'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case limits student rights

[nevadamedic]

Story Highlights
• High Court considers students' First Amendment rights
• Case involves student's "Bong hits 4 Jesus" banner at event
• School argues principal had right to punish student for drug message
• Student, now 24, said he was not promoting drugs

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/index.html

This case should be thrown out. Students cant promote drugs or para. at a school event. This is one case where I think a law suit is a bad idea. How can you put Bong hits and Jesus on the same sign? Idiot.

[darin]

How does that limit rights? That case doesn't limit ANYTHING but, more-accurately, validates the constitution.

(shrug)

[nevadamedic]

How does that limit rights? That case doesn't limit ANYTHING but, more-accurately, validates the constitution.

(shrug)

People are saying it's killing freedom of speech.

[glockmail]

Why should kids have rights? When I was in school we had the right to be there only if we followed all the rules and was respectful to the adults tending the zoo. In my kingdom my kids only get the rights that I give them, same gawddam rules. As it should be. :poke:

[manu1959]

People are saying it's killing freedom of speech.

advocating ilegal activity, "bong hits", is not protected free speech.....

unless of course..........

drunk drivers 4 kennedy

adulters 4 clinton

plastic surgeons 4 pelosi

hairdressers 4 edwards

[CockySOB]

What Fredericks did was tantamount to saying "I'm skipping school today" and then standing across the street from school and harassing/haranguing the school staff and student body. Simply claiming that he was exercising his First Amendment right does NOT relieve Fredericks of his obligation under the law to attend school, nor of the restrictions placed on him while attending school.

IMHO, had Fredericks chosen a different place to fly the banner, he would have been within his First Amendment right to free speech. However, in an interview, Fredericks admitted that he was trying to provoke Morse who had disciplined him earlier. As such, his actions could not be expected to be protected under First Amendment.

Frankly, the kid sounds like a normal rebellious teen who decided to push the limits of responsible behavior, and he pushed too far. If he had simply performed the stunt somewhere other than where he did, and if he had not admitted his intentions behind his action, he would have been covered by the First Amendment.

[nevadamedic]

What Fredericks did was tantamount to saying "I'm skipping school today" and then standing across the street from school and harassing/haranguing the school staff and student body. Simply claiming that he was exercising his First Amendment right does NOT relieve Fredericks of his obligation under the law to attend school, nor of the restrictions placed on him while attending school.

IMHO, had Fredericks chosen a different place to fly the banner, he would have been within his First Amendment right to free speech. However, in an interview, Fredericks admitted that he was trying to provoke Morse who had disciplined him earlier. As such, his actions could not be expected to be protected under First Amendment.

Frankly, the kid sounds like a normal rebellious teen who decided to push the limits of responsible behavior, and he pushed too far. If he had simply performed the stunt somewhere other than where he did, and if he had not admitted his intentions behind his action, he would have been covered by the First Amendment.

Sounds like a punk to me.

[Psychoblues]

dmp closed the thread as a duplicate but failed to include it in this conversation. If you care to see more of it you can see it here:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=82188#post82188

Otherwise, it's still an exciting conversation.