - High court to get 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case? - Aug 29, 2006





In January 2002, Joseph Fredrick, a student at JDHS, unfurled a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across from the school in an effort to get on television as the Olympic torch relay passed the school. The principal at the time, Deborah Morse, took the banner from him and suspended him for ten days, on the grounds that the banner opposed the school's mission and anti-drug policy. On March 10, 2006, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that Morse had violated Frederick's right to free speech, overturning an earlier Alaskan federal court ruling. Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote in the court's opinion, "Public schools are instrumentalities of government, and government is not entitled to suppress speech that undermines whatever missions it defines for itself." Fredrick was also cleared to seek damages from Morse. - wikipedia.org


I don't believe that he should get money from the principal for getting suspended.

But I also don't think that he should have been suspended. I believe that the Judge's last quote about a self defining mission is a good point. Because if a government school makes its own "Mission", and imposes it on the students, to me that is out of the bounds of what the school is supposed to be doing in this regard. Not only that....he was across the street, not AT the school, and there is a difference.

Any thoughts? I think cases like this are interesting.

[Kytro]

What interests me is the idea of a school being able to control a student's behaviour outside of the school.

I don't think that this is at all reasonable.

[Stylerod]

I'm not sure. It says it was a school sanctioned event. If the whole school was there to watch and he just crossed the street to face everyone with his sign I can see why the principle would suspend him. I mean, he was sending a pro-drug message to the entire school. But I can also see where it might be a free speech issue. I'm split on this one.

[7960]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I don't believe that he should get money from the principal for getting suspended.

Agreed

But I also don't think that he should have been suspended.

Agreed

I believe that the Judge's last quote about a self defining mission is a good point. Because if a government school makes its own "Mission", and imposes it on the students, to me that is out of the bounds of what the school is supposed to be doing in this regard.

Agreed

Not only that....he was across the street, not AT the school, and there is a difference.

That's why he'll win if it gets to the supreme court. "Across the street" might as well have been "and down the road 4 or 5 miles"...no difference. The principal is using the "at a school sanctioned event" language to make it seem like they were on a field trip....unless they really *were* taking time from school to go out and see the torch, in which case they *were* at a school sanctioned event and he should get in trouble.

Any thoughts? I think cases like this are interesting.

IMO if they were supposed to be in class and they went outside to see the torch go by then he should get in trouble because it was a school sanctioned event and he violated the policy.

If it was before or after school or if he was properly dismissed from school (or even if he skipped school that day) then the school and principal are SOL.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

What interests me is the idea of a school being able to control a student's behaviour outside of the school.

I don't think that this is at all reasonable.

The whole question comes down to whether it was a school sanctioned event or not. See my post above.



edit: the kid should get in trouble.

He was among students who had been let out of class to see the event.
Law.com - 9th Circuit: 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' Banner Was Free Speech

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I don't believe that he should get money from the principal for getting suspended.

I doubt he was asking for money. The usual remedy for infringement of constitutional rights is an injunction, not money damages. Essentially, the student ('s attorneys) are asking for a court order that would prevent the school from taking disciplinary action against students for their speech off campus.

(the issue could be framed more or less broad, but the idea is to prevent the school from doing to same thing again)

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by 7960

The whole question comes down to whether it was a school sanctioned event or not. See my post above.



edit: the kid should get in trouble.

He was among students who had been let out of class to see the event.
Law.com - 9th Circuit: 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' Banner Was Free Speech

I agree. The principle was correct in suspending him.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I agree. The principle was correct in suspending him.

Yep. I can't believe the judges who agree with him are basing their opinion on "Kleinfeld wrote that 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' may be funny, stupid, or insulting, depending on one's point of view,' but it was not 'plainly offensive' in the manner of sexual innuendo."

This is no different than if he held that banner up in the gym at an assembly. I wonder if the judges would say he has the "right" do to that, too?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I agree. The principle was correct in suspending him.

I dunno. Just because the school wants to supress your freedom of speech doesn't mean that it can. Remember that issue, I don't remember the name of the case, but where the kids were wearing black arm bands in protest of the vietnam war? The school tried to prevent them from wearing those bands , it went to the supreme court and thier right to free speech was upheld.

[WickedLou9]

This is probably relevant:

The Supreme Court: Landmark Education Cases

It lists pretty much every major supreme court ruling on education related issues.

the important ones:

Tinker v. DesMoines Independent Community School District (1969): Court upheld the right of students to wear black arm bands as a sign of protest against the Vietnam War.

Private student expression was constitutionally protected as long as it does not “materially and substantially” interfere with the appropriate discipline in operation at the school or collide with the rights of others.

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986): Ruling upheld the power of authorities to censor lewd, vulgar, and indecent student expression. This decision empowers school officials to impose appropriate dress codes that do not discriminate on the content of students’ messages and are not discriminatorily enforced.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988): Case upheld the power of public school officials to censor student expression in school newspapers and other school-sponsored activities as long as the censorship decisions are rooted in pedagogical concerns.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I dunno. Just because the school wants to supress your freedom of speech doesn't mean that it can. Remember that issue, I don't remember the name of the case, but where the kids were wearing black arm bands in protest of the vietnam war? The school tried to prevent them from wearing those bands , it went to the supreme court and thier right to free speech was upheld.

Yes, but you left off the rest of the decision.

Tinker v. DesMoines Independent Community School District (1969): Court upheld the right of students to wear black arm bands as a sign of protest against the Vietnam War.

Private student expression was constitutionally protected as long as it does not “materially and substantially” interfere with the appropriate discipline in operation at the school or collide with the rights of others.

There's a difference between wearing an arm band and displaying a banner supporting or encouraging drug use.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I dunno. Just because the school wants to supress your freedom of speech doesn't mean that it can.

If you are at a school related activity, school rules still apply. Like if they are on a field trip. All school rules don't just "go away" because they aren't on school property anymore.

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Remember that issue, I don't remember the name of the case, but where the kids were wearing black arm bands in protest of the vietnam war? The school tried to prevent them from wearing those bands , it went to the supreme court and thier right to free speech was upheld.

They weren't doing anything that supported an illegal activity. So they should have the right to wear them (as long as the school doesn't have a written dress code).

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

Yes, but you left off the rest of the decision.

Tinker v. DesMoines Independent Community School District (1969): Court upheld the right of students to wear black arm bands as a sign of protest against the Vietnam War.

Private student expression was constitutionally protected as long as it does not “materially and substantially” interfere with the appropriate discipline in operation at the school or collide with the rights of others.

There's a difference between wearing an arm band and displaying a banner supporting or encouraging drug use.

not really. Your right to free speech is still there even if you are advocating drug use or legalizing drugs. The only question is, did that banner "interfere with the appropriate discipline in operation at the school or collide with the rights of others"

I don't know.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

not really. Your right to free speech is still there even if you are advocating drug use or legalizing drugs. The only question is, did that banner "interfere with the appropriate discipline in operation at the school or collide with the rights of others"

I don't know.

So you think he should be able to put up banners in school too?

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

not really. Your right to free speech is still there even if you are advocating drug use or legalizing drugs. The only question is, did that banner "interfere with the appropriate discipline in operation at the school or collide with the rights of others"

I don't know.

Yes really. The qualifier "as long as it does not" means that students' free speech is not universal and there are restrictions.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

Yes really. The qualifier "as long as it does not" means that students' free speech is not universal and there are restrictions.

right... but I don't know that this case is restricted. simply because a person is advocating drug use does not, in and of itself , mean that his free speech is not protected.
The question is: Does this particular expression of free speech ""interfere with the appropriate discipline in operation at the school or collide with the rights of others"


Clearly it does not collide with the rights of others.. So then what is meant by "interfere with the appropriate discipline "

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The question is: Does this particular expression of free speech ""interfere with the appropriate discipline in operation at the school or collide with the rights of others"

IMO yes.

Answer this question..... should/could he be disciplined for hoisting that banner at an assembly?

Then we'll discuss this "but you didn't tell me I *couldn't* do it" generation.

[thomez]

How

[Scrum]

I wonder if they would be going through all this if his sign said "Sacramental Wine 4 Jesus"?
I'm sure their policy is against alcohol use too.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I wonder if they would be going through all this if his sign said "Sacramental Wine 4 Jesus"?
I'm sure their policy is against alcohol use too.

Hell, the way things are now I'm surprised he didn't get 20 days. 10 for drug reference and 10 for Jesus reference.