Clarence Thomas said freedom of speech does not apply to public schools

[dajoki]

High court upholds student's suspension for 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' banner
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, June 25, 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/25/MNGF0QLD1I5.DTL

<<snip>>

In upholding the 10-day suspension of an Alaska high school senior for raising a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus'' at a school-sanctioned event outside campus, the court majority insisted it was not abandoning free-speech principles for students that the court established in 1969. In that case, the justices upheld students' rights to wear black armbands as a protest against the Vietnam War and said schools must allow free expression unless it disrupts education.

<<snip>>

Dissenting justices said the ruling continued the court's retreat from the free-speech principles of the 1969 ruling. In two rulings in the 1980s, the court allowed schools to punish students' sexually suggestive speech and to censor student newspapers.

"The court's ham-handed, categorical approach is deaf to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high school students, about the wisdom of the war on drugs,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote.

While arguing that the court shouldn't have accepted the principal's "strained reading'' of the banner, Stevens said the ruling would also allow school administrators to punish a student's message that seriously challenged drug laws. That, he said, would be contrary to the spirit of the 1969 case.

Roberts was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Alito and Kennedy wrote separately to say they would not endorse discipline for political dissent. Thomas, in a separate opinion, said freedom of speech does not apply to public schools.

[koopie57]

1. I wonder what would have happened

if the kid said B H for Mohamed?

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

2. I agree with the decision

I don't think making an absolute ass of yourself and making light of drug use at a state event...well, come on now...

[nebenaube]

4. gimme a break it wasn't meth or cocaine or herion or opium...

All of which seem to be readily available while we persecute sick people.

[dajoki]

14. Where do you draw the line?

Its everyone's right to make an ass of themselves with their mouths.

[koopie57]

16. What do you do for fun?

There is nothing more annoying than a perfect kid.

[Debs]

25. Yes free speech

Means exactly that people have a right to make an ass out of themselves. Exibit 1 Ann Coulter.

[ljm2002]

28. If anyone could get arrested for "making an ass" of themselves...

...we'd have more people inside the prisons than outside of them.

It is ludicrous that they were ever charged, and far more ludicrous that the SCOTUS upheld a conviction.

Free speech is the hue and cry by these same folks, whenever some giganto corporation gets in trouble for buying too much of a politician, or various campaign contributions or political activities.

The SCOTUS never saw one of these cases where they didn't come down on the side of "free speech" for the corporations. But free speech for individuals? Please, that doesn't make any sense now, does it???

:sarcasm:

[LiberalFighter]

3. Too bad Thurgood doesn't come back and beat the living daylights out of Thomas

[C_U_L8R]

5. Clarence needs a bong hit

[rucky]

6. You know what happens when you restrict a teenager's free speech?

they find a way to rebel.

[iconocrastic]

7. "... the wisdom of the war on drugs" is beyond these high school students

... if they don't even know it's unwise to take drugs, and then gratuitiously insult the religion of populace. That's only a sign of ignorance and bad manners, not the maturity to opine on policy decisions.

Why should stoners be allowed to dictate drug policy?

That's just foolishness, even if spoken by a man in the Supreme Court.

Stevens is in a theoretical ivory tower and out of touch with reality on this one.

[tkmorris]

11. I really have no idea what you are on about

You seem to think the kids said something stupid, and thus the decision is correct. That has nothing to do with anything. Free speech is just that, FREE SPEECH, there are no requirements that the opinion you express be sensible, or that it not offend anyone.

[dajoki]

13. And Roberts Isn't?

http://www.slate.com/id/2168856

One little precatory note on the speech cases, Morse v. Frederick (Bong Hits 4 Jesus) and WRTL: The Chief Justice wrote the majority opinions in both of them and he read them one after the other this morning. What you won't catch in the opinions themselves was Roberts' little verbal segue between the two. First, in Morse he acknowledged that the student message on the banner was both "cryptic," yet also clearly advocacy of a "pro-drug" message, which a school principal can properly suppress. Then he slid smoothly into WRTL by distinguishing the student speech in Morse from what he called the "core political speech" of the Wisconsin pro-life group. The point of this little editorial: The WRTL ads are serious important speech, whereas goofy student speech is not. With that as preview, it's not hard to guess the results.

In Morse, Roberts goes to great lengths to insert meaning into the silliness of the words on the student banner. He insists the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" can be read as "celebrating drug use"; indeed to get there he needed only insert the imaginary words, "bong hits ." When did we enter into the era of constitutional interpretation through inserting pretend words? The sign could have as easily been read to say "bong hits ."

[koopie57]

17. What makes you think they were stoners?

And how did they dictate policy?

And like I asked earlier, what if they said the same thing only replaced Jesus with Mohammed?

Ignorant and bad mannered. Holy crap, they are teenagers. What do you think is acceptable fun for a teenager?

I'm not trying to be a smart alec, but I'm just curious.

[Blue_In_AK]

19. Bong Hits kid is not a teenager anymore

He's teaching English classes in China.

If anyone is willing to, please DU the poll for our local TV station..."Does the First Amendment Protect Student Free Speech?" (a little ways down the page)

http://www.ktuu.com/

[koopie57]

20. I read the article

but he was a teen when the incident occurred?

How do you feel about this? It is hard to know lately here where people stand. Do you think it was fair or disagree with the vote?

I guess my main curiousity is what would have happened if they used a different diety.

[Blue_In_AK]

23. Yes, he was a teenager when it happened

in 2002, I believe it was. I personally disagree with the vote. I think it was just kids being kids, and it really doesn't mean much. They're trying to make out like it's the drug thing they're upset about, but you may be right about the deity. If they had said "Bong hits for Krishna" maybe there wouldn't have been such an uproar. I think the Juneau school district or the principal, whoever it was, needs to grow a sense of humor.

[ProudDad]

21. The phony "war on drugs"

is only exceeded in stupidity and irrelevance by the phony "war on terror".

These kids have every right to protest it. They also have a complete right to protest with a sense of humor...of course, if you want to join the bushies and support this fascist court when they deny them their rights, go ahead.

What part of the 1st Amendment would you like to repeal?

Just don't expect a sympathetic listen on this board to that kind of bullshit. Why don't you take this anti-free speech screed where it belongs: www.freerepublic.com

Stevens (and Ginsberg) are the ONLY decent justices left. The rest are pro-corporate fucks or outright fascists and we'll get no help from them.

[Debs]

26. No he didnt you mischaracterized the argument

They obviously dont have any right to DICTATE anything what they should have a right to is their OPINION about drug policy and religion. Even if you dont like that opinion.

[iconocrastic]

33. Che was a thug and a murderer

[treestar]

36. The religion of the populace?

There is no official religion here. See the First Amendment.

Anyone in America can gratuitously insult anything they want, including any religion?

Where are you from? How can you not know that?

[iconocrastic]

37. Common sense

is rare among those who make theoretical arguments.

So I'll not bother to continue the discussion.

[rurallib]

8. Thomas seems like a man who would fit into 1930s Germany

very comfortably, except for that pigmentation problem.

[AtomicKitten]

9. this concomitant with the loosening up of campaign finance

This is that thingy with the Supreme Court that really matters
and why it is IMPERATIVE a Democrat appoints the next Supreme.

[dajoki]

12. That is why...

I've been posting about SCOTUS. And with these decisions handed down today... well, let's just say, we're in trouble.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3331492&mesg_id=3331492

[AtomicKitten]

15. yes and thank you for doing so

It is the decisions emanating from the Supremes that scare the bejeezus out of me.

Their decisions impact our lives for decades.

Thanks again for punctuating something that is so vitally important and sometimes gets lost in the pile of felonies.

[unkachuck]

10. wake up kids....

....and you thought you had a right of Free-Speech....

"Thomas, in a separate opinion, said freedom of speech does not apply to public schools."

....so you see kids, school are Free-Speech-free-zones....now shut the hell up and get back to work....

....I wonder what other Free-Speech-free-zones we might have?....or could be in our future?

[onenote]

18. Surprisingly, Alito went out of his way to disagree with Thomas

Shocked me. Alito and Kennedy authored a concurring opinion in which they wrote that they joined in the majority opinion "on the understanding that it...provides no support for any restriction of speech that can be plausibly interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue including speech on the issues such as the 'wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use."

Its a small thing, but at least he distinguished himself from Thomas.

[ProudDad]

22. :Its a small thing, but at least he distinguished himself from Thomas.:

That's damning with faint praise... :hi:

[dajoki]

29. Its BS n/t

[onenote]

30. elaborate?

[dajoki]

31. They can say what they want...

to "distinguish" themselves from one another. Bottom line is they vote the same.

[onenote]

32. yes and no

If Kennedy and Alito had voted exactly the "same" as Thomas, there is a good possibility that the very concept that the first amendment protects students would have been nullified. While I think the dissenters got it right, and therefore I wish there were more justices like them than like Alito or Kennedy, I guess I'm a bit glad that Alito and Kennedy aren't Thomas clones either.

[dajoki]

34. I get what you are saying...

but what does it matter if all of the votes are 5-4 which seems to be where they are headed?

[win_in_06]

24. The article doesn't quote Clyde. I'd like to see what he actually wrote.

[onenote]

27. basically, he thinks that the SCOTUS should overturn Tinker

Tinker is the case that arose during the Vietnam war that upheld a student's right to wear a black armband in school as a protest against the war.

[Brigid]

35. Suppose . . .

a student wore a T-shirt with an anti-Bush/anti-war Slogan on it. Would that student be suspended too?

I'll bet there would have been no problem if that banner had contained a pro-Bush/pro-war slogan on it.