Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Rules Against Student Who Displayed 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' Banner (get back to class kid)
Fox News ^ | 6/25/2007 | Fox news

Posted on 06/25/2007 7:36:28 AM PDT by tobyhill

Supreme Court Rules Against Student Who Displayed 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' Banner. Just Breaking

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banner; bonghits4jesus; freespeech; ruling; scotus; sign; ussc

1 posted on 06/25/2007 7:36:31 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

& CNN just reported a loosening of restrictions on campaign ads

>>The Supreme Court loosened restrictions today on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.


2 posted on 06/25/2007 7:38:03 AM PDT by raccoonradio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio

The USSC is on a role today.


3 posted on 06/25/2007 7:39:29 AM PDT by tobyhill (only wimps believe in retreat in defeat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Something tells me Justice Ginsberg’s dissents will be the only thing we hear on the MSM nightly news tonight.


4 posted on 06/25/2007 7:41:09 AM PDT by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Lemme guess, it’d have been ok if the t-shirt read, “Gays 4 Jesus”, or “Illegals 4 Jesus” or even “Jihad 4 Jesus”?


5 posted on 06/25/2007 7:55:26 AM PDT by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
The USSC didn’t rule anything on ordinary free speech on ones own time but ruled that this snot nosed brat was on the schools time and they can regulate what they do, on or off property.
6 posted on 06/25/2007 8:00:26 AM PDT by tobyhill (only wimps believe in retreat in defeat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
The USSC didn’t rule anything on ordinary free speech on ones own time but ruled that this snot nosed brat was on the schools time and they can regulate what they do, on or off property.

Did the lower courts factually determine that this kid was a brat, and that he did, in fact, have excessive amounts of snot in his nose? In reality, he was not on school time or on school grounds. Public schools just moved a step closer to being awarded jurisdiction over all time and space, and that doesn't seem to bother you?

7 posted on 06/25/2007 8:32:09 AM PDT by Freedom_no_exceptions (No actual, intended, or imminent victim = no crime. No exceptions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_no_exceptions
The USSC ruled it was school time and schools have always had the rights to sanction kids on school time regardless where they are. If the schools didn’t release the snot nosed brats to their parents then they were still under school guidelines, including sanctions for inappropriate behavior.
8 posted on 06/25/2007 8:40:08 AM PDT by tobyhill (only wimps believe in retreat in defeat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I’ve been telling people this for years, and they always think I’m making this up.

You send your kid to a PUBLIC SCHOOL, during those 6 to 8 hours your child is a WARD OF THE STATE, period.


9 posted on 06/25/2007 8:43:13 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
If the schools didn’t release the snot nosed brats to their parents then they were still under school guidelines, including sanctions for inappropriate behavior.

Also reported is that this guy is a college-drop out and ...

"Joseph Frederick, who has been teaching and studying in China, pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, according to court records."

Seems like a SNB to me!

Tell me this one wasn't financed by the ACLU all the way.
10 posted on 06/25/2007 8:52:06 AM PDT by gipper81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
Lemme guess, it’d have been ok if the t-shirt read, “Gays 4 Jesus”, or “Illegals 4 Jesus” or even “Jihad 4 Jesus”?

Probably so as the objection in this case was the reference to illegal drug use and the decision of the principal that this banner amounted to an endorsement of it.

In this case, it seems, "Bong hits" carried more weight than the "4 Jesus" part of the message. Which is consistent with the Supreme Court rulings against using illegal drugs as a religious sacrement.

11 posted on 06/25/2007 8:56:31 AM PDT by Tall_Texan (Global warming? Hell, in Texas, we just call that "summer".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gipper81
If this kid was under 18 and not released to his parents during school hours then he was on school time. These kids need to start understanding that this is not a free-for-all society where they can make the rules up as they go along. Free speech is not always an absolute right at anytime, anyplace, by anybody.
12 posted on 06/25/2007 8:58:15 AM PDT by tobyhill (only wimps believe in retreat in defeat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson