A Blow to Our Free Speech

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:43 am

So a principal can now suspend a student for undesirable activity, even when away from school. What other undesirable extracurricular activities in free expression will start falling under this legal umbrella? Advocating drinking? Wearing billboard t-shirts? Praying in public?

from the story wrote: On Jan. 24, 2002, the Olympic Torch Relay was running through the streets of Juneau. The event attracted news coverage as well as the sponsorship of companies that included Coca-Cola. As the runners passed along Glacier Avenue, 18-year-old Joseph Frederick and several fellow students standing on the public sidewalk unfurled their "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.

"The content of the banner was less important to us than the fact that we were exercising our free-speech rights to do a funny parody," Frederick later testified.

Juneau Douglas High School Principal Deborah Morse saw the banner, crossed the street and took it from Frederick's hands. The teen began quoting Thomas Jefferson; she suspended him for 10 days.
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/educa ... rint.shtml

The event wasn't on school property - wasn't even a school-sponsored activity.

.

Tater Tazz · Post by **Tater Tazz** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:45 am

Not right! Hopefully that student is going to do something about this.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:55 am

Tater Tazz;646807 wrote: Not right! Hopefully that student is going to do something about this.
It's been to the US Supreme Court. Not much else to do.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:00 am

That does leave me perplexed. Usually only off school activities that receive a suspension are something that is carried over off the property-like a fight, drug, deal, etc. I don't see how that qualifies as a suspension. Ten days is the maximum one you can give.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:02 am

Tater Tazz;646807 wrote: Not right! Hopefully that student is going to do something about this.

Somewhat late in the day, since the Supreme Court has already held against him.

The dissenting view is quite right imo with "Carving out pro-drug speech for uniquely harsh treatment finds no support in our case law and is inimical to the values protected by the First Amendment". It's an awful judgement and just goes to show what happens when the Supreme Court gets packed with partisan judges.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:54 am

I disagree with the partisan tag. Here are some fellow partisans' opinions:

Imagine a student who attacks the war on drugs by arguing that there's nothing inherently wrong with smoking pot, or by sharing accurate information about the relative hazards of marijuana and alcohol, or by noting New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's un-Clintonian response to the question of whether he'd ever smoked cannabis: "You bet I did, and I enjoyed it."

In each example, the student, though engaged in political debate, "can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use." Will his speech be protected anyway?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Jaco ... nd_ad_runs

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Debr ... a_bong_hit

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:52 pm

The school had no business to do that. Period.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:00 am

RedGlitter;647435 wrote: The school had no business to do that. Period.

You're disputing with your Supreme Court, RG. It makes little difference what we mortals think. The Supreme Court says the school was within its rights to do it, and nobody can change that now. It ain't just an opinion, it's the Law.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:27 pm

spot;647460 wrote: You're disputing with your Supreme Court, RG. It makes little difference what we mortals think. The Supreme Court says the school was within its rights to do it, and nobody can change that now. It ain't just an opinion, it's the Law.

That doesn't make it right though, Spot. The Supreme Court has been wrong before....

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:08 pm

RedGlitter;647838 wrote: That doesn't make it right though, Spot. The Supreme Court has been wrong before....How? I thought the Supreme Court defined "right".

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:25 pm

spot;647906 wrote: How? I thought the Supreme Court defined "right".

Well, if you're asking me, I'd say no. Their word may be the law of the land but not necessarily for those who prefer to think for themselves.... I mean just because the SC says something is the way it is, doesn't mean I or everyone else is necessarily buying it...

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:38 pm

Hah! Just don't try going to court on the basis that the Supreme Court made a mistake, that's all.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:04 am

spot;647906 wrote: How? I thought the Supreme Court defined "right".
"Right" as in legal. "Right" as in a thing you are permitted to do.

Certainly not "right" as in correct. That's outside their self-expanded jurisdiction.

(I'd originally written "morally correct" in that last statement, but that's not quite the adverb I want.) :yh_think

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:48 am

Although it frightens me to know we are becoming a police state.. I think our country is beginning to use any means possible to kill the drug monster, that is destroying our youth, and destroying our country. I live here in Virginia, a state ravaged by drug abuse. Sleepy little Staunton Virginia, is one of the largest crystal meth production sites, in the United States. Our local government is taking drivers liscences away from young people with any kind of drug charge. Just this morning, I heard.... The son of a family acquaintance was arrested. Suspected of drug involvement, they listened to his cell phone conversations, came to the house, and arrested him.

Young people who go to school, committed to learning, deserve to go to school without having to have their education derailed by the students using, or selling drugs. Teachers should no longer have to put up with students who are stoned, or high. Fights errupt, and precious time is taken away from those students in the room to learn. At this time, I am for any means that cleans up our drug culture, I have seen so many innocent babies born addicted to drugs, it has distorted my affection for our youth.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:00 am

Weeder, do they also remove the drivers licenses of adults who have drug charges? Or just kids? If it's the latter I am not for that as it's discriminatory.

I stopped believing in the "war on drugs" a long time ago. It makes (to me) as much sense as Prohibition did. There will always be people who want to use so there will always be sellers.

I'm not necessarily pro-drug, at least not all of them by any means, but I am for fairness.

:-6

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:23 am

They do take the liscences of adults. We cannott stop the war on drugs. The reason is because,,, Yes, you are correct some people make a choice. But often, innocent people fall victim to the lure of drugs, and there are so many reasons why. It is difficult for me to explain. Years ago, upon leaving New York, I discovered that the US has thousands and thousand of citizens who are ( how do I say this?) 2 slices short of a loaf. Illiterate, living in poverty, victims of domestic abuse, even incest. They barely recognize that there is a world outside of where they live. They are depressed, hopeless, without goals, and trapped. Drug pushers prey on these unfortunate people. Offering them a cheap and easy way to feel euphoric.... soon these people are like vampires. Joining the ranks of the army of drug users, I mentioned before.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:49 pm

weeder;648331 wrote: Although it frightens me to know we are becoming a police state.. I think our country is beginning to use any means possible to kill the drug monster, that is destroying our youth, and destroying our country. I live here in Virginia, a state ravaged by drug abuse. Sleepy little Staunton Virginia, is one of the largest crystal meth production sites, in the United States. Our local government is taking drivers liscences away from young people with any kind of drug charge. Just this morning, I heard.... The son of a family acquaintance was arrested. Suspected of drug involvement, they listened to his cell phone conversations, came to the house, and arrested him.

Young people who go to school, committed to learning, deserve to go to school without having to have their education derailed by the students using, or selling drugs. Teachers should no longer have to put up with students who are stoned, or high. Fights errupt, and precious time is taken away from those students in the room to learn. At this time, I am for any means that cleans up our drug culture, I have seen so many innocent babies born addicted to drugs, it has distorted my affection for our youth.
Big hugs to you, Weeder, but I just can't agree with you.

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:12 pm

And I cant blame you for not agreeing. I was kind of surprised at my own rationalization for the unfair action. I think I can only make excuses because I have come to feel that the drug epademic is in many ways, a matter of life and death.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:04 pm

Accountable;646805 wrote: So a principal can now suspend a student for undesirable activity, even when away from school. What other undesirable extracurricular activities in free expression will start falling under this legal umbrella? Advocating drinking? Wearing billboard t-shirts? Praying in public?

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/educa ... rint.shtml

The event wasn't on school property - wasn't even a school-sponsored activity.

Accountable;646805 wrote: So a principal can now suspend a student for undesirable activity, even when away from school.

AC;

How about drug testing (ADULTS) at work (after being hired)........ same difference IMO.

If I puff a little weed in my home, away from work and it (THC) happens to stay in my system for a month or so (but not the buzzzzz) why should one be penalized?

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:15 pm

[QUOTE=Accountable;646805]So a principal can now suspend a student for undesirable activity, even when away from school. What other undesirable extracurricular activities in free expression will start falling under this legal umbrella? Advocating drinking? Wearing billboard t-shirts? Praying in public?

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/educa ... rint.shtml

The event wasn't on school property - wasn't even a school-sponsored activity.

Geez.. I was a part of the Viet Nam protests as a teen. What kind of assinine crap goes on with kids these days. They cannot express or voice in this world of anal adults.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:31 am

BTS;649035 wrote: AC;

How about drug testing (ADULTS) at work (after being hired)........ same difference IMO.

If I puff a little weed in my home, away from work and it (THC) happens to stay in my system for a month or so (but not the buzzzzz) why should one be penalized?
Public vs private is the difference. If I'm a business owner I'm gonna set the rules. If you don't like mine, work for someone else.

If you have a gov't job, you shouldn't be breaking the law & not expect to be penalized. Change the law first.