I was reading the paper today and well this kind of got my interest for various reasons, so I thought I would make a topic of it to hear different views on it.

Link to story

It seems that a senior got an idea or more the point maybe thought he found a place to spread that idea, unfortunately it seems as if the school board did not take kindly to it. Now it seems as if Kenneth Starr will be again in the news also.

So for debate.

1) In relation to other threads we have had do you find that the student should be able to do such under free speech?

2) What actual harm has this done to anyone involved that would deny the student to be able to use free speech in such a manner?

Hey- this is from my state! -

1) In relation to other threads we have had do you find that the student should be able to do such under free speech?

Some facts of the case first- this happened in Juneau- typically, a liberal stronghold in a very conservative state- just for background- liberal here meaning slightly right of center in Alaska, in reality.

this kid wanted to get on TV- he had no desire to make a political statement- he just wanted to be on TV- during a parade- so, on a saturday, no school, not a school function, he held up this banner- Juneau is a small town, though not that small of population- but it is incredibly isolated- there is no roads in or out ! - okay- principle sees him, runs over to him, rips the banner out of his hands, throws it on the ground, castigates the kid on ths spot, and expells him when he comes back to school.

this is absolutely a free speech issue- and the principle DESERVES to be sued as a private citizen, and I personally hope it ruins her whole life as an example to over-zealous principles everywhere. Of COURSE she should be personally liable for her behavior- it happened off school grounds, she did it because her school had one stance on this issue- and the kid didn't give a fig about it off campus- and the school should have absolutely 0 latitude to discipline a students speech or political behavior OUTSIDE school, as long as violence is not the behavior- or rather, felony criminal behavior of any kind.

2) What actual harm has this done to anyone involved that would deny the student to be able to use free speech in such a manner?

0 none nada. No harm was done to the school district- in fact, had the crazy principle NOT done what she had done- there would have been 0 publicity for this, and, in fact, it would be said that the only harm done to the school's image by the principle than by the student, by a wide margin. She is a straight up moron for her behavior. Cost the district alot of money to defend her so far as well.

Here is a quote from the cited article in the starting post of this thread.


I'd have to say that the appeals courts decided correctly in this issue. This is a clear violation of the students First Amendent rights. That principle deserved to be sued.

this is absolutely a free speech issue- and the principle DESERVES to be sued as a private citizen, and I personally hope it ruins her whole life as an example to over-zealous principles everywhere.

Quoted from CR.

While I agree that I think maybe this has gotten a bit out of hand, I do think that being it was a school held event that the student maybe went to far in regards to not only brandishing Jesus but drugs, its a two for one deal

I mean I have to hand it to the kid, its almost a perfect or strategic hit really on what I think is a large issue in America right now. Who knows how it would have played out if it were crack pipes for Jesus, or cocaine for Buddha. I guess we will never know.

When you say "gone too far"- that would be the problem I have with it- it had 'gone too far" because he unfurled something the principle didn't agree with at a public rally? I think that pretty much DEFINES free speech right there- in it's most elemental form. AND- I don't know if your link provided this- but I will see if I can find it in the ADN- it was in our paper this morning- one thing is that she KNEW that she was violating his rights, and said as much publically.

Some salient points in the ADN:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/8458738p-8352569c.html

The appeals court said that even if the banner could be construed as an endorsement of marijuana use, the school could not punish or censor a student's speech because it promotes a social message contrary to one the school favors.

Next one:

The appeals panel said she could be held liable because she admitted to being aware of the pertinent case law regarding student rights. The court said the law was clear and Morse was aware of it when she punished Frederick.

Tax payer money should not pay one thin dime for her defense.

I don't know, something just seems off to me about the whole situation. I don't remember as kid in school that it was an ok thing to simply just start talking about dope in class, or a field trip for that matter. I am not saying what the kid did was wrong but on that note I don't really see what the principal did as wrong either, so I am overall confused on the matter. I am sure schools are required to have some degree of responsibility overall, I don't think basically allowing drugs to be "cool" is something that would float for to long.

I mean the kid may have had a reason for doing such at the event or not, and I guess such needs to be taking into account, but as an adult, or for someone say 18, I don't think walking to high school with a shotgun for the heck of it would fly, even if the kid simply wanted to make a point.

So overall I am just a bit confused over the whole situation and yes, I do think that things may have evolved a bit past what they may have ever needed to be all around the board. I understand free speech and think such of course is of vital importance to safeguard, but on that note I do also understand that schools may want a degree of general civil order at public schools, religion and drugs probably being issues of large importance in regards to such.

I understand the confusion- no problem- but I have a HUGE problem with what the principle did- I wish she had been charged with assault as well- since she did physically attack the kid by ripping the banner out of his hands.

In Juneau- you can't get away from the school- you have to see the geography and living situation of the place- it is on the very, very narrow strip of land that is surrouneded by fiord like mountains and ocean. Parts of the city are barely 100 yards wide!

1) he was NOT under the supervision of the school at this time- they were excused from school to attend this event- if you are not under the supervision of a teacher or designated school rep, you are not in school- so, he was NOT in school.

2) A banner is NOT a shotgun, not even close. One is speech, the other, threatening with a deadly weapon, and even more importantly - he was NOT on school grounds- he would have been perfectly legal to carry that same shotgun where he was standing, and with no sanction on him legally if his parents said he could have it, and did not use it irresponsibly- good analogy though- because he would have faced FAR less problems HAD he carried a shotgun in this gun loving state!

3) the school WAS NOT in charge of ANY "civil order" at this time- the kids were excused from school- I believe that kid had every right to fly a NORML flag as well- and probably would have been better off for doing this- as it would have been a clear political statement as well.

4) Off school grounds- a school has NO right to FORCE any 'civil order" on a student that disagrees with the schools position or idealogy- in fact, this ideology was quite stupid, and needed to be made fun of. Yes, keeping kids off drugs is important- but off campus, it is the parents biz, NOT the schools- very big brother here, don't ya think?

Really- the boy commited no crime or offense, while the principle was an unruly attacker, and really should have been jailed for her assault as well.

The school has NO RIGHT to discipline a student that thinks or says "drugs are cool" outside of the school grounds themselves, as the court has said- the school has NO right to discipline a kid for his NON CRIMINAL behavior outside school grounds, under supervision, for the kid saying 180* different than what the school is promoting- it is the very tenent of free speech- to disagree with what 'the man" is saying, and he was punished unjustly for it, and Morse should pay and pay.

Well then if such were truly not a school based event then I cant see why the principal did what it did, to me it sounds as if an assault charge could be run then.

So what is the principal standing on then, I think if I was in those shoes I would have giving an apology and whatever else that was needed to make amends.

She no longer works in or lives in Juneau- to answer that question!

1) In relation to other threads we have had do you find that the student should be able to do such under free speech?

Let's see, bong hits 4 Jesus. Just what is this saying?

Bong:

1. a dull, resonant sound, as of a large bell.
–v.i.
2. to produce this sound: The church bell bonged promptly at noon.
[1855–60; imit.]

bong2 (bong, bông), n.
a type of hookah or water pipe for smoking marijuana or other drugs.

(Webster's Unabridged)

Okay, which is it, a sound, making the sound or a type of hookah?

It's not clear, is it.

Hit:

1. to deal a blow or stroke to: Hit the nail with the hammer.
2. to come against with an impact or collision, as a missile, a flying fragment, a falling body, or the like: The car hit the tree.
3. to reach with a missile, a weapon, a blow, or the like, as one throwing, shooting, or striking: Did the bullet hit him?
4. to succeed in striking: With his final shot he hit the mark.
5. Baseball.
a. to make (a base hit): He hit a single and a home run.
b. bat1 (def. 14).
6. to drive or propel by a stroke: to hit a ball onto the green.
7. to have a marked effect or influence on; affect severely: We were all hit by the change in management.
8. to assail effectively and sharply (often fol. by out): The speech hits out at warmongering.
9. to request or demand of: He hit me for a loan.
10. to reach or attain (a specified level or amount): Prices are expected to hit a new low. The new train can hit 100 mph.
11. to be published in or released to; appear in: When will this report hit the papers? What will happen when the story hits the front page?
12. to land on or arrive in: The troops hit the beach at 0800. When does Harry hit town?
13. to give (someone) another playing card, drink, portion, etc.: If the dealer hits me with an ace, I'll win the hand. Bartender, hit me again.
14. to come or light upon; meet with; find: to hit the right road.
15. to agree with; suit exactly: I'm sure this purple shirt will hit Alfred's fancy.
16. to solve or guess correctly; come upon the right answer or solution: You've hit it!
17. to succeed in representing or producing exactly: to hit a likeness in a portrait.
18. Informal. to begin to travel on: Let's hit the road. What time shall we hit the trail?
–v.i.
19. to strike with a missile, a weapon, or the like; deal a blow or blows: The armies hit at dawn.
20. to come into collision (often fol. by against, on, or upon): The door hit against the wall.
21. Slang. to kill; murder.
22. (of an internal-combustion engine) to ignite a mixture of air and fuel as intended: This jalopy is hitting on all cylinders.
23. to come or light (usually fol. by upon or on): to hit on a new way.
24. hit it off, Informal. to be congenial or compatible; get along; agree: We hit it off immediately with the new neighbors. She and her brother had never really hit it off.
25. hit off,
a. to represent or describe precisely or aptly: In his new book he hits off the American temperament with amazing insight.
b. to imitate, esp. in order to satirize.
26. hit on, Slang. to make persistent sexual advances to: guys who hit on girls at social events.
27. hit out,
a. to deal a blow aimlessly: a child hitting out in anger and frustration.
b. to make a violent verbal attack: Critics hit out at the administration's new energy policy.
28. hit the books, Slang. to study hard; cram.
29. hit the bottle, Slang. See bottle (def. 4).
30. hit the high spots,
a. to go out on the town; go nightclubbing: We'll hit the high spots when you come to town.
b. to do something in a quick or casual manner, paying attention to only the most important or obvious facets or items: When I clean the house I hit the high spots and that's about all. This course will hit the high spots of ancient history.
31. hit up, Slang.
a. to ask to borrow money from: He hit me up for ten bucks.
b. to inject a narcotic drug into a vein.
–n.
32. an impact or collision, as of one thing against another.
33. a stroke that reaches an object; blow.
34. a stroke of satire, censure, etc.: a hit at complacency.
35. Baseball. See base hit.
36. Backgammon.
a. a game won by a player after the opponent has thrown off one or more men from the board.
b. any winning game.
37. a successful stroke, performance, or production; success: The play is a hit.
38. Slang. a dose of a narcotic drug.
39.
a. Computers. (in information retrieval) an instance of successfully locating an item of data in the memory bank of a computer.
b. an instance of accessing a Web site.
40. Slang. a killing, murder, or assassination, esp. one carried out by criminal prearrangements.
41. hit or miss, without concern for correctness or detail; haphazardly: The paint job had been done hit or miss.

4:

It's a whole number between 3 and 5.

Jesus:


1. Also called Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, JeÆsus of NazÆareth. born 4? B.C., crucified A.D. 29?, the source of the Christian religion.
2. (“the Son of Sirach”) the author of the Apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, who lived in the 3rd century B.C.
3. Christian Science. the supreme example of God's nature expressed through human beings.
4. Also, Je·sús (Sp. he sÁsÆ). a male given name.
–interj.
5. (used as an oath or strong expression of disbelief, dismay, awe, disappointment, pain, etc.)

Okay, looks like we can interpret this message in many different ways, most of which don't make sense. Actually, none of them do. It's Jabberwocky nonsense.

Seems that some people think the message means something to this effect: Praise Jesus by smoking marijuana in a hookah. Except that's not what the message actually says if one goes by the meanings of the words and number, which one would hope a school principal would do, being that such principal should actually know the English language.

As for Ken Starr, he's already demonstrated that his English ain't anyone else's English. But I guess he has a pro bono on for this thing.

Anyway, pot is not a narcotic drug as those are derived from poppy seed pods, which is a different plant species. So the hookah meaning of bong can't hold, because hit in its 38th meaning has to do with narcotics. Can't think crack either, as that comes from the coca plant, which isn't a poppy and grows in S. America, not Afghanistan.

Sorry the government has had this wrong for the last thirty or forty years or so. Marijuana is not a narcotic, never has been and never will be.

4 is simply a number. It has no meaning beyond that unless a qualifier is added, as in Four Calling Birds.

And what is Jesus doing in there? Lord only knows. Maybe he's one of the student's friends.

2) What actual harm has this done to anyone involved that would deny the student to be able to use free speech in such a manner?

It's going to the USSC! Holy Crikey, how ridiculous can some people be? Up here I blame the altitude, but out there? Must be the chilly weather restricting blood circulation to the brain. Or maybe it's being so close to living as part of the food chain, and not as the top predator. I don't know, but someone did not engage brain before putting body into gear, and it wasn't the student.

I think this whole thing is extremely funny. I also don't expect the USSC to take on the case, although who knows with the new judges in there.

Nobody should ever advise the world to strike a sound with the number 4 to support this guy from Peru who's an exchange student in Juneau, you know?

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

(don't ever say that either)

1) In relation to other threads we have had do you find that the student should be able to do such under free speech?

The pertinent point (in my view) is whether or not this was a school sanctioned event.

The event happened during school hours, on a school day, on school property (for the most part, although Frederick was across the street). The students were allowed to attend the event (in the parking lot of the school) and were released from school to do so. The pep band played at the event, the school's cheerleaders were at the event and teachers supervised the event. It can certainly be assumed that the students who are outside of the high school, during school hours, with teachers and administrators present are under the supervision of the school officials who are there.

The appellate court admits that this was a school sanctioned event.

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is clearly a message promoting marijuana use. Anyone that says otherwise is simply being asinine

So, if this is a school sanctioned event, is the message one that can be properly regulated by the school.

In Alaska, this question is difficult. In Alaska (as opposed to most other states), marijuana use is a political issue. The student in question was 18 at the time and this brings further complications into the issue. The appellate court skirted this issues (although it mentions them without ruling on them). In my opinion, this seems to be a somewhat political issue.

The court does some real legal gymnastics to avoid using that argument. Instead, it relies on a case involving anti-war black arm bands that were worn in school. The parallels are dicey at best. The court says:



This is curious. Assuming marijuana use is illegal in Alaska (I believe it is), this line of reasoning doesn't seem to apply at all, since the court skirts the issue of whether or not "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is a politic message. If it is political (as I agree it could be) then the parallel holds. If it is a message advocating illegal behavior (which the circuit court seems to be implying), then the decision is clearly a different one. The school should not be required to allow messages which advocate illegal behavior.

I would rule that this is protected political speech because the issue of drug legalization is a viable, current political issue in Alaska. Were this a different state, I'd probably rule the other way.

The question I'd ask is whether or not the school would be permitted to censor a T shirt that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus". I'd say that would be within their prerogative and so the sign would also be a within that prerogative.

In Alaska, however, since the student was 18, and never arrived at school, and drug legalization is a political issue, it would be similar any other political rally.

I'd be curious as to the answers here if the message has read "Alaskans 4 Jesus" what the replies would be. Very curious. I'm sure then the audience would be captive and forced to endure an overtly religion message.

2) What actual harm has this done to anyone involved that would deny the student to be able to use free speech in such a manner?

The speech advocates illegal behavior, at a school event. It harms the school if the message could be interpreted as the school's endorsement of the message by its allowing it to be there. It also undermines the school's anti-drug message (assuming it has one, like just about every other school in the country). Thes question is whether or not this damage rising to the level that allows the school to suppress the speech.

I certainly would not hold the principal personally liable (for the limited damage done to the student). He had admitted his motivation was media attention and he certainly has received that. The principal's behavior furthered his aims, rather than stifled them. In fact, since the district court gave summary judgement in favor of the school, I'd certainly question the appellate court's argument that the principal "Should have known better" (perhaps the district court "should have known better" than to rule the way it did ).

Amlord- currently- with some debate as well- Marijuana is legal in Alaska- as of this time right now- it is a case working it's way through our state supreme- our privacy clause is the strongest in the nation- which makes me proud BTW- -

But at this time, it is legal. Can't tell you next week, but for now, it is.

IN all practicality, it is impossible to make it illegal in our state without a constitutional change (state constitution of course)

FWIW- if it were "Alaskans for 4 Jesus"- if someone would have ripped the sign out of his hands- I would have felt the same way- he is an adult, OFF school grounds (crossing the street in Juneau means you are either in the ocean or climbing a mountain- it is about one street wide BTW- you have to understand the geography of Juneau- when you say "across the street" it is the same as "across town" )

Marijuana is still illegal at the federal llevel, of course

The principal should have ignored the behavior. He evidently took the student's bait.

The student's message was a silly one, and realistically I cannot see where it would encourage breaking the law any more than any number of programs on Comedy Central do.

I can remember when a student was running for Student Government president in high school. In an assembly, he stated, "The administration sucks." Many of us gasped and waited for the principal or one of the teachers to escort him off school grounds. Bear in mind that this was in 1970 when students generally did not talk that way, never mind in front of a live microphone.

I asked one of the teachers later on why they didn't punish the student for what he said. He replied that leaving the student alone rather than making an issue of what he had said made the student look "even smaller."

The student in question did not win the election.

I believe the administration and teachers acted prudently in not feeling compelled to respond to what the student said. Had this Alaskan high school principal ignored the 18-year-old student's sign, there would be no story.

Possession of authority does not necessitate some kind of action in every situation and indeed, taking action at every perceived challenge to that authority can be unwise, especially when the challenge is petty and silly.
Instead, there is a lawsuit. This could end up costing the school system, Ken Starr's pro bono services notwithstanding.

gordo:

I suppose that the fitting counterprotest would have been along the lines of, no, you can't smoke it, but it is a plant yielding seed, so you can eat it, provided that it won't otherwise harm you. That would be my reading of Jesus' reading of the applicable passage from the Torah [see Genesis 1:29: And God said, 'Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.'].

Now for rich irony, well, how does this play out? We have conflicting decisions re the school speeches and, well, this one here is already rich, I mean, Bong Hits 4 Jesus doesn't exactly sound like what most of us adults would consider respectable and/or serious proselytizing, so no danger of that soon coming theocracy, so it's protected speech. Now change "Bong Hits" to "Praise" and we'll see what the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals holds.

Um, thank you?

You provide no proof for your premise.

I think that is being inane, your rectal allusion aside.

Point is, the student set out bait, the bear made its strike, and now the USSC is getting involved.

Asinine indeed.

I am still not sure what has happened since I was in high school, but it seems to me that many adults are on crack.

That, dear sir, is a drug. And a rectal allusion. And something that happens to city sidewalks that, if one is not careful, stepping upon such will break your mama's back. It is what dawn does at it's outset, what chemistry can do to water if enough electricity is applied, resulting in the atomic components of the molecule: hydrogen and oxygen.

So clearly, the English language is a complex thing. Bumper sticker slogans don't necessarily mean anything in particular, so the lesson here is:

Examine your assumptions or be the fool.

That is what's clear. "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is a bumper sticker slogan. The authority figure took the bait, and after being shamed out of town, now Kenny is about to be killed in the South Park episode. That is truly asinine because you know that Kenny will be back in the next one.

But I'll forgive, as adults seem to be on crack these days. Adults just seemed stupid in my day, except for those who were not.

At my high school graduation ceremony, 1970, the big trick was to wear swim suits under the pretentious gowns, then flash the crowd while walking on stage.

Oh, that caused quite the ruckus and was funny as hell.

Which really isn't funny, once you think about it.

In the real world, the only thing the principal did wrong that belongs in front of a judge was expelling the student. Trashing a banner isn't "assault", except to wussified girly-men.

Frankly, its a shame that the principal expelled the kid, because otherwise he might have learned the lesson that free speech comes with a responsibility to endure reasonable objections to that speech, and as far as I'm concerned, banner trashing CAN come under that rubric.

"Fighting words", o where hath thou gone?

BD- If I were to go up to that principle and rip something out of her hand- it would be assault AND battery in this state- yes, she most certainly DID assault the student- protesting with words is an American hallowed tradition- attacking your opponent physically is not. Intimidation of free speech through physical intimidation by an authority is censorship at it's most elemental.

Would it have been okay if the kid had protected himself by whipping her butt? Seriously- had that lady violated my personal space in that manner- she would have been picking her teeth off the floor- but because it was a young student- she was predatory enough to feel that she could get away with it.

When did this board become a sequel to 'revenge of the nerds'?

So if the Court oficers had been 'real manly men' he would have been found innocent, but since they were 'girly-men' then it was considered assault?

Sorry of the law of the land does not conform to your somewhat bizarre interpretation of masculinity.

Huh?

Then the legal standard of assault and battery is inane. That's my point. Ever hear the phrase "don't make a federal case out of it"? Well, I personally think that applies here. Mature adults (mind you, I'm not saying the principal's behavior was necessarily mature) don't have conniptions over crap like this, on either side. Wussified girly-men, pampered princesses, and liberals do...

You didn't understand?



This kind of comment is just unfathomable, and just downright bizarre.

"REAL men don't consider this kind of thing assault?" Poor boy, not only was he assaulted by his teacher, but now he has Bikerdad questioning his masculinity and sexuality beause he didn't settle the affair in a manner consistent with Bikerdad's personal view of gender roles in society.

And I guess 'liberals' would do this because (in your world) they are all 98-pound weaklings and nerds, while any REAL manly men who vote Republican?

So what would a non-"girly man" do, Bikerdad, when someone snatched something out of his hands in a crowd--deck the guy instead? That sounds like a red meat-and-potatoes, hairy-knuckled response from the testosterone-overdosed "manly" man who would meet with your approval. Remedy through the law? A ridiculous, effeminate response apparently. Bust someone's jaw and enjoy it, or tuck your tail between your legs and slink away? These are both alternatives in such a situation. One is naked aggression; the other is capitulating to someone else's will by not standing up for one's own freedom of expression.

I've got to agree with Vermillion. A person who snatches or wrests away someone else's property forcefully is violating that other person's rights. It's bullying.

A bully expects to receive like treatment from someone who can beat him up. It leaves a more lasting impression to spend time in jail and/or pay a fine for the bad behavior.

If you were motivated to make a banner and display it at some kind of parade or gathering only to have someone wrest it away from you, I think you would take it personally, too. What would YOUR response be?

To me this issue depends on whether or not that this was a school sanctioned activity. The information is not crystal clear on this. It was during class time and students were allowed to be dismissed from class to watch the event. While the student in question was not on school grounds, it does seem to me that he was under supervision of the school at the time. (For example, if he was struck by a car and injured while walking across the street with his sign, would we be arguing that he was an adult responsible for his jaywalking or that the school was negligent in allowing him to stray off school property?)

If he was an active student of the school at the time, then it seems to me that he should have been rightfully made to abide by school rules at the time. If our school allowed students to promote tobacco or alcohol or drugs while under our supervision, other parents would have a cow, dude!

Free speech has limitations and this is not a minor/adult issue. I remember a story a couple years ago about an employee getting fired for having a political message on a personal vehicle on company property.

clicky linky

While there is a difference between a private employer and a public school, it is clear that when we are subject to being the member of a group, some limitations of our actions are allowable.

If the student was not a supervised student at the time, then he should have his speech protected. If he was not, he should be held to the standards of behavior of any school event.

1) Well looking at Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District 393 US 503 (1969) it would seem to be protected as student speech. It was student initiated and non-school sponsored, and most certainly not vulgar. In addition to that, it wouldn't cause a disruption of the education process, so it should be protected.

2) There is no harm here whatsoever, if anything it is actually pretty funny.



Even if we want to apply the standard in Bethel School District v. Fraser 478 US 675 (1986) and call this vulgar I fail to see how it undermines the educational process. I could actually make the argument that this demonstration encouraged the education process if time was taken when they got back to school to discuss it in the appropriate classes, and would further more argue if a disruption was caused it stems from the teacher's inability to control the classroom rather than the child's actions. All in all, this is a principal thinking she has more power than she really does which lead to cross the line and violate this child's 1st Amendment rights. If anything, she should be fired for this.

Well gang, the case is to be heard today. I read both briefs and the issue far from a simplistic one. Both sides disagree over whether or not it was a school event. According to the Morse brief, it was a school sanctioned event supervised by faculty on and adjacent to the property. The Frederick brief maintains that it was a commercially sanctioned event and that it was not a school event.

My take? Even if it was a school sanctioned event, the student does have the right of free speech. That right isn't absolute as being "disruptive" to the learning of others is grounds for punishment. Having taught for seven years, I can testify that this has been standard practice. A student has a right to wear a political t-shirt or have a Bible on their desk, they just can't read the Bible or unreasonably distract students with the t-shirt while learning is going on. Clearly, the banner was not a distraction and it did not prevent any lesson from being learned. How a given lesson given by a teacher was interrupted is not clear as it was never mentioned. The school is egregiously wrong on this and should be taken to the woodshed. Sadly, I don't believe that Frederick will prevail today. The legal sites that I visited in looking up this case all seem to believe that Morse will win.

If the event was not school sanctioned, the school can't do anything to the student.

Either way, Frederick is right and the school is in the wrong.

In principle, I agree. Messages such as "Bong Hits for Jesus," "Jesus is My Savior" and "Christians perform a proverbial service upon a proverbial portion of a donkey's anatomy" (or similarly effective, cruder words) should be permitted. However, I might draw the line at speech disrespectful of school officials. E.g. if Mrs. Morse is the principal, I probably would not countenance "Mrs. Morse performs a proverbial service, etc. etc."

1) In relation to other threads we have had do you find that the student should be able to do such under free speech?

If the banner had not violated the code of conduct (stated or by precedent), promoted illegal activity, or distracted from the purpose of the school-related event (a.k.a., disrupted the event), then the banner would have constituted free speech. For example, if the banner had read, "Support Atheist Libertarians" at an event where banners were generally considered appropriate, then the banner would have constituted protected speech.

2) What actual harm has this done to anyone involved that would deny the student to be able to use free speech in such a manner?

By promoting illegal behavior and incitefully attacking "sincerely-held religious beliefs", the banner "disrupted" a school-related event, as well as violating the school's stated code of conduct. If left unpunished, it could have done the same kind of harm to the reputation of the school that is addressed by most "moral clauses" in many employment contracts-- intangible harm that can translate into financial losses. The school could hire experts to model and forecast the liability the school might have to assume if the administration were to tacitly encourage students to publicly exhort one another to do drugs, in light of consequent deaths and crimes resulting from estimated inscreases in student drug abuse. My wild guess is that such an assessment could claim that each school might be held responsible for millions to billions in liability lawsuits if they failed to actively discourage drug abuse or other forms of illegal underage intoxication.

I think "inciteful" is rather farfetched. What was incited, really? Pot-smoking? I doubt it. But even if the message had been, "Use cocaine, it's great!" I would argue that it were protected speech. Also, as I read the news account, there was no actual disruption beyond the exception taken by the school authorities. Finally, I don't think it is in the possible scope of a school's code of conduct to restrict undisruptive expression of any given idea, whether it be that Jesus is Lord and Savior; that there is no God; that drugs are terrible; that drugs are excellent.



The analogy with the workplace is imperfect. A person works for an employer by his choice, and so he must accept some limitation of his rights in the workplace. But a student's presence in school is compelled by law. So I think we should recognize that the public has a somewhat greater interest in protecting speech in school than in the workplace.

Further, you tread a highly speculative path where you suppose that a school is liable for actions students take based on the advocacy of other students.

If he were truly attacking religious beliefs (this was humor) than why has the religious right jumped in with the ACLU to defend this kid?


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/200...g_hits_4_j.html

This is a very unclear case. I think the court will rule based on whether the student was actually under the supervision of the school at the time. From what I heard on NPR this morning, the school is basically arguing that promoting drugs is counter to the school's teaching policies, and thus the principle was in her right to tear down the sign. The student is arguing that he was not on school grounds and it was not a school-sanctioned event, so he has every right to do whatever he likes without being harrassed by the principal.

Personally, I really don't see how it could possibly be interperted as promoting drugs. It's obviously humor. I've heard varying things on how that kid ended up there, some say he skipped class, some say it was a "field trip." I agree with Nebraska, that it's going to come down to that determination and who we ultimately believe.

I think this is the basic issue at hand.

Was the kid at a school sponsored event where school rules applied? If so, the school was just fine in doing what it did... comments about Jesus and smoking pot included.

Frankly, if he wasn't, the kid should win. I personally believe that it's the school's right to set a standard for the time at which the kids are under their supervision, but after that or outside of school sanctioned events, it's the parents job.

From what I can read, it seems that the kid was on a school sponsored trip to Alaska. The article says that here:


My opinion is that if the school has a policy against this, the parents should yank the kid by the shirt-tail and let him know that this isn't acceptable. If the statement is ok, then let him put the banner on the house outside his room. Let him put it on his car, put it on a t shirt and wear that...

The United States has to allow children to speak freely, but does not have to allow children to do so outside the confines of school policy. There's good reason why the school wouldn't want marijuana usage broadcast and to become socially acceptable.

Aevens- Alaska is a big state with a small population. Less than 600k for the whole state. There is not a person in this state that has lived here more than 10 years and gone to school here that doesn't understand that this WAS NOT a school sponsored event- it s quite clear that the school WAS NOT responsible for the boy at the time of the parade-

in alaska, ESPECIALLY small town (that is also our capital- during summer- that town doesn't have 15k permanent residents- no matter what some census numbers say) - the school just lets out, and the kids are then under thier parents supervision- or lack of it or whatever- either way- the school is not responsible for the kids- therefore- the kid is not under a school sponsored event.

School has been let out in some small towns for just about anything that was a major event.

At no part in this event did the kids have the obligation to tell their teacher or principle where they were, or to gather for roll call to make sure all are accounted for- attendence and all that.

If you don't have "possesion" of those kids (can't think of a better term, sorry ) then they aren't at a school event, are they? On top of that- I bet every single person in that town was there as well- like I said before, in Juneau- he could be in his house and have a front row view of the parade- the city is only blocks wide- it is a city event, NOT a school event.

Well, at least the school district fired her and didn't give her a recomendation- she cost the city big bucks in legal fees, and now the state as well. It is a lose-lose for the state- there is no win here for them.

This principle wasted the taxpayer money for her wish to be some kind of tin-pot dictator.

The New York Times has a great article regarding the arguments presented in front othe justices. Starr's strategy appears to concentrate less on the free speech aspect of it, and playing up the counter anti-drug content of the speech which is supposedly too much to handle.





I find the bolded part problematic. So if the school takes a stand on a given issue, students cannot mock or take issue with it? To me, that is patently absurd. It's one thing to require that students do not interrupt or interfere with a given lesson. It's quite another to muzzle speech about policy during a stupid torch run.

Here is a little more from the oral arguments, found via patterico.com. The school district is going to be let off the hook for sure; the case law is just too confusing.

The behavior was classless.

Do minor children (under 18) have the same free speech rights as adults? Parents were given great leeway in controlling their kids' behavior (although that is, laughably, changing today), and as the school stands in loco parentis, shouldn't they have the same leeway?

Should this really be deemed state action, as envisioned by those who drafted the First Amendment? Has the First Amendment been stretched too far by creative use of the 14th Amendment?

One poster said that if the banner were left alone, the kid would have gotten no publicity. Probably true. But, how far must society go in tolerating classless behavior under the First Amendment?

Most experts agree the most protected speech should be political speech, as it forms the very basis for the free debate needed in a self-governing republic. Beyond that, the need does drop, and in this case, the need to protect such classless speech that seems to have little political content, IMHO, is relatively low.

This case will likely make bad law, however it is decided. I would regret it if the teacher or school district has to pay anything more than nominal damages.

So far, it seems she may have to pay out of her own pocket for all of this- that is great! I hope she dies penniless and unloved for he behavior- she certainly deserves it- she knew better, and did it anyway.

Her behavior has cost our state for no good reason at all- I am just hoping she is hit with a multi-million dollar legal bill at this point. That should give pause to other over-zealous principles full of thier own authority.

Carlitos thanks for the link. I thought it was much more informative than the Ny Times article linked by Nebraska.

Nebraska, in answer to your , the argument has not shifted solely to drug use, but whether a student has the right to parade a sign about lawbreaking and drug use in direct subversion of the schools published mission.

Cruising Ram I think your dismissal of the nature of the event as something all Alaskans know disregards any close reading of the facts in this case. Classes were let out to watch the torch passing and the students in those classes were back in classes that afternoon.

Are we really at a place in a society where we want to see school officials legally responsible for our children (what do you think would have happened in a mack truck drove over one of these students and who do you think would have been held responsible?) but incapable of exercising any real authority over them.

The principal looked out across the street from her school and observed a student (who had skipped school to that point in the day but was now congregating with schoolmates who participated in flying the banner) and saw a student that she observed to be one of her charges (and I believe had thought that the student was properly attending school up to that point) and that student was flying a banner that reads Bong Hits for Jesus as an Olympic Torch was about to come through town. Would you have expected your principal to allow this behavior? Would your parents have condoned such behavior? The principal made a reasonable judgment that the students were under school authority and that the students were displaying a message promotes illegal activity while being at a school sponsored event.

Instead of acknowledging for carrying out her job, the principal and the school board are being sued and this has become a Supreme Court case.

The student planned to do this and said that he only happened upon the one place this would coincide with students from the school being allowed to observe it. The student's lawyers are arguing that this is like planning a free speech event at the zoo while playing hooky and not knowing that the school had a field trip to the zoo today. That sounds like a bunch of hooey. The defense has also tried to argue the intended meaning of the words on the banner, but the school has countered that the principal made a reasonable conclusion that the banner referred to drug use.

The part on the transcript that refers to an hour long debate about the established case law on free speech and this incident, I think shows that the school will win on this point. The principal had to make a decision and felt that she was abiding by existing case law, and I would have made the same decision to instruct the student to take down the banner.





To me it is clear that a principal should not allow such behavior to occur under her watch and that the principal clearly concluded, even in retrospect, that the student was under her watch at the time. I seems like a typical student prank and not a serious exercise of political speech. And the thing is about free speech. We have the freedom of speech but we are not protected from the consequences of that speech, which in these cases, initially were mild and became more severe as the student refused to obey his principal.

Eeyore- I will simplify it even further using your own analogy- no the school would have not been responsible for the "hit by the truck" incident- because school is not in session and they had been released to thier parents. Roll call was not taken, and no teacher was in charge of this kid's whereabouts.

He was literally out of school.

Well, I'm certainly puzzled by the way the SCOTUS is looking at this case. They appear to be caught up on the question of "was the speach promoting drug use"? Well, of course it was. Can anyone honestly say when they hear the term "Bong Hits" they think of anything other than marijuana? I don't think so.

No, the questions I think need to be asked are: 1. Was the sign of school grounds? 2. Whose property was the sign on?

If the sign was on private property than it is absolutely not legitimate for the principal to take any action, regardless of the student's intent. If the property owner allowed him there, he/she consented to what the student did.

If the sign was on public property not belonging to the school then, again, the principal has no authority regulating speech. If there was a public park next to the school, the principal could not suspend students for actions there during non-school hours, to me, the same principles apply.

CP

Funny how those legal types are all hung up on language. The allegation is that this student was promoting illegal drug use with a four-word slogan. However, bongs are not illegal. Nor are hits. Neither things are drugs. It could be argued that Jesus is a form of opiate, as that has some literary support.

This brings up a big problem with the burden of proof, doesn't it.

Heh, my Jaberwocky argument made it to the SCOTUS

We clearly disagree on this one. In my reading of all of the links for this story, the children were released for the purposes of viewing the vent and were to return right after. I have not seen any link that says no roll was taken. I have seen information showing that teachers gave these students instructions about how to view the event.






The sign was on a public sidewalk across the street from the school. The question of this case is whether it is a school sponsored event. The principal believed it was and that the student was behaving against the rules of the school. Are you seriously arguing that a school loses control of the behavior of its students on a field trip? Or that a student can wander off school grounds against the instructions of a school and then behave in any manner and be beyond the authority of the school?

I believe that, in all the reading that I've done on this matter, that this was a school sponsored event. If the kids went to school that am, and were returning that pm, how on earth were the teachers/administration not responsible? Did the students parents sign a release? Seriously.

What we're talking about here is that a Principal thought that the kid was going to embarass the school, her community, and probably Alaska. Let's be honest. The kid even admitted that it was a juvenile stunt.... then he SUED. Only in America can a kid admit that he was attempting to cause trouble, then sue for 1st Amendment infringement because a Principal attempted to protect the interests of the school and the city. Seriously. What CAN Prinicipals do? The school system sees American kids as much or more than their parents during the school year. It's IMPERATIVE that they at least attempt to teach them to be decent human beings.

Arguing semantics about "bongs" or "hits" being illegal is immaterial. I believe that the kid needs a stern talkin' to, maybe take away his car keys, and did anyone forget that one article stated that he'd skipped school that morning? No one cares... and America wonders why our kids are becoming ever more fat, lazy, and stupid. Teachers and Principals MUST be authoritarians. Ripping up a silly sign doesn't hurt anyone. If it was a Saturday night at the mall and the Principal did this.... maybe a different story.

Not at all. I'm arguing that if someone chooses not to take part in an optional after school event, but happens to be in an area near the school, that that person is not subject to the school's rules. The student was acting separately from the school and is not subject to its rules in this case.

CP

First off- EVERYTHING is across the street from the school- it is also across the street from thier house, across the street from the bar, across the street from the local brothel, etc etc. - you see, the town is ONLY ONE BLOCK WIDE.

Alaska is a libertarian place, where the parents are responsible for the kids once they leave school.

The kid didn't even need a talking too- the Nazi principle however- lost her job, which was correct.

The only reason the state even botherred with the law suit- believe me, there was some debate and a lawsuit threatened to force the state to represent her in court. The only compelling reason was so that other principles would feel protected against liability for lawsuits.

IF you are a principle- and the kids are NOT under your care- as in this case- it is quite clear to , oh, every single person in Juneau, that this kid was not under her care, only his parents (IIRC, they had even been all the way across the bridge, to douglas, and returned, so they were even in a private vehicle, off campus- if the kids got into a car accident instead, the school would not have been liable either- see the point?)

Another point- Bong hits are perfectly legal in Alaska- so -other than him being 17, bong hits are not only legal- but a rather contentious political debate in Juneau itself- simply satirizing the debate is protected speech= comedy and satire and joking around are just as free as political speech.

Had she not punished him further- once she got him back to school

AND as the SCOTUS question points out- SHE KNEW BETTER- she would have not cost the state a dime.

But, now she had to "save face" or something equally stupid.

At least it got that Nazi kicked out of our state.

Well CP and CR we simply have a different take on whether this was a school sponsored event.

I wonder, do you have anything from the record that convinces you that this was not a part of student's of this school's school day?

I enjoy a good honest difference of opinion but I'd like to see what you base the opinion that this was not connected to the school day and that the students were not "on the clock" of the school day.

This happened at 9:30 in the morning and the student was ordered back to school after the incident. So I don't see this as an after school voluntary event.

And CR even in your interesting description of Juneau, wouldn't half of the town NOT be on the other side of the street? Wasn't the town blocks wide just a couple of posts ago? Was there an earthquake?

And if something is against federal law isn't it against the law?

What is exactly against the law, writing the word bong on some paper, or the phrase? I am just a bit confused. I don’t know personally where to lean with this case. You can say he was attempting to promote drug use with the bong but that’s a pretty relative statement overall to make, as I am sure more then one person could look at it from a different perspective is all. The deciding factor to me in this is really the reality if the person with the banner was under the supervision or "rule" of the school at the time, as I am sure most any drug related talk that is not done in some educational fashion, such as an piece showing the world via the eyes of a crack addict for example is probably considered negative behavior or what not. The other issue is the right of the principal to destroy someone’s property, which I cant find any reasonable explanation for. Attending school does not give consent for destruction of property last time I checked, but I could be wrong. This all I think smacks of the issue that more and more the concept of parenting is being placed on an institution that I really believe should have no real role in such, moreover its an educational entity, not a day care center.

Unfortunately- I can not give internet links to local papers- some of them are archived and you must pay for the subscription- but, you would be very, very, very hard pressed to find a single person in Juneau, of any political affiliation, that didn't and doesn't understand "half days" for parades and what not, that they are NOT school functions- and the kids ARE NOT the school's responsibility - has been that way since I was a kid as well, and still is true.

When school and biz lets out for these events, pretty much the entire town is located in those two blocks

you can get a feel for it here:

http://www.adn.com/news/environment/story/...p-8636465c.html

where is the kid supposed to go anyway, other than stay at home? LOL


Also Alaska has a long, political history and discourse of telling the feds to "F-off" on a regular basis- whether it be for marijuana usage (which IS political speech here regularly, and have had this debate at other schools- though, through this particular student admits- he WAS NOT making that political statement-( it has happened before, when an actual statement of political belief was made off school grounds here in Anchorage, the principle was fired there as well for restricting the students off-grounds not on school time "glorification of the drug culture" in his (and her) protest against the criminalization of marijuana)

The principle's association has pushed this lawsuit because of the "chilling effect" they claim by not being able to manage the kids- I don't agree with them at all- unless they are bussed to the location, or an a sanctioned field trip, with teacher supervision- it should never be considered a school event anyway.

It goes against rational thought to have kids, who are there without ANY school supervision- UNTIL he acts out? Where was this supervision prior to this event then?

There simply wasn't any supervision, because school was let out on a "half day".

Exactly!. Kind of premature to focus on the message before getting the elementary facts straight right? Then again, that must be why Starr wants to steer it in that direction.

Here's the news on the Supreme Court ruling Monday from Time reporter Reynolds Holding, who opines heavily against the SCOTUS leadership in the "article":



It appears at first glance to be a broader ruling than I expected. It not only gives schools free reign to censor drug-related messages, but also indicates that censoring speech to maintain discipline and enforcing restrictive codes of conduct are legitimate principles in education-- although it's difficult to tell if the broader rhetoric is intended to find its way into policy or not... I haven't read it for myself yet.

It's a dead canary in the mine. Looks like students will have to watch what kind of speech they use because conservatives who can't read a dictionary are interpreting the Constitution for us. Yep, the kids better watch themselves. Who knows what will hit the sensitivities of the authority figures?

Remember that a reefer is not a jacket, a toke is not a tip given in a casino, a pot is not a container for cooking food, a weed is not an undesired plant, grass is not what lawns are made of, and of course a bong is not a sound.

It's all about drugs, even though the primary meanings have nothing to do with drugs. It appears the SCOTUS has this paranoia thing going. Maybe they're taking bong hits for Nixon (striking a bell for a previous President).

I'm a little sad about the outcome, because I thought it was kind of funny, and I'm Christian. Apparently some folks lost their sense of humor.

I guess that many of us who feel overdosed (another drug term) on evangelical or fundamentalist messages like to poke fun at them sometimes. It comes from the whole thing of hawking religion as though it were the shiny new car in the lot or the detergent that can get your clothes whiter and brighter. It reduces the Gospel message to just another advertising promotion.

But as long as there are decals of Calvin urinating on whatever the driver doesn't like displayed on cars and trucks, we "grown-ups" can't truly take young people to task for their silliness.

Guess the kids are just going to have to knuckle under until they aren't in high school anymore. It's probably good for them that they decided to pick on Jesus instead of an Islamic personage. There's censorship and then there's danger.