Both Walter and Dahlia are taking the position that it isn't at all clear that "Bong hits 4 Jesus" advocates for illegal drug use. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I personally can't think of anything that "bong hits" could be referring to except smoking marijuana. What else would a high school student possibly mean by that phrase? If Walter and Dahlia were right, it would mean that school administrators would be prohibited from making reasonable inferences about colloquial phrases, and only the most explicit endorsements of illegal activity could be prohibited. To take an example almost anyone would find offensive, what if a student wore a T-shirt depicting a hooded figure holding a noose with the phrase "string em up high", and claimed that its referring to a pinata; could that be prohibited pursuant to Walter and Dahlia's interpretation of the law?

Take it out of American Drug Culture context. I thought it meant literally banging or bonging a musical instrument in favour of the fake xtian demi-deity. Grated it happened in the USNA. What about "Good Head" Does that endores fellatio?

Teenagers frequently say things just to be weird.

The sensible position on this is that "Bong Hits For Jesus" was just a nonsense phrase with scandalous overtones, your basic High school kid prankster language. And the school administrator overreacted by first censoring and then suspending the kid. The prissy catholic majority on the SOTUS got this wrong in ways that promise more to come. And no, by the way, racist inflammatory analogies are not appropriate in this case. Or did i miss the part of our glorious history in which armed mobs of atheists lynched poor christian boys for praying in public? The passion the reactionaries have for assigning themselves the "true victim" role in every case, if only via bizarrely constrructed analogies, never fails to amuse. A big fat LOL for Aagcobb, then, along with a tastefully small portion of get over yourself.

You don't get me at all Melvyl; I don't have any particular problem with marijuana and 1/20/09 can't come soon enough for me. My only interest was in a narrow legal issue: what kind of speech can school administrators discipline students for? If they have to interpret colloquial phrases based on the standard that "teenagers say weird things", and I was a school board attorney, I would have to advise them that they can't take action against any speech except explicit solicitations of illegal conduct in standard english, even if, in the appropriate cultural context, the speech clearly advocates illegal conduct. Now quit imagining I'm a slobbering Bushbot, and try to look at the problem from the pov of an underpaid principal dealing with a roomful of outraged parents.

Hello, Heleva:

Since this occurred in America, it should be interpreted in the appropriate cultural context. And since fellatio isn't illegal, I don't think "good head" would justify discipline, unless it included a picture of a mug of beer, since in most of the US, the consumption of alcohol is illegal under the age of 21.

Aagcobb:

Hello, Heleva:

Since this occurred in America, it should be interpreted in the appropriate cultural context. And since fellatio isn't illegal, I don't think "good head" would justify discipline, unless it included a picture of a mug of beer, since in most of the US, the consumption of alcohol is illegal under the age of 21.

Speak for yourself. Fellatio is illegal in my state and many others. If we get another Opus Dei on the SCOTUS, it may soon be where you live also!

Is it just me, or is anyone else having issues with the fact that the school penalized a student for conduct that occurred outside school grounds. Particularly since he had not gone to school that day and (atlhough standing next to his classmates) not technically under school control?

Really the least of the issues, but still?

So I overreacted. Sue me. Not. The narrow judgement of the court was that High School administrators (who are not ALL underpaid, BTW) need guidance from the Supreme Court about what specific kinds of public language they are empowered to forbid. Long as it's about an ILLEGAL DRUG, hey, go for it. Me, i don't buy that for a moment, since Robert's problems with it clearly had to do with the Jesus thing. A room full of outraged parents? Outraged by what? By some stupid banner, or by the equally stupid overreaction of the "underpaid principal?"

If this were outside the school context it would be a free speech issue. But it is not and all the Justices were united on that point. The question is whether or not it was disruptive.

Unless SCOTUS wants to get into differentiating the screaming of a 5 year old and a 18 year old, they should leave it to the school administrators.

NightSwimmer:

Aagcobb:

Hello, Heleva:

Since this occurred in America, it should be interpreted in the appropriate cultural context. And since fellatio isn't illegal, I don't think "good head" would justify discipline, unless it included a picture of a mug of beer, since in most of the US, the consumption of alcohol is illegal under the age of 21.

Speak for yourself. Fellatio is illegal in my state and many others. If we get another Opus Dei on the SCOTUS, it may soon be where you live also!

The law you are referring to may still technically be on the books, but the SCOTUS ruled such laws unconstitutional when applied to private conduct between consenting adults.

Melvyl:

So I overreacted. Sue me. Not. The narrow judgement of the court was that High School administrators (who are not ALL underpaid, BTW) need guidance from the Supreme Court about what specific kinds of public language they are empowered to forbid. Long as it's about an ILLEGAL DRUG, hey, go for it. Me, i don't buy that for a moment, since Robert's problems with it clearly had to do with the Jesus thing. A room full of outraged parents? Outraged by what? By some stupid banner, or by the equally stupid overreaction of the "underpaid principal?"

I don't really care about the specific facts of this case, but the legal principle in question. I think all of us, whatever our political beliefs, want our children to be able to attend school in an environment conducive to learning (I know that in this particular case, the kid wasn't in class, but as I just said, I don't care). That means school administrators have to be able to discipline disruptive children, and they have to have enough discretion so that they aren't paralyzed by fear of a lawsuit.

lonegunwoman74:

Is it just me, or is anyone else having issues with the fact that the school penalized a student for conduct that occurred outside school grounds. Particularly since he had not gone to school that day and (atlhough standing next to his classmates) not technically under school control?

Really the least of the issues, but still?

As the court said,"The event in question occurred during normal school hours and was sanctioned by Morse as an approved social event at which the district’s student-conduct rules expressly applied. Teachers and administrators were among the students and were charged with supervising them. Frederick stood among other students across the street from the school and directed his banner toward the school, making it plainly visible to most students. Under these circumstances, Frederick cannot claim he was not at school."

1) I think it fairly obvious the students were let off schoolgrounds for the "torch" passing by. It was basically a field trip within sight of the school (across the street).

2) Those in the group were all students and administrators, save one person. If it had been a school trip to a zoo, because one other individual was there, would it make sense that code of conduct rules do not apply?

3) Should he be allowed out of the school code of conduct while with the students because he was breaking the law by being truant? Sounds a bit perverse.

"The law you are referring to may still technically be on the books, but the SCOTUS ruled such laws unconstitutional when applied to private conduct between consenting adults."

Yes, the SCOTUS made such a ruling, but it was not THIS SCOTUS.

In general

Perhaps the reactionary parents/those offended should turn an open ear to the message that is being sent here prior to crying and whining to the principal that "marijuana is bad, mmmkay." So many people are persecuted for how they say things, but in all actuality - No one would have listened unless you can get their attention. Martin Luther King, JFK, ..... need I go on? In all actuality, the kids who made the BH4J banner have got their message across (even it was found to be irrelevant) to such a massive audience that they have succeeded far beyond thought possible. It's hard for parents to face facts, but school is not "fairy land" where your students are magically safe from new ideas and isolated from the rest of the world. (Virginia Tech)

If you want to bust the "BH4J" kids for technical attendance details, you have to admit that he was actually across the street and not "with the group." The door swings both ways.

Perhaps this was a botched opportunity to study current events such as the "controversial" banner. This subject could have been used in "current events" class to get the students interpretations as to whether or not it was a disruption. You will find that when kids are treated with respect and asked to participate in the learning process other than keeping their mouths shut and taking notes, the outbursts and rowdy behavior comes down a notch.

Grant