Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus": Free-Speech Case Divides Bush and Religious Right

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
demobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 12:51 PM
Original message
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus": Free-Speech Case Divides Bush and Religious Right
WASHINGTON, March 17 — A Supreme Court case about the free-speech rights of high school students, to be argued on Monday, has opened an unexpected fissure between the Bush administration and its usual allies on the religious right.

As a result, an appeal that asks the justices to decide whether school officials can squelch or punish student advocacy of illegal drugs has taken on an added dimension as a window on an active front in the culture wars, one that has escaped the notice of most people outside the fray. And as the stakes have grown higher, a case that once looked like an easy victory for the government side may prove to be a much closer call.

On the surface, Joseph Frederick’s dispute with his principal, Deborah Morse, at the Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska five years ago appeared to have little if anything to do with religion — or perhaps with much of anything beyond a bored senior’s attitude and a harried administrator’s impatience.

As the Olympic torch was carried through the streets of Juneau on its way to the 2002 winter games in Salt Lake City, students were allowed to leave the school grounds to watch. The school band and cheerleaders performed. With television cameras focused on the scene, Mr. Frederick and some friends unfurled a 14-foot-long banner with the inscription: “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/washington/18scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. "One toke over the line sweet Jesus"
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. Kids. . .gotta love 'em
This whole concept of this case going before the SCOTUS just cracks me up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. Only a pothead
could come up with such an inane slogan.

:silly:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. You know something is wrong when Ken Star is working pro-bono
Edited on Mon Mar-19-07 01:01 PM by wuushew
The Bush administration entered the case on the side of the principal and the Juneau School Board, which are both represented by Kenneth W. Starr, the former solicitor general and independent counsel. His law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, is handling the appeal without a fee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. a ridiculous case, and i fully expect the SC to rule against free speech
Edited on Mon Mar-19-07 01:02 PM by maxsolomon
the SC has no legitimacy until every one of the Bush 5 are gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. While they're sitting there
What they say goes... whether we like it or not. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. Lawyer Starr is a blithering idiot. I mean, a complete moron. He doesn't even seem to pretend
to make any sense. This is so ridiculous. If the school turned out for watching the torch pass and they had cheerleaders and the band playing and whatever, then an individual expression of humor, using non-threatening and non-vulgar language is so harmless as to be silly. This was funny and it has become ludicrous...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Reverend_Smitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. As a general life rule...
I tend to oppose whatever Ken Starr supports and you know what? It's served me well so far
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. nice
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
10. The kid wasn't even on school property.
So the principal suspending him just made her look asinine.... He made up a hilarious sign (when I first read it, I laughed out loud!) to get teevee attention.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Well, the issue is still up for debate, to some degree.
If the school was still legally in charge of the students (i.e. in loco parentis) then they do have a case, however, if they were dismissed to the charge of their parents (i.e. school was just let out early) then they (the school board) have no case at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. It sounds like the school was still in charge of the students
Interesting quote from the article:

It is the first Supreme Court case to do so directly since the court upheld the right of students to wear black arm bands to school to protest the war in Vietnam, declaring in Tinker v. Des Moines School District that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
11. I wonder how they'd react to gong hits 4 Jesus?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
12. If you are going to defend free speech, you, unfortunately, have to defend
a lot of banal juvenile crap.

That's teh way it goes.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
15. The really funny thing
is that pot isn't even illegal under Alaska state law. I hope the Bong Hits kid kicks their ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
17. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC