OT: Court Hears "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Case

Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Thomas Rogers

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
11,336
Reaction score
1
Location
Sellersville, PA


Story Highlights:



• 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 23, argues his free-speech rights were violated



Read the whole story at the link below:



OKAY, now DISCUSS...
 
My personal opinion:



The principal was stupid. She should have said the banner was removed and student punished not because of the drug message but because the students speech threatened to incite a riot...much like yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater.



Then it would have been a matter of opinion on whether or not the speech was potentially incendiary, which I think the case could be made for.



Or for that matter, the principal could have claimed the 1st ammendment and it's implied seperation of church and state as the reason for the censorship and discipline that followed.



TJR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
About as stupid as a Principle in Texas detaining a 10 year old boy for 4 hours without his parents or a lawyer present. :wacko: His dad had to pick him up in jail, yup jail, and was going to be charged with a felony, dropped to a misdemeanor, all for just taking the cover off of a fire alarm. :eek: What is this country comming to? :blink: Oh, forgot to mention that his dad has a Master Degree in Education and his mom had her Master Degree in Early Childhood Education; and yes they are going to court with a jury trial.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmmm, students getting together outside of school, that never happens. It wasn't a school sanctioned event, and the whole point of the banner was to draw attention...it worked.
 
Sigh. Folks see this, group them all together. Folks get cut out of a will, fight over a child, have a board of directors harming a company, have been arrested without probable cause, etc., and then they come crying.
 
It wasn't a school sanctioned event



Actually, that comment isn't entirely true. The article I read (which isn't the one linked above) said that the school allowed all students to leave the classroom to see the Olympic torch relay. As such, it was "sanctioned" by the school--although I'll grant it's a far different situation than if it had been, for example, a school-sponsored extra-curricular activity.
 
I just love how the religious groups need to side with the kid for freedom of speech in schools. To not side with him would go against the battle to allow kids to pray in school.



Now in support of everything that makes this nation great, I will go take a bong hit for Jesus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill V, my school used to send us home when we had threat of tornadoes. Does that mean if a tornado hit, it is the school's fault if I die?



They weren't in school, they let the kids leave, it wasn't a field trip, there were no chaperons mentioned, and they didn't have to sign a release to leave. If some kid got run over by a car at the event, would the school have been blamed? I doubt it. You can't give up responsibility and take authority, you have to take both, and unless they signed release forms, they weren't WITH the school.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From the Federal Reporter, these are the facts as considered by the 9th Circuit. Ignore the star pagination.



---



One January day, Coca-Cola and other private sponsors supported a "Winter Olympics Torch Relay" in Juneau, Alaska. Students were released from school so that they could watch the Olympic torch pass by. Joseph Frederick, then an 18-year-old [**2] senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, never made it to school that morning because he got stuck in the snow in his driveway, but he made it to the sidewalk, across from the school, where the torch would pass by. He and some friends waited until the television cameras would catch it, then unfurled a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Deborah Morse, the school principal, crossed the street, grabbed and crumpled up the banner, and suspended Frederick for ten days. He appealed the suspension administratively, but it was sustained. He then filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in the Federal District Court seeking declaratory and other relief.



There was disorder at the torch passing, but the uncontradicted evidence is that it had nothing to do with Frederick and his fellow sign-holders. Coca-Cola handed out samples in plastic bottles, and students threw them at each other. Students threw snowballs. Some students got into fights. But Frederick and his group did not participate in these disorders, saving their [*1116] energy for what they hoped would be their nationally televised sign display. And, the disruption that took place occurred before the display of the banner, so it [**3] could not have been caused by it.



In subsequent days, there was some pro-drug graffiti in the high school which the principal thought was "sparked" by the banner, but the principal did not rip down the sign at the rally because she anticipated or was concerned about such possible consequences. When Principal Morse crossed the street from the school and confronted Frederick about the banner, he asked "What about the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech?" She told him to take the banner down because she "felt that it violated the policy against displaying offensive material, including material that advertises or promotes use of illegal drugs," and she grabbed it from him and crumpled it up.



In their answers to interrogatories, Appellees never contend that the display of the banner disrupted or was expected to disrupt classroom work. Asked for all the ways in which the banner display disrupted the educational process, they said:



Display of the banner would be construed by many, including students, district personnel, parents and others witnessing the display of the banner, as advocating or promoting illegal drug use which is inconsistent with the district's basic educational [**4] mission to promote a healthy, drug-free life style. Failure to react to the display would appear to give the district's imprimatur to that message and would be inconsistent with the district's responsibility to teach students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior.







There are some genuine disputes about the facts, but they are not material to the resolution of this case. Frederick says that the principal initially told him that he was suspended for five days, but when he quoted Thomas Jefferson to her, she doubled it. The principal says that she does not remember whether he quoted Jefferson to her, but that was not why the suspension was ten days. Frederick says that an assistant principal told him that the Bill of Rights does not exist in schools and does not apply until after graduation, but Principal Morse says that the assistant principal "made some remark to the effect that students do not have the same first amendment rights as adults." Frederick says that students were simply released from school so that they could watch the privately sponsored Olympic Torch being carried through a public street, and a student affidavit he submitted poin
 
Ha! Two Master's degrees in the house and they still can't teach the kid that vandalism is a bad thing! ----"Frederick says that the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" language was designed to be meaningless and funny"----yeah, I bet most of what he says fits into that category! I have read that taking "Bong Hits" makes you very intelligent, a deep thinker, and a credit to society! HAHAHAHAHAHA!:D
 
The principal was stupid. She should have said the banner was removed and student punished not because of the drug message but because the students speech threatened to incite a riot...much like yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater.



Then it would have been a matter of opinion on whether or not the speech was potentially incendiary, which I think the case could be made for.



Or for that matter, the principal could have claimed the 1st ammendment and it's implied seperation of church and state as the reason for the censorship and discipline that followed.



Clearly, the 1st Amendment rights of students can be severly limited in the context of school. But I fail to see what authority a school principal has over the 1st Amendment rights of an adult who is not on school grounds.



For example, if the school marching band was participating in a parade through town, the same student was standing on a street corner with the same sign as the band passes by, and the principal acted in the same manner, it would be vandalism to destroy the sign, as well as a violation of 1st Amendment rights.



So, it seems to me the key issue is whether or not the student was under the authority of the principal at the time. The circumstances suggest not.



Still, it's a mountain made out of a molehill.
 
Jeff C, I didn't say that the event was school "sponsored", or a school "activity". And I definitely didn't say that the school was responsible for the students or their actions during that time. I only said that the event was school "sanctioned". That is, the school approved of the students being out for the day. If the students had left without the school's permission, then it wouldn't be school sanctioned. That's what "sanctioned" means--the school approved of the students attendance, nothing more.



Re: your question about whether the school is responsible if they were to send you home during a tornado warning and you get killed--The answer quite simply is, "It depends." Was sending you home their standard, documented practice in such a situation? Was it the proper, safest procedure to follow based on reasonable judgement? Did the school take appropriate action to assure that the students were safe during the transit back home, while the students were still in the district's care? If the answer to all of these is "yes", then in my opinion, the school met their responsibility. But from my (admittedly limited) knowledge of tornadoes, I know that riding around in school buses is not the safest place to be during a tornado. Far better is to enact the standard school indoor tornado safety practices in the school itself. From that, I'd have to wonder if the reason for sending the kids home wasn't to increase their safety, but to reduce the school's responsibility. And if that's the case, then ironically, yes, the school is responsible.

 
BigBearCarolina, you say that the parents "still can't teach the kid that vandalism is a bad thing!" I'm confused--what is it that he supposedly vandalized in your opinion? Vandalism entails damaging or destroying someone else's property--which I don't recall anyone claiming this kid had done.
 
They didn't really say whether the kid damaged the cover of the fire alarm when he removed it, so I guess i stand corrected, Bill V. He wasn't guilty of vandalism, he was guilty of theft. When he removed the cover, he took it into his possesion. Once he was in possesion of the cover, he was guilty of theft unless he was the one who purchased and installed the fire alarm. He didn't just remove the cover, he set the alarm off. Once that happened he was guilty of setting off a false alarm. Call it whatever you want to, but at 10 years old, my daughter knew full well that messing with things that didn't belong to her was considered a bad thing , both in our family and under the law. At 10 years old a kid should know what a fire alarm is. At 10 years old a kid should understand that a fire alarm is put in place to alert people of a dangerous situation that could potentially harm them. At 10 years old a kid should know whether he works for the Fire Inspector or not, and whether it is his job to be dis-assembling school safety equipment. What he did was a dangerous thing, and he should be made well aware of the potential consequences of his actions. Principals don't arrest kids and charge them with crimes, Police do. I don't know whether the Principal's actions followed school policy or not. It says he was detained without his parents present, not that he was detained without his parents being notified. All I know is that messing with fire alarms is not a good thing, and someone should make him very aware of that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigBear, I doubt it was felony theft that the kid that took the fire alarm was charged with.



Did you read a report that said he was charged with felony theft?



I suspect the original felony charges had to be something akin to tampering with a fire control or fire safety device (for example, many states have the false signaling of an alarm a felony).



The felony charge could have simply been due to the fact that the law, as written, warrants such tampering as a felony, and not been an overaction on anyone's part.



I do think what the kid did was very serious.



TJR
 
Of course, I know he wasn't charged with felony theft, I was just making a tongue-in-cheek statement that whether it was considered vandalism or not, it was still a serious event that took place. He could actually be charged with felony reporting of a false alarm, which I don't think will happen or is warranted. But yes, it was serious. My actual intent was to poke fun at the inclusion of the fact that his parents had Master's degrees in Education, which to me has nothing to do with whether your child is an angel or a hellion, or whether you are a good parent or not. . I'm sure the Principal has a Master's Degree of some sort, which is normally required of school administrators. You can read more about it here:
 
Top