"Bong Hits 4 Jesus"

[YouEnjoyMyself]

CBS/AP) A high school principal was acting reasonably and in accord with the school's anti-drug mission when she suspended a student for displaying a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner, her lawyer told the Supreme Court Monday.

"The message here is, in fact, critical," the lawyer, former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, said during a lively argument about whether the principal violated the constitutional rights of the student.

On the other side, attorney Douglas Mertz of Juneau, Alaska, urged the justices to see the case as being about free speech, not drugs.

The dispute between Joseph Frederick, who in 2002 was a high school senior, and principal Deborah Morse has become an important test of the limits on the free speech rights of students.

Justice Stephen Breyer, addressing Mertz, said he is struggling with the case because a ruling in Frederick's favor could encourage students to go to absurd lengths to test those limits.

A ruling for Morse, however, "may really limit free speech," Breyer said.

The Bush administration, backing Morse, wants the court to adopt a broad rule that could essentially give public schools the right to clamp down on any speech with which it disagrees.

Scores of students waited outside the court early Monday for a chance to listen to the arguments.

"I would never do it, but at the same time, it's free speech," said Chaim Frenkel, 17, of Silver Spring, Md. Frenkel was one of 13 seniors and their teacher from the Melvin J. Berman Hebrew Academy who arrived at the court at 4:30 a.m. EDT.

Natasha Braithwaite, 20, a junior at Columbia Union College in Takoma Park, Md., got in line at 7 a.m. with a definite opinion about the case. "In every possible way, his First Amendment rights were violated," Braithwaite said.

Frederick was a high school senior in Juneau when he decided to display the banner at a school-sanctioned event to watch the Olympic torch pass through the city on its way to the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City.

Morse believed his "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner was a pro-drug message that schools should not tolerate. She suspended Frederick for 10 days. Frederick sued Morse, and that case now is before the court.

Frederick acknowledged he was trying to provoke a reaction from school administrators with whom he had feuded, but he denied that he was speaking out in favor of drugs or anything other than free speech. A bong is a water pipe that is used to smoke marijuana.

"I waited until the perfect moment to unveil it, as the TV cameras (following the torch relay) passed," Frederick said.

Morse and the Juneau school district argue that schools will be powerless to discipline students who promote illegal drugs if the court sides with Frederick. The Bush administration, other school boards and anti-drug school groups are supporting Morse.

Frederick, now 23, counters that students could be silenced if the court reverses the appellate ruling. A wide assortment of conservative and liberal advocacy groups are behind Frederick.

"What we've seen is schools overextending their power over students through zero tolerance policies," said John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute. "And what's happened is it has completely decimated our First Amendment."

CBS News correspondent Barry Bagnato reports it is a fascinating case that gives the high court a chance to revisit rulings that grew out of the protest years of the 1960s. In a Vietnam War-era case, the court backed high school student anti-war protesters who wore armbands to class. Since then, though, the court has sanctioned curtailing student speech when it is disruptive to a school's educational mission, plainly offensive or part of a school-sponsored activity like a student newspaper.

National School Boards Association lawyer Francisco Negron said he felt the key question is how come the principal is facing a lawsuit. "We think its rather severe to punish them personally for just acting in good faith and doing their job," said Negron.

A federal appeals court called Frederick's message "vague and nonsensical" in ruling that his civil rights had been violated. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also said Morse would have to compensate Frederick for her actions because she should have known they violated the Constitution.

Frederick, who teaches English and studies Mandarin in China, was not expected at the court for the argument. Two years after the banner incident, Frederick pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of selling marijuana, according to Texas court records.

The case is Morse v. Frederick, 06-278.


© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Your thoughts?

I see it as another crucial case for free speech. I mean, shouldn't I, or any person, be allowed to openly advocate the use of drugs? Shouldn't I, at any age, be allowed to connect an important religious figure with drug use?

[Mr. Heskey]

Your thoughts?

I see it as another crucial case for free speech. I mean, shouldn't I, or any person, be allowed to openly advocate the use of drugs? Shouldn't I, at any age, be allowed to connect an important religious figure with drug use?

In school though? Is it legal to promote something that's illegal?

I'm all for free speech, I just don't like it when people abuse the privelage.

[disturbed2]

In school though? Is it legal to promote something that's illegal?

I'm all for free speech, I just don't like it when people abuse the privelage.

kids talk about parties/getting drunk and going to bars during school. you think they are getting suspended?

[Mr. Heskey]

kids talk about parties/getting drunk and going to bars during school. you think they are getting suspended?

That's all in a hushed voice though. The kid was displaying a banner that was in plain sight to everybody.

Yea I talk about that kind of stuff too, hell I did it today since I got wasted on Saturday but I'm not about to let every person in the school, let alone the principals know about it.

[Cur67]

That kid has cajones.

sp?

[Frosty]

The article says he unveiled the banner at a school-sanctioned event, not inside or on the grounds of the school itself (though it doesn't really specify).

It seems it was displayed as the torch runner went by. Anyone know exactly where it was unveiled? School property? A random street?

[Superior_to_you]

...

People are idiots. Freedom of speech can go to hell on this one, expel them.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

In school though? Is it legal to promote something that's illegal?

I'm all for free speech, I just don't like it when people abuse the privelage.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that a student's rights don't end when he/she walks in the door. (Tinker vs. Des Moines)

Is it legal to promote something that is illegal? It should be legal. And I'm pretty certain it is, so long as it is in speech only. I can't promote weed by growing some and passing it out. But I can tell people all I want that weed is awesome and that they should smoke it. There is a rap song, and at the end Nate Dogg says "smoke weed everyday." Is he in prison? No he's not (and let's please leave out all the hackneyed rap stereotypes...I'm just trying to make a point).

There is a line between actually doing something illegal or promoting it through actual illegal activity and talking about it. One is speech, one is illegal action. Speech should never be illegal so long as it doesn't directly hurt someone (i.e. the famous "yelling fire in a crowded theater").

And you calling free speech a "privilege" is scary. You need to realize that it is a RIGHT.


Now here is a question for you guys who are nuts about being politically correct (Just out of curiosity...because this is clearly a freedom of speech issue): should we shelter our children from the realities of the world while they are in school? Why should children not grow up knowing that drugs are out there and that some are dangerous? Why should children grow up not seeing other kids wearing crosses or religious shirts?

Do we really want to pump kids out of our "education" system with not only a lacking education, but also without knowledge of the "bad" or "naughty" things out there?


Here is a pic btw: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/juneaubanner.jpg

Anyone know exactly where it was unveiled? School property? A random street?

It was on a city street during a "school sanctioned event."

[Mr. Heskey]

I agree with many of the things you said and sorry for poor word choice. Speech is a right not a privelage but it can still definitly be abused.

Should we shelter children from harsh reality? That's a very difficult question. I think it's best that we let children find out for themselves. I think it's good that teachers tell us at an early age that drugs and underage drinking are bad things (and they are).

Do I still do it? Yes.

Do I do it that often? No.

Drinking and drug use have sadly become an integral part of high school life and everyone is pressured to do it. The strong ones resist and the ones who simply want to have fun will do it anyway. Honestly, I like the feeling of being wasted and high (who the hell doesn't?) But I think it's our duty not to promote it because its a fact that drugs and underage drinking are detremental to a child's education.

And was that court case the one that dealt with the girl wearing a black armband to school in honor of deceased vietnam soldiers? They are completely different circumstances but does that still provide total free speech?

[YouEnjoyMyself]

Should we shelter children from harsh reality? That's a very difficult question. I think it's best that we let children find out for themselves. I think it's good that teachers tell us at an early age that drugs and underage drinking are bad things (and they are).

So why ban t-shirts that have alcohol or drugs on them? Kids are doing them anyway...if it takes a shirt to do you in for drug use then you've got problems on another level.

But I think it's our duty not to promote it because its a fact that drugs and underage drinking are detremental to a child's education.

See above.

And was that court case the one that dealt with the girl wearing a black armband to school in honor of deceased vietnam soldiers? They are completely different circumstances but does that still provide total free speech?

Yes that is the case, but she wore it to protest the war. Why does circumstance matter? Speech is speech, be it an armband or a poster. Should the type of speech qualify it for being allowed or not? Should we put limits on the First Amendment (so long as no one is physically harmed)?

Total free speech is what our nation should stride toward. We should live in a society where a kid can wear a Cyprus Hill shirt to school and where a kid can wear a god t-shirt to school. Protect speech 100% is what I'm saying.

[Takeoff]

he put Jesus and bong in the same phrase...Jesus represents multiple religious groups who don't (to my knowledge) support the traditional use of a bong, yet he put them in a phrasing that could be seen as offensive to those groups...you offend a religious groups, you get suspended...end of story.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

you offend a religious groups, you get suspended...end of story.

No, it's not. Who gives a shit if someone is offended? It's my right to offend whoever I please. I should be allowed to walk up to someone on the street and call them any slur I like. I should be allowed to defame any group I like. Religious people are not off-limits.

(or are you being sarcastic?)

[Mr. Heskey]

No, it's not. Who gives a shit if someone is offended? It's my right to offend whoever I please. I should be allowed to walk up to someone on the street and call them any slur I like. I should be allowed to defame any group I like. Religious people are not off-limits.

(or are you being sarcastic?)

I agree with you 100 percent about people getting offended. I think its absurd when minority relgious groups go all up in arms when Christians decide to celebrate Christmas with a green tree. The muslims can make a huge statue of Allah in the front yard during their religious holidays and I wouldn't care. Even if I did, I wouldn't, I shouldn't go so far as to sue them.

[Superior_to_you]

No, it's not. Who gives a shit if someone is offended? It's my right to offend whoever I please. I should be allowed to walk up to someone on the street and call them any slur I like. I should be allowed to defame any group I like. Religious people are not off-limits.

(or are you being sarcastic?)

Constitutional or not, I fucking HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE x infinity when people fucking twist and distort religious symbols so badly, whether they be some dumb sack of shit college student who thinks they're real smart or members of the religion themselves. I don't even LIKE religion, hell I practically hate it too! And I'm fucking pro legalization of marijuana, but FUCK I absolutely HATE that.

[L1mp_3rection]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that a student's rights don't end when he/she walks in the door. (Tinker vs. Des Moines)

Now here is a question for you guys who are nuts about being politically correct (Just out of curiosity...because this is clearly a freedom of speech issue): should we shelter our children from the realities of the world while they are in school? Why should children not grow up knowing that drugs are out there and that some are dangerous? Why should children grow up not seeing other kids wearing crosses or religious shirts?

Do we really want to pump kids out of our "education" system with not only a lacking education, but also without knowledge of the "bad" or "naughty" things out there?


Yeah, you are right that a student does not check their rights at the door. But, at the same time you have to realize that a school zone is and will always be treated differently than a public place. Cases such as New Jersey v T.L.O. show that because the school has to claim full liability for your safety and well-being, that they inheritedly do have the right to cross a few lines over the constitution.

Its a fine line between exposing children to the real world, and putting these children in harms way.

Do I think a "Hey hey hey, smoke weed everyday" t-shirt honestly puts children at risk? Nah probably not.

Do I understand that the school system carries a heavy burden in their responsibility for their students? Yeah.

However, this even did happen on a public street so I do not think the school district's control still justifies them to punish the student.

[Bergs]

In school though? Is it legal to promote something that's illegal?

Is it legal to advocate for the decriminalizing or legalizing of something that is illegal? Of course it is, that is the essence of free speech. In school? Where else? Aren't institutions of learning the ideal and most appropriate place to instill in young peoples hearts and minds the values of the good citizen? Thomas Jefferson believe that this was the primary purpose of education. Preparing young people for active participation in the democratic process which REQUIRES a free press, free speech, expression, and association.

Besides, the student's statement was so vague and nonsensical, how can one possibly argue that it is disruptive, it didnt even occur during school hours. What if the student held a banner that said "Legalize Marijuana." Do you think the school should crack donw on that? That would be insane.

he put Jesus and bong in the same phrase...Jesus represents multiple religious groups who don't (to my knowledge) support the traditional use of a bong, yet he put them in a phrasing that could be seen as offensive to those groups...you offend a religious groups, you get suspended...end of story.

I hope and pray you are not serious. That is exactly why we have the 1st Amendment. You can offend anyone you want, especially relgious groups, the founders specifically forbade the use of laws to protect religions.

[slapnpopbass]

Was this on school property?? I say they can punish on school property. Otherwise, hands off.

My school suspends people for things done outside of school...even during summer breaks. If cell phones are confiscated, they will search your phones for "inappropriate" texts and pictures. This is clearly a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments and the Due Process Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process_clause) of the Constitution. This covers a lot of stuff, I mean, they used this to legalize abortion...:confused: :confused:

[Papero]

I never want to read about "free speech" ever again on these forums, mmk? There's no such thing as free speech.

[Karly]

he was at a school sanctioned event, there was no reason for him to do that. if he wanted to be an ass, he should have done it on his own time and his own property. that kids an idiot.

[Takeoff]

I was completely serious...why? because he was on school grounds...I could care less if he offended people in a public area but it was offensive to a religious group on school grounds and they have a right to suspend him. As a Christian do I personally give a damn? no...but I really don't care that some jerkoff got suspended for an offensive banner...what did he really think would happen? He included drugs and a religious figure, come on...

[YouEnjoyMyself]

I was completely serious...why? because he was on school grounds...I could care less if he offended people in a public area but it was offensive to a religious group on school grounds and they have a right to suspend him. As a Christian do I personally give a damn? no...but I really don't care that some jerkoff got suspended for an offensive banner...what did he really think would happen? He included drugs and a religious figure, come on...

1. He wasn't on school grounds.

2. Who cares what he thought would happen? Does intent or reason for doing something disqualify your right to free speech?

[L1mp_3rection]

1. He wasn't on school grounds.

2. Who cares what he thought would happen? Does intent or reason for doing something disqualify your right to free speech?

In this situation of on a public street, I would have to say no. However, in a school it is well in the school's rights to punish a student for what he said and intended to provoke. Seeing as the school is liable for all of their students, the supreme court has more than once ruled that the school is able to put safety over constitutional rights.

[Bergs]

Seeing as the school is liable for all of their students, the supreme court has more than once ruled that the school is able to put safety over constitutional rights.

Where was the safety issue?

[JesusTheJedi]

Here's a question that may need to be asked first: Honestly, how was that banner threatening? How exactly is it really promoting marijuana?

[L1mp_3rection]

Where was the safety issue?

Well, had this been in a school, it would be a pretty bullshit call. But I would say it would be well in the schools rights to say that advocating drug use puts their students at risk. Same if I were to talk about drag racing infront of my teachers. I would likely at least get talked to.

[JesusTheJedi]

Well, had this been in a school, it would be a pretty bullshit call. But I would say it would be well in the schools rights to say that advocating drug use puts their students at risk. Same if I were to talk about drag racing infront of my teachers. I would likely at least get talked to.

The school has every right to talk to you about it, but they can't carry out any kind of punishment unless you're actually caught doing it. They can't automatically assume you've been drag racing unless someone catches you in the act... Even if you are, the school shouldn't be involved at all unless it's on school grounds in my opinion... Frankly, it isn't any of the school's business, and is completely out of their jurisdiction.

You break a state law and you should be punished by the police. You break a school rule on school grounds, you should be punished by the school. If it happens to be both a state law and a school rule, and you do it on school grounds, then you're punished by both.

[droogsteve]

It was a public street, therefore she can unfurl any type of banner she'd like. The fact that it's a "school sponsored" event is irrelevant. It's not school property, and the idea that a student can be suspended for completely legal action done off school property is just wrong.

As far as student's right to free speech INSIDE the school, here's where the waters get muddy. While Tinker vs. Des Moines does indeed say that students don't necessarily give up their free speech rights on school property, it contains the caveat that it can't interfere with the school's order and discipline. In other words, yes, you can wear your black armband to protest the war. But no, you cannot wear your gang bandanna or your KKK t-shirt despite the fact that both are constitutionally protected outside the school. This caveat has been upheld on several occasions.

In Bethel School District vs Fraser, the Court ruled that students can be suspended for "disruptive" speech, even if it contains no actual obscenity or calls for violence or disobedience. In Hazelwood vs Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court ruled that student newspapers don't have the same First Amendment protection as the rest of the press. In other words, don't expect to see any pro-drug articles in your high school paper anytime soon.

Shouldn't I, at any age, be allowed to connect an important religious figure with drug use?

Should you? Yes, you're an adult. Any age? I don't know about that. Should an 7 year old be allowed to wear a pot leaf t-shirt? Not to school, IMO. Some things aren't appropriate, and when my daughter is 7, I'd expect her to be protected from those inappropriate things while she's at school. And while there are obviously differences between an 7 year old and a 17 year old, they are the same in the eyes of the law: minors. That's why the Court gives the schools the power to somewhat limit constitutional freedoms on their grounds. Is it fair that 17 year olds are treated the same as 7 year olds? Nope, but that's the law.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

Hmm, good points. I don't really like it but what the Supreme Court says is the law of the land.

[L1mp_3rection]

The school has every right to talk to you about it, but they can't carry out any kind of punishment unless you're actually caught doing it. They can't automatically assume you've been drag racing unless someone catches you in the act... Even if you are, the school shouldn't be involved at all unless it's on school grounds in my opinion... Frankly, it isn't any of the school's business, and is completely out of their jurisdiction.

You break a state law and you should be punished by the police. You break a school rule on school grounds, you should be punished by the school. If it happens to be both a state law and a school rule, and you do it on school grounds, then you're punished by both.

No I could and likely would get punished if I was advocating drag racing.

[JesusTheJedi]

No I could and likely would get punished if I was advocating drag racing.

Well yeah, I know you would... I just hate that the school thinks they have the right to do that

[RatedM]

I agree with many of the things you said and sorry for poor word choice. Speech is a right not a privelage but it can still definitly be abused.

Should we shelter children from harsh reality? That's a very difficult question. I think it's best that we let children find out for themselves. I think it's good that teachers tell us at an early age that drugs and underage drinking are bad things (and they are).

Do I still do it? Yes.

Do I do it that often? No.

Drinking and drug use have sadly become an integral part of high school life and everyone is pressured to do it. The strong ones resist and the ones who simply want to have fun will do it anyway. Honestly, I like the feeling of being wasted and high (who the hell doesn't?) But I think it's our duty not to promote it because its a fact that drugs and underage drinking are detremental to a child's education.

And was that court case the one that dealt with the girl wearing a black armband to school in honor of deceased vietnam soldiers? They are completely different circumstances but does that still provide total free speech?

I call bullshit on "everyone". No one has pressured me to smoke marijuana, but I do currently smoke it because I want to. I was never pressured. Lawl @ the sign. They are awesome.

[Cantide]

"Bong hits 4 Jesus".

What does that even mean? Why did this go to the supreme court when the Terry Schaivo case didn't? Why does anybody even care about a nonsensical phrase like that? Couldn't we be wasting taxpayer money, on I don't know, say, Social security? Public education? National Defense? The drug war? Welfare?

Although this type of speech is protected, you have to remember: when the founding fathers talked about freedom of speech, they were reffering to holding different views than that of the government without fear of reprisal. They really werent counting on us being total morons.

This really should have just ended with a suspension so we could get on with our miserable lives. I mean, who really gives a flying fuck about some kid spouting such a nonsensical phrase? It's like trying to tie a deep, philisophical meaning to Jabberwocky. Honestly.

Although I do agree: it was hilarious.

[Mr. Heskey]

I call bullshit on "everyone". No one has pressured me to smoke marijuana, but I do currently smoke it because I want to. I was never pressured. Lawl @ the sign. They are awesome.

At my high school most everyone is anyway.

I heard USAToday or some publication/magazine made a listing of the top 100 high schools in america that had the highest percentage of pot smokers/wet parties.

Mine was at the top...supposedly. It was probably just a rumor but I wouldn't be surprised. Surprisingly we're also rated as like the 500th best school in the nation though.

[_Joe]

kids talk about parties/getting drunk and going to bars during school. you think they are getting suspended?

Yea, but they dont make a banner saying "Free beer at my house" and wave it in front of TV cameras on school property.

The school is doing what it can to try and make the campus a drug free area, that also means there aren't any advertisements for drugs around either. What would a 6th grader think if he saw a senior holding up that sign? "Wow, he's smarter than i am, maybe I'll be rebellious and go try weed." Do you really think the school can let something like that happen?

Granted, marijuana is relatively harmless and one of the safest drugs to take, but it's still mind altering and illegal.

The kid says he didn't mean to advocate drug use. What the hell did he think a sign reading "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" would have looked like?

EDIT:


Nevermind, I didn't notice the banner wasn't on school property. It was wrong for the suspension to be handed down i guess

[aSOFTfan]

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I'd probably do it anyway...