Bong Hits 4 Jesus
By Shawn Healy
The Supreme Court granted cert today to the second First Amendment-related case of the current term. The controversy occurred in Juneau, Alaska, in January 2002 as the olympic torch made its way through the community. Students were allowed to skip class to attend the parade, and one student, Joseph Frederick, took advantage of this opportunity, standing on the sidewalk across the street from school and unfurling a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The school principal, Deborah Morse, proceeded to request that the banner be taken down, and upon refusal, the student was ultimately suspended for 10 days.
He filed suit, seeking the removal of this incident from his records and financial compensation. He lost at the district level, but won in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Kenneth Starr (of Clinton and Lewinskygate fame) decided to represent the school district free of charge and sought Supreme Court review of the verdict. His wish was granted, and the Court will consider this case in late February, with a decision expected by the end of June.
The issue here is twofold. One, did the student's "pro-drug" message represent a substantial disruption to the school environment to justify punishment for political speech? Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) created this exception, and it was later applied in both Bethel v. Fraser (1986) and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1987).
The second issue is one of jurisdiction. Does a school adminstrator have the right to punish students for speech and expressive behavior that occurs off-campus? Social networking sites and blogs have brought this issue to the fore recently, and although this case assumes a more classic example of expressive speech, the precedent that emerges from the Juneau case could implicate a plethora of digital age issues.
We'll be tracking this issue laboriously over the coming months, so visit this blog, our timely news feed on our museum web site, and a special exhibit scheduled to open in February highlighting student work in line with the five freedoms of the First Amendment.
He filed suit, seeking the removal of this incident from his records and financial compensation. He lost at the district level, but won in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Kenneth Starr (of Clinton and Lewinskygate fame) decided to represent the school district free of charge and sought Supreme Court review of the verdict. His wish was granted, and the Court will consider this case in late February, with a decision expected by the end of June.
The issue here is twofold. One, did the student's "pro-drug" message represent a substantial disruption to the school environment to justify punishment for political speech? Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) created this exception, and it was later applied in both Bethel v. Fraser (1986) and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1987).
The second issue is one of jurisdiction. Does a school adminstrator have the right to punish students for speech and expressive behavior that occurs off-campus? Social networking sites and blogs have brought this issue to the fore recently, and although this case assumes a more classic example of expressive speech, the precedent that emerges from the Juneau case could implicate a plethora of digital age issues.
We'll be tracking this issue laboriously over the coming months, so visit this blog, our timely news feed on our museum web site, and a special exhibit scheduled to open in February highlighting student work in line with the five freedoms of the First Amendment.
2 Comments:
Hi
Keep up this great resource.
Very much interesting site. You have to look at this too.
Try this - very useful:
http://lexapro.butkel1.org/ lexapro
See ya!
It all started back in 2002 when high school bet basketball students in Alaska unfurled a non-commercial banner which read sarcastically and defiantly: "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS." Although the banner was not displayed on school property, it was exhibited at a school function. The students stated that it was not original copy, that they had seen it on a snowboard sticker. School officials sportsbook punished the students. The reason given by the school was 'promotion of drugs.' Yet, the question lingers as to how far a school can go in censoring non-conforming speech. Does such an oblique mention of marijuana culture invite the school to censure all speech containing it? According to the US Supreme Court, march madness yes, the students could be censored. We think this court decision was a disgrace.
In the balance between condemning an unsavory counter-culture statement which also lampoons religion, and affirming unfettered free speech --which should prevail? Clearly free speech should prevail. Yet, the US Supreme Court got it wrong and sided with the school. It's a famous legal case, also known as Morse V. Frederick, and it is found in all law libraries.
http://www.enterbet.com
Post a Comment
<< Home