|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/28/2007 : 04:24:08
|
The shithead conservative majority on the Supreme Court has decided in favor of limiting high school student's First Amendment rights. They can no longer put up a silly banner, relevant of nothing, on school property. Ok, the whole thing is nonsense, but the decision itself could have some unintended consequences. Christian students can be punished for harassing their gay classmates, for example, if it's no more than wearing a tee shirt with an obnoxious phrase.
Ya gotta love it: | In yesterday's decision in Morse v. Frederick, better known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, the Supreme Court's conservative majority appears to have turned on its Christian Right supporters. The Court narrowly held that a public school principal could constitutionally confiscate a nonsensical sign which read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" from a student because, in the Court's absurd view, it promoted illegal drug use. |
Nothing terribly exciting so far, but.... Immediately, the Christian Right was distressed. Lawyers who had sided with the student (and the Christian Right's arch-enemy, the American Civil Liberties Union) are now worried that the precedent will be used to restrict their own clients' speech, also supposedly in Jesus' name, but not nearly as frivolous.
Across the country, the conservative legal group the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) goes to court to vindicate the free speech rights of Christian students to tell their LGBT peers they're going to hell, usually after their speech has run afoul of school policies designed to protect students from harassment and bullying on the basis of their sexual orientation. In one such case, Harper v. Poway School District, which will be heard by the Supreme Court next term, ADF is representing a San Diego high school student who wore a T-shirt to school that read, "Be ashamed, our school has embraced what God has condemned" on the front, and "Homosexuality is shameful, Romans 1:27" on the back.
|
So, now let us see where this next decision goes. Will the court decide that only Christian students have First Amendment rights? Hard to say because they have set a precedent, of sorts, and might be loath to break with it. On the other hand, when conservatives attain any sort of power, they seem to lose all semblance of conscience in direct ratio to how much authority they have been granted. In our current government, this seems almost measurable.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
Edited by - filthy on 06/28/2007 05:08:32
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 06/28/2007 : 05:23:58 [Permalink]
|
I was listening to a discussion about this on Christian radio the other day. They made a huge effort to explain how the eventual decision was OK for religious people and their right to expression, and suggested that the emphasis of the court was more on the "bong hits" part than the "for Jesus" part. Just like a school is within its rights to ban a kid from wearing a "Spuds MacKensie" T-shirt, they can ban thinks like this.
But if it came back to bite rabid Christians in the ass, I wouldn't complain! |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 05:24:00 [Permalink]
|
Quite a quandry you've pointed out, Fil. Them fundies are attached to their hate speech, and don't want to lose it.
Now, personally, I've always felt that the Bong Hits case was marginal. The joke banner (and that's all it was) was unfurled outside of school, but in a school-sanctioned venue, where the authority of the school administration was a bit of a "maybe." It still is not clear to me if this was non-school free expression, or something upon which the school had authority.
Now, I have a bit of a complex opinion on the authority of school administrations on matters of "free speech." I think that ultimately school authorities are acting in loco parentis, and that this authorizes them to regulate the actions of their students. However, this, though I think is legal, is only sometimes a good idea, as we really should encourage kids to express themselves as good citizens in a democracy. If the Bong Hits banner was unfurled while the student was under the school's authority, then the school had a right to take an action. But it wasn't a good idea to punish the kid for it, IMO.
I do think there are situations, as in the persecution of students by other students, where taking such preventative or punitive action is both legal and correct. And citing religion to allow such persecution, when the same kind of persecution would be disallowed if done in a "secular" manner, is bullshit.
If the courts decide that public school hate speech is okay only if it's for religion, then it's about time there was a good Donnybrook of a Secular Stonewall Riot. And that just might happen in some school one of these days. High school students are very aware of social issues, and can be very ardent in their beliefs.
Edit: Grammar. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 06/28/2007 19:28:00 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 17:39:55 [Permalink]
|
Where are the cries of "activist judge" now? Because it was the rightwingers who get to write the majority opinion on this one.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 20:53:27 [Permalink]
|
This is what happens when a people allow the government to make vast amounts of circumstances public. If this were a private school the decision would be make by those that fund the school (i.e. those directly involved). When many aspects of society are deemed "public" and governmental these are the restrictions on personal freedom that will manifests themselves. The more aspects of society that are put in the "public" governmental realm the more basic human freedom will be eroded.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 21:40:26 [Permalink]
|
Well, filthy has one of the details wrong, because the banner was not on school property, but across the street. That certainly makes the circumstances "public."
When I first heard about this case, an interview with the kid had the kid admitting that his banner was supposed to be meaningless. Personally, I see no benefit to protecting admittedly meaningless speach. But this article says that the kid actually did have an intended meaning: to test his First Amendment rights.
Be that as it may, none of the rights delineated in the Constitution or its Amendments are absolute, they've all been restricted in some way since their inception, and typically for good reason. Talking about them as if these "basic human freedoms" were absolute is a non-starter, a false premise. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 02:30:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This is what happens when a people allow the government to make vast amounts of circumstances public. If this were a private school the decision would be make by those that fund the school (i.e. those directly involved). When many aspects of society are deemed "public" and governmental these are the restrictions on personal freedom that will manifests themselves. The more aspects of society that are put in the "public" governmental realm the more basic human freedom will be eroded.
|
Just try that Bong Hits stunt in a Catholic school.
Dead wrong for the umpteenth time, Jerome. Sometimes I wonder if you are from this planet.
I've seen no evidence that private schools are less restrictive than public schools in terms of personal expression by students. Though I think private schools are more varied than public schools, I suspect the opposite is more often than not the case. But, since you made the extraordinary claim that public schools are more restrictive, you must provide the evidence.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 06/29/2007 02:35:14 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/29/2007 : 06:58:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, filthy has one of the details wrong, because the banner was not on school property, but across the street. That certainly makes the circumstances "public."
When I first heard about this case, an interview with the kid had the kid admitting that his banner was supposed to be meaningless. Personally, I see no benefit to protecting admittedly meaningless speach. But this article says that the kid actually did have an intended meaning: to test his First Amendment rights.
Be that as it may, none of the rights delineated in the Constitution or its Amendments are absolute, they've all been restricted in some way since their inception, and typically for good reason. Talking about them as if these "basic human freedoms" were absolute is a non-starter, a false premise.
|
I misread it, then -- thanks for the catch. I hate it when I do that, and I do it all too often.
So, as this silly banner was not on school property, what does that state as to the principal's authority over students? Could it reach across the street for a tee shirt as well? Or a Bong Hits ball cap (I expect to see both for sale any day now, probably at Landover Baptist)?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 19:34:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This is what happens when a people allow the government to make vast amounts of circumstances public. If this were a private school the decision would be make by those that fund the school (i.e. those directly involved). When many aspects of society are deemed "public" and governmental these are the restrictions on personal freedom that will manifests themselves. The more aspects of society that are put in the "public" governmental realm the more basic human freedom will be eroded.
|
Just try that Bong Hits stunt in a Catholic school.
Dead wrong for the umpteenth time, Jerome. Sometimes I wonder if you are from this planet.
I've seen no evidence that private schools are less restrictive than public schools in terms of personal expression by students. Though I think private schools are more varied than public schools, I suspect the opposite is more often than not the case. But, since you made the extraordinary claim that public schools are more restrictive, you must provide the evidence.
|
You are missing my point. If school is private, the people most closely related to the circumstance have the right to decide. In fact, I personal have a relationship with a private school that would have allowed the sign. The sign most probably would have lead to intense discussions amongst the students and teachers (great learning tool for the ability to think). Ultimately we lack diverse and abundant choice in schooling for this age group because of the government monopoly.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 19:56:42 [Permalink]
|
Jerome claimed:| You are missing my point. If school is private, the people most closely related to the circumstance have the right to decide. |
Define that "people most closely related to the circumstances." The teachers? The principal? The students? The Bishop of the local diocese? (Sounds like vague weasel-words, to me.) And I repeat: Document your claim with evidence.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 06/29/2007 19:59:37 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 20:08:38 [Permalink]
|
Ricky pointed out:| HalfMooner, no where in Jerome's post do I see him making a claim that private schools are less restrictive. |
Okay, maybe I got that impression incorrectly. I thought that was the point of his statement about private schools being in some way more responsive. Public schools answer to elected school boards, which are (sometimes) responsive to public pressure. There need be no such feedback mechanism in private schools, especially those run by religions, which I suspect are the majority of private schools.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 20:23:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Jerome claimed:| You are missing my point. If school is private, the people most closely related to the circumstance have the right to decide. |
Define that "people most closely related to the circumstances." The teachers? The principal? The students? The Bishop of the local diocese? (Sounds like vague weasel-words, to me.) And I repeat: Document your claim with evidence.
|
If this is the tact you would like to take.
Public schools are funded in part by the federal government, partly by the state, and mostly by the county. These are three levels of government that need to be adhered to when decisions are made within the school.(Keep in mind the students have no power of purse here)
Religious schools are funded by the church and the students. This is two levels; one being on hand, that need to be adhered to.
Secular schools are funded by the students. This is the optimum ability to effect the system.
Objectivity, which of these gives the most power to the students?
Deleted previous post: wrong quote, same response. |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 03:06:15 [Permalink]
|
Common Sense and I wonder just what the hell they were smoking when they made this asinine decision on a case that never should have even been heard by the SC in the first place. The link also wonders who financed Principal Morse's case. Getting to the Supremos ain't cheap. Bong Hits For Roberts
Submitted by Alec Dubro on June 28, 2007 - 12:24am.
What was Chief Justice John Roberts smoking? Nobody's that straight anymore, are they? Could he have really believed that a banner reading “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” promoted drug use? And that the message was so dangerous that school authorities were correct in punishing the student who created the banner?
That's certainly what he ruled in Morse v. Frederick. In this case, the principal of Juneau-Douglas High School (Alaska) suspended for 10 days senior student Joseph Frederick for hanging out the offending banner on private property across from the school during the Winter Olympics Torch Relay.
In a classic 5-4, right-left, split decision, the Roberts faction ruled that Frederick, and all like him, could be silenced. According to The Washington Post, “the court held that schools have the right to censor non-disruptive student speech if it ‘can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use.'"
First of all, “reasonably” can only be invoked if Jesus were present—which I suppose in Roberts' world he always is—and could be induced to take a hit off the bong. Not probable. Nor would impressionable youth likely be swayed by the message—if, in fact, there was a message. Frederick's banner was kind of dada-juvenile—the equivalent of saying, “Oxy-Contin for the Pope.” In short, slightly offensive in several ways, but essentially meaningless.
|
"Oxy-Contin for the Pope?" Could be that the old Hitler Youth alumnus is already on it....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 09:23:14 [Permalink]
|
From Filthys article posted: "First of all, “reasonably” can only be invoked if Jesus were present"
This is incorrect as the message was, as I read it, take a bong hit if you support Jesus. Much like signs held up on the street: "Honk for ???", meaning the reader of the sign should honk if they support ???.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 14:33:13 [Permalink]
|
It seems to me that we should be able to agree that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" was simply a collection of words intended not to convey a meaning, but merely to be provocative. Debating its "meaning" is pointless.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" coming back to bite?
