Real, Strange News

It's good how you're posting billboards of those insane religious people. Now. It shows how crazy they are. I mean.

It is illegal for a school to regulate free speech unless that speech is offensive or potentially dangerous. Bong hits are neither.

I sure do hope this guy gets a nice fat financial aid package out of all of this when he gets into Law School:)

I am just now catching up on this story. The "child" in this case does not have the freedom to promote drugs...especially when it is against school rules! I think "rules" are what keep us accountable, and when we try to "twist" those rules and call it "freedom of speech", we are in a serious situation. That "child" was on a "school sponsored trip" and should have abided by the "school" rules. When we take away the "boundaries our youth desparately need" and replace those boundaries with wishy washy "slap on the hand" disciplinary attitudes....we will be raising a generation of thugs!!!

I am just now catching up on this story. The "child" in this case does not have the freedom to promote drugs...especially when it is against school rules! I think "rules" are what keep us accountable, and when we try to "twist" those rules and call it "freedom of speech", we are in a serious situation. That "child" was on a "school sponsored trip" and should have abided by the "school" rules. When we take away the "boundaries our youth desparately need" and replace those boundaries with wishy washy "slap on the hand" disciplinary attitudes....we will be raising a generation of thugs!!!

Of course, if it read "Bong Hits for Mohammed" then everyone would be up in arms for this disrespectful treatment of Islam. Funny how Christians get called crazy for things others get called victims for.

"It is illegal for a school to regulate free speech unless that speech is offensive or potentially dangerous. Bong hits are neither."

I would presume that writing "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is offensive to the Christian and Catholic population. Don't believe me? Go to a local church and put up that sign.

Schools are surrogates for parents. They should have the same rights parents do. If you tell teachers or administrators that they have to respect the free speech of children, you are making a huge mistake.

What if your child does not want to eat their vegetables? Isn't that their right? Can't they eat candy 3 meals a day? Isn't this a free country?
What if they don't want to do their homework? Do they have that right? What if they want to mock the teacher or another student? Isn't that their right?

Give me a break.

Kids don't have rights that adults have because they are KIDS. They have a right to not be abused and neglected. They have a right to be loved. That is all the rights they have. Period.

We have a duty to teach them that drugs are bad. We do not have the right to let them get away with being disrespectful or engage in behavior that is dangerous or unproductive.

My comment is not regarding the article but on the name of the column, and more importantly, the graphic representing it at the top of the page. The look on the authors face, the undisclosed location of his hands, the random droplets of moisture in the background. All make for an ill compliment to a column titled so closely to "beat off".

laurine, that is your opinion but not the law and who equates bong smoking with thugs?
I know many former "bongers" who are now doctors,lawyers, etc. ie: Good citizens.
Lighten up darlin'

Laurine said, "The "child" in this case does not have the freedom to promote drugs..."

Now that's funny, I thought he was promoting Jesus.

Regards,

free speech is all that matters. A generation of young people who like bong hits is not a generation of thugs to me. People who tear down their signs and suspend them for sharing their opinions on the subject of bong hits or Jesus or both is what is thuggish to me. Dont be so eager to give away our freedoms, you may find it is not as easy for us to get them back when we wake up and realize we liked free speech

Laurine are you so closed minded that you can't see the school overstepped its powers here? Principals cant go around ripping down banners that they disagree with. What if it said Bush is a criminal, or War is wrong, and they removed the sign? How can we teach kids to be open minded and fair if we do not act that way?

how does a school boy go about sueing his teacher for what seems to be a fairly understandable assertion of school authority? yeah smoke up and b*tch to your friends about it, but when does 'i'm gonna take this all the way to the supreme court!" actually become a possibility....

GO DUDE!

"Laurine" needs to admit she has a "serious, uncontrollable problem" with her "dependency" on "quotation marks." Perhaps we should have an "intervention" before she starts "abusing" apostrophe's.

Good grief people, get a grip. Weren't any of you young? The kid was making a joke.
If you really want to do something useful for our youth, urge the President to stop murdering our own and the youth of Iraq.

schools are surrogates for parents???
our nation is truly doomed then.

"My comment is not regarding the article but on the name of the column, and more importantly, the graphic representing it at the top of the page. The look on the authors face, the undisclosed location of his hands, the random droplets of moisture in the background. All make for an ill compliment to a column titled so closely to "beat off".

Posted by: | March 19, 2007 12:46 PM
"

LOL....AWSOME!!

"The "child" in this case does not have the freedom to promote drugs...especially when it is against school rules!"

Joseph Frederick was 18 at the time this event occurred, so he was not a child. As soon as a person reaches the age of majority he or she needs to be treated as such and given the freedoms *and responsibilities* that come with majority, high-school student or not.

I am wondering if the suspension was due more to noncompliance by the student as it was to the drug reference in the banner?

Freedom of speech is one thing, but as one who has worked with teens for years, the issue of boundaries and simply "following directions" on a field trip is another. I certainly wouldn't want to be in a huge stadium, responsible for a classfull of teens (seniors or otherwise), and have my requests not complied with. I would feel unsafe, and feel like the rest of my students would not be safe as well, all because of one student's selfish desire to be on tv.

Who cares what the banner said? I feel for the principal.

Laurine,
If you want to be taken seriously, ease up on the quotation marks.

Although I completely disagree with this country's distorted view on the "dangers" of marijuana, I do not think that anything that glorifies drug use should be allowed in school. We forget many times that these people are not adults, they are children and as such, are still forming their adult personalities, and are very impressionable. By not tearing down this banner, the school is making the statement that they support marijuana use, and how can you tell teenagers that it is o.k. to put a large banner saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus", but that any use or possession of the substance is a federal crime? This inconsistency would confuse many students in an already confusing world.

I think the real issue here is that this is a school, a place of learning, and advocacy of any mind-altering substance should be prohibited. A banner reading "Tequila shots for Jesus" has the same effect; drugs and alcohol should not be advertised in our schools. The choice to use drugs and/or alcohol is each person's own; a school should only teach a desire for learning and social involvement, not whacked out examples of our right to free speech.

Matt L: Joseph *was* an adult when this happened. There is no child involved in this case.

Oh dear! In these days of war, pestilence, economic strife and other serious national concerns we have the Supreme Court working on whether or not a kid can post a goofy sign. I was tempted to ask who in God's name other than an ineffectual school principal wanted this case to go up the legal ladder. But, then, the name Ken Starr appeared and lo the scales fell before my eyes. Isn't that the same Ken Starr who spent millions of tax dollars trying to convict someone of something? Of course it is. Kenny pull out your bong and chill.

Talk of chilling what kind of Supreme Court thinks this is an important legal issues? Oops, ours. Oh dear!

Freedom of speech for everyone. Children and parents regardless. Thats what the nation was build on. Not god, or the pope or drugs or sex.

Seems like this would have fallen into the category of disruptive to the educational process, it's designed to shock after all.

"One of the key conclusions of the research is that people who start smoking cannabis as adolescents are at the greatest risk of later developing mental health problems."
British Medical Journal (vol 325, p1195, p1199, p1212, p1183)

And we wonder why antidepressants and antipsychotics are suddenly a multi-million dollar industry...

I, for one, advocate harder drugs. Alcohol too -- inferior sh*t. If you're going to check out of your feelings or need to feel happier than your life choices supply, do it for real. Experience the mess of addiction, don't "kind of" do it. Go for what you really want, realize the problem, get over it, and become a constructive person again.

Oh, and please don't expect Joe-taxpayer to pay for your prozac while you're spending weekends joking about bongs or sipping your wine.

I think he should have been stopped and not because of the drug reference but because of a seperation between church and state. Our schools have no business promoting Jesus anywhere especially on a field trip where there are TV cameras.

From what I understand, this wasn't on a field trip, school had been dismissed early.

So this is really about what a teacher can do to a student who is not on school property expressing himself. If he was at school, I agree the school has every right to set rules, at a public event, the teacher has no right to discipline him.

You notice the religious right (even if offended) are siding with the young man. They do not want teachers determining what children can where and say outside of school...on this I agree with them whole heartedly.

"Joseph Frederick was 18 at the time this event occurred, so he was not a child. As soon as a person reaches the age of majority he or she needs to be treated as such and given the freedoms *and responsibilities* that come with majority, high-school student or not."

Wrong.

I am 32 and if I held up a banner that represented my personal views, or some silly joke that I thought was funny and my boss didn't like it, he has every right to tell me to tear it down. If I don't he can fire me. That is a fact.

If this wants to smoke cigarettes in a hospital he can not, even though he legally can at age 18. He has to follow the hospitals rules. This is not complicated.
Certain things are allowable in certain places and not in others. Freedom of speech isn't extended to everyone all the time regardless of age.

Somehow we have veered off course as a society. Many commenters seem to be siding with a disrespectful kid who doesn't listen to his teacher and doesn't follow the rules. It is no wonder that our test scores have been declining for decades.

George, schools are *not* "in loco parentis;" that idea has not been in force for decades.

"If you tell teachers or administrators that they have to respect the free speech of children, you are making a huge mistake."

On the contrary, the USSC has established that children do not lose their rights by virtue of either their age or their being in school.

"What if your child does not want to eat their vegetables? Isn't that their right? Can't they eat candy 3 meals a day? Isn't this a free country?"

No, my daughter may not eat nothing but candy, but she *may* advocate for the right to do so, and that's what this case is about: free speech.

"What if they don't want to do their homework? Do they have that right? What if they want to mock the teacher or another student? Isn't that their right?"

They have the right to speak freely as long as such speech is not in the form of "fighting words" or in other ways disruptive to the school environment, just as you may not use disruptive language at work.

"Kids don't have rights that adults have because they are KIDS. They have a right to not be abused and neglected. They have a right to be loved. That is all the rights they have. Period."

Not at all; they have the same basic human rights as the rest of us, including free speech. They need to be protected from their immaturity, but free speech does not endanger them.

"We have a duty to teach them that drugs are bad. We do not have the right to let them get away with being disrespectful or engage in behavior that is dangerous or unproductive."

This "child" was not being dangerous in his action, and as for "unproductive" would you then outlaw play, movies, and talking on the phone? As for respect, different adults respect different things. Some of us even respect children...

I'm surprised that everyone seems to be so up set over the word "bong" and not the word "Jesus". Where are the left wingers who want to get rid of religion in our daily lives.

It could be worse. he could have written "vagina" on his banner ;)

In reference to the unruly thug children who are fighting their school suspension for performing a bit from the Vagina Monologues at a school event and got in trouble for saying "vagina" while another student that dropped the F-bomb for his performance went undiciplined.

Lighten up people. It's as if the school administration is taking teaching tips from "the Chocolate War"

Justice Cheech has the right idea, but offensive speech is never illegal, even in school. Harassment may be, but not offensive speech: that's what makes us free is the ability to say what we want without worrying about offending someone. We have to respect the fact that we can't slander or threaten, but we can offend all we want. "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is free speech and legal, even when talking about illegal substances. If he isn't allowed to talk about drugs, why do schools have D.A.R.E.? They talk about illegal substances as well for educational purposes. How is that more legitimate free speech that this kid? Just because people think drug resistance is good, that legitimates one and derogatizes another? Unless he had weed and a bong with him to solicit his message, he has the right to say that. People need to learn to ignore others and accept the fact that allowing freedom means people will get their toes stepped on. Go 1st amendment!

George, in this country, we abide by a rule of law called the U.S. Constitution. This document outlines our rights as Americans, while you might have a case to argue that children should NOT have the same rights as adults, there is nothing in the Constitution to support this. As to the bongs for Jesus/Muhammed debate, while I agree the Muhamed cartoon thing was WAY out of hand, the difference is in Islam it is against the law to show a picture of Muhamed, where as a picture of jesus smoking a creation of his father's (pot) doesn't seem to be so bad! I think of it not unlike Julian Lennon listening to a Beatles album. Would people be so upset if it were a beer rather than bong? What carpenter worth his weight in nails doesnt enjoy kickin' with a cold one at the end of a long day?

GO JESUS, puff puff pass!!!

I would consider unfurling a 14 foot banner - reguardless of what it says - to be disruptive, depending on the location potentialy dangerous, and a unwarrented distraction to the adults trying to keep order in this group. Furthermore, a banner, unlike a t-shirt or an individual talking, can be viewed (WILL be viewed by some) as a statement of a group's views - this student was not authorized to speak for everyone in the group. It's not a question of free speach - it's an issue of teaching appropriate behavior within a group.

The first federal judge to hear the case, District Judge Sedwick, found in favor of Morse and the district.

He ruled that "bong hits" could reasonably be interpreted as a reference to illegal drugs (regardless of the student's intention) and that the school has the right, even on a field trip, to stop students from encouraging the use of illegal substances.

One of schools' responsibilities, especially if they accept federal anti-drug funds, is to discourage the use of illegal drugs. The judge felt that was a reasonable part of their mission.

By the way, it's illegal in Alaska for people as young as high school-age to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, so even those substances are part of a school anti-drug policy.

The case sounds trivial, but the issue certainly needs clarification. The district's position wasn't so beyond the pale that a federal judge (Sedwick) couldn't agree with it.

D'oh, I meant to say "wear" not "where" earlier.

Can't even blame a bong hit for the mistake.....

Technically there is no drug refence in the banner. A bong is not a drug, as much as a pipes and rolling paper are not. You could smoke tabacco, clove, etc.

Alos on the thugs refernce, marijuana users are as much an anti-thug as I can imagine.

I'm curious as to how anyone could misconstrue the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as being either A) an advocation of an illicit act; B) and endorsement of an illegal substance; or C) a defamatory statement to Christians

...unless of course they are supplying their own personal interpretation and elaboration about the content of that phrase? (In which case it's not really Joseph Frederick's problem, it's the reader's problem.)

First of all, it's not even a complete sentence! What's the subject of "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" ? What's the predicate?

At the very least, there's some punctuation missing...but without clarification, the phrase's meaning -- hence Frederick's intent -- is completely up for interpretation.

Frederick is guilty of nothing more than perplexing the ignorant. Which I'm fairly certain is not (yet) a crime.

Though American's DO have the freedom of speech, schools and organizations should have the right to regulate what their students or employees present when appearing en masse.

In other words, schools should have the right to regulate what their students do DURING A SCHOOL SPONSORED ACTIVITY, such as this case. Outside of school, correct, they can do nothing, but during an event where the student is not present on his/her own behalf, they should be required to follow the rules.

Chain of the judiciary, all over again.

I didn't read the other users' comments until just now. While there are good points being thrown around by all, I think the issue being missed here is:

DRUGS IN SCHOOL.

I'm not arguing about the pros or cons of drug use, I'm just saying that drugs should not have anything to do with school. As one might say after reading this "I know lots of people who do drugs and are successful doctors/lawyers/teachers"...so do I. This is not the case for everyone.

Also, this is a high school we are talking about here, not college. If it was a college, this would be a completely different story. I have seen too many friends whose lives were ruined by drugs, only because they were too young when they started to know how to control it. In our society where everything is becoming increasingly o.k., we have to remember to have limits. A school is supposed to be a safe haven for learning and for helping kids understand their role in society. Kids today are exposed to drugs in so many facets of their life, if they started seeing it at school as well, more and more would start to get the idea that there are NO disadvantages to drug use. This, along with the idea that drugs are the work of the devil and make you insane, are not how we should be teaching our kids about drugs.

I don't believe he was promoting drugs or making a religious statement. He was seeking his 15 seconds of fame which has now been extended due to his taking it to the Supreme Court and the media is hyping it.

If he were someone who felt that using marijuana to achieve spiritual awareness was part of his religion then I would take this seriously but why bother getting all upset over some dumb kid who thought he was being funny?

I'm a Christian. While I may be offended, people say and do things that are offensive to me pretty much on a daily basis. However, the same freedoms that allow them to do so, allow me to share my faith without fear of prosecution or death. Well, at least without fear of death anyway. This is a no brainer. It's not like the kid was screaming FIRE in a crowded auditorium.

..I would presume that writing "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is offensive to the Christian and Catholic population. Don't believe me? Go to a local church and put up that sign..

What if it was phrased as a question (e.g. "Bong hit's 4 Jesues?") or in the declaritive, "No, Bong hit's 4 Jesues" How do we know which is offensive - and to who?

I think the teacher that ripped the poster should be charged with aggravated assault. She is not a law enforcement to take it upon herself to "fight for the right". If the student has violated any laws, a cop should have been called to intervene. She destroyed that student's property (banner.)
I'd sue her just for that.

I was under the impression from another article I read that this was not a school field trip. The students were let go from school early that day in the hopes that they would attend the event. The "child" involved was 18, and not on a field trip, this is clearly a violation of freedom of speech, sincerely our most precious right as Americans.
And besides, those that did not attend the event were probably at home taking bong hits.

Dell said "Where are the left wingers who want to get rid of religion in our daily lives."

I'm wondering that myself. I'm one of those "left-wingers" people keep complaining about, but I haven't seen any who want to prohibit anyone from worshiping Jesus to their hearts' delight. Some *do* want to reduce the inappropriate entanglement of Church and State, but that's entirely different.

A joke is a joke, and people need to relax. If that is a problem take a freaking bong hit. What exactly does the school gain by tearing down his sign? Part of being free is being able to laugh. If we cannot do that then we are not free and then what is the point?

Please take massive bong rips for me! Thank you and may god be with you!

The Bong Hits part is fine, but i don't think students should be promoting Jesus and religion at public ceremony's

Amen! Now pass THAT!

I suspect the school needs to redefine their policies and rules regarding promotion of drug use when the student is participating in a school sponsered event and acting as a representative for said school and then be sure parents and students sign it at the beginning of each year. That's all. The student is just having fun with the law suit. The school and teacher in the incident didn't seem prepared for someone to take a joke this far. (I agree with the title/author picture comments... does look a bit mucky with the droplets and whatnot..heh)

One of the more important aspects of this case is that Frederick was 18 at the time, and thus no longer a child at all. While a school has been deemed to stand in loco parentis, in the place of parents, one's parents hold no legal power over one who is no longer a minor. The school, therefore, stepped on the rights of a man old enough to go off to war or be executed in this country. He is certainly old enough to have the rights guaranteed every citizen applied to him without fear of repurcussions from the free and compulsory education to which he is, as a citizen, entitled.

To elaborate on Rob's reply to Dell... I too am "left wing" and I am not religious, I however do not want to take ANYBODY's right to be religious away from them... I'm not trying to "take religion out of your daily life" I'm just trying to keep your daily religion out of my daily life..

Wow, what a wondeful use of our tax dollars! Regardless of what the sign said, the age of the student in question, the event attended, and the true intention, the student has a reponsibility to adhere to school policy. even if the school did not have any specific policy on the matter, the Principal made a valid request. The student's message had nothing educational to offer given the nature of the class outing. In my opinion, if the principal did not remove the sign she might as well have put it up herself. I'm sure there would be no argument about the correctness if that occured. Even if these were college students, the message has no education bearing and would be disruptive to the rest of the students. Maybe one day our "high courts" (had to get my quotation marks in) could grow some backbone.

Make no mistake about it - Kenn Starr is involved in this case for one reason only.

He is THE patron saint of the tobacco industry, and marijuana is considered a major competitor to cigarettes.

Kenn Starr's law firm has made hundreds of millions of dollars (I am not exaggerating) defending tobacco companies.

To be clear about Mr. Starr's motives, simply recall what was happening in the days before the famous 'blue dress' was unveiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal...

The country was riveted to our televisions as we watched Congessional hearings in which tobacco company presidents testified under oath that they had no information showing that nicotine is addictive.

This gang of racketeers smugly trusted in the air-tightness of the confidentiality agreements they forced the scientists they hired (to figure out how to make cigarettes more addictive) to sign.

They were sure the scientists who were called by the Clinton administration to tell what they knew would keep their mouths tightly shut.

But then the 'insider' blew the lid off their lies, and suddenly eight very rich men were looking at serious prison time for lying to Congress.

The world was shocked and outraged, it was all anyone could talk about...but all was forgotten a few days later when the 'blue dress' leaked out.

Thank you Kenn Starr - you sure showed the Clinton administration who's boss.

They backed off trying to regulate tobacco under the Food and Drug Adminstration, and Clinton spent the rest of his presidency trying to get out from under the mountain of crap Kenn Starr heaped up at his door.

The vast-right wing conspiracy was nothing but a smoke-screen to protect eight lying tobacco company presidents.

The Monica scandal sure was entertaining, but it happened to be occurring as the Taliban and al Queda were gathering their forces and plotting against us...

Our president (and all of us) were distracted from that cadre of killers by a cadre of tobacco company criminals - look at the results...

Fast forward to 'bong hits for Jesus'

The arrogant tobacco companies continue to refuse to be regulated by the FDA, and they are NOT going to tolerate kids even talking about marijuana - Bill of Rights be damned.

It could affect the massive profits that the tobacco company drug pushers count on.

Oh, but this could be a David and Goliath story...what a smart kid to tie his little joke/protest to religious freedom.

Now let's watch him out-smart the giant evil-genius Kenn Starr in court.

And please...

Support a constitutional amendment to end 'prohibition' in our free country, to guarantee our citizens the right to consume whatever we choose to consume, as long as we don't break other laws while doing so.

It is the only way to get rid of the crazy quilt of local, state and national laws that are here to protect the tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceutical companies from competition from marijuana.

Remember our 2 million black men who are prisoners in in this prohibition, an unwinnable war on drugs, and bring them home to their families.

Blacks go to prison, whites go to rehab, everybody suffers.

Every parent needs to understand the significance of this SC ruling. There is very little case law that supports kids and their freedoms-courts often unfortunately side with schools on issues of school discipline. This case has far reaching implications to the school system's continued misguided and often illegal zero tolerance policies. This case is not just about free speech, it is about power and control that the schools want to wield over our kids-on and off school property. Most school policies permit kids to be disciplined for actions off school property-all in the name of them being good citizens. The powers that schools have been given are far to broad and hopefully this case will send a message that schools have less control over our kids. Virtually every school system's ZT policies discriminate against minorities and special education students. The whole ZT system needs to be overhauled.

If the sign said "Jesus loves me" only athiests would complain, Christians would applaud it. If it said "drugs are cool", parents would complain. If it said "School sucks" students would like it. Any banner would offend someone. Its up to intrepertation. If it wasn't during school hours and he's 18 people should STFU since what he did is legit. If he broke school rules (i.e. he's employed/enrolled in the school) and violated school rules by disrupting class, he shouldn't have done it.

The kid was wrong. But I am still for legalizing all drugs and I have never used illegal drugs. It is a war that we can never win. There will always be those that will use them. Did probition work?
Have you ever heard of anyone being robbed or killed so they can get a bottle of booze? And I consider myself a conservative.

The Olympic torch event occurred in the morning during regular school time. The district allowed students to go outside and view it. The school band was playing. Teachers were supervising students. Some students were on school grounds. Some were across the street. As the school district and federal Judge Sedwick interpreted it, the students' viewing of the event was a school-sponsored event, akin to a field trip.

The thing I find ironic is that the average age of a supreme court justice is somewhere in the mid 60s. That means that most of them were in their 20s in the 60s. It's a good bet that at least one of them had a "bong hit for Jesus". Now whether they admit to it or not is another story. ;-D

Joseph was 18 when he whipped out his banner. That's old enough to be shipped overseas to die in a bogus war. If the U.S. govt has the right to have him killed in the military then it seems only reasonable that he should be able to express himself as he wishes.

When I was in high school, not only did I HIT the bong, hard, but I wore the American Flag on my denim jacket alongside patches of the Peace Sign, White Doves, and Marijuana Leaves, while both my brothers were bleeding in the jungles of VN. IN the auditorium, when open forums were being held about the war in Vietnam or the fight for civil rights and liberties, I stood up and said my piece, IN SCHOOL. When a rally was called during class for one thing or another and banners were used, we stood tall, held our banners, and spoke our minds, confident that we were protected by the law and proud to be a part of it all.

America was built on the right to dissent. It was built on the right to say whatever was on your mind whenever you wanted, to practice whatever religion made you happy, eat whatever foods you needed, work at whatever job you wanted to pursue, and generally live your life as YOU see fit as long as you did NOT impose your thoughts, opinions, or otherwise impinge upon the rights of others do as you do. In short, live and let live. It's worked for over 200 years and I hope to God it keep on working.
Bravo Bong Boy. For Christsake, was't Jesus himself a dissenter? But then again he was crusified by those ignorant enough not to see that another belief wasn't the end of the world. Give it a break folks, he 's just kid, most likley not even serious about the remark, but dead serious about his right to free speech. In Germany it started with the Jews having to wear little yellow stars, then they burned the books, in Cambodia, they marched those with an education out to the country to be "re -educated" -euphemism for being shot,
now I have to prove I was born here before I can get a job, I have to prove I was born here in order to buy a house or open a bank account, I am filmed at least 6 to 10 times a day as I go throughout my daily life activities by surveillance cameras, my GPS cell phone is tracked whereever it goes, my email swept and monitored by God knows who, my every move tracked and monitored by EZE Pass, my electronic subway pass, credit card, bank debit card, and God knows whatever else they can track me with. GO Bong Boy Go!! As an upstanding member of society, president of my CO OP board, COO of my financial risk management company,avid volunteer for local ecology related activities and avid voter for whomever the hell I like and strikes my fancy, GO BONG BOY GO! and to the rest of you who cant cope with and learn how to deal with a little freedom in your life,, ok here goes. You can all go f*ck yourselves.! LOL God Bless America!

Thomas - You state Freedom of Speech is what this country was founded on. If you had listened a little more in school you might have learned that "Freedom of Religion" was what the original people came here for!

From the Jueneau local newspaper. School was NOT in session. The kids were NOT on school grounds. Frederick had not been in school that day. The event was a public one with mixed students and non-students.

In other words, the school adminstrator was censoring his non-school activities off-campus.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Frederick said the group specifically went off school grounds to display the banner. In addition, Frederick said that given the composition of the group and the fact that he had not been in school that morning due to car trouble in the snow, he did not consider the group to be part of a school activity.

"We went across the street, standing with adults and people who don't go to high school," he said.

JDHS Principal Deb Morse said even though the banner was displayed off school grounds, it was removed and the students disciplined because watching the torch relay "was a school activity. It was sanctioned by the school that students could be out (to watch the torch pass)."

It is unbelievable that this is happening in a country that has liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban.

If one says that the boy was (indirectly) promoting drugs, then where is the proof that his banner indeed increased drugs use? And also note that marijuana is not as dangerous as alcohol.

If we say that schools are allowed to do this, then what's wrong with schools in Afghanistan requiring girls to wear a Burqa to protect their values? I know what's wrong with that, but that has to do with the fact that the reasons why conservative people want women to wear the Burqa are flawed.

So, allowing authorities to enforce flawed rules for flawed reasons is simply wrong. The burden is on them to show that restrictive measures are necessary.

So, Laurine - you say... "The "child" in this case does not have the freedom to promote drugs..." I agree (not!), let's leave that up to the pharmaceutical industry who promote Ritilan and SSRIs (antidepressents) to children at alarming sales levels - when they are not needed at all! This kid was not even on Campus. Bongs are not illegal and can be used to smoke tobacco. Oh yea, cigarretts are illegally marketed to children all the time... So Laurine, What are you really saying here? As long as it's legal its right and if its illegal its wrong. The only reason weed was outlawed is because Dupont created nylon and wanted hemp competition to go away...think about it. Its all about special interest! Protect my rights, PLEASE!!!

It was not a field trip. They were at the main enterance to the school. The photographs prove that.

"she tore down the sign". Wrong, the principal did not tear down the sign, nor did she crumple it as has been reported.

The "Bong Hits" man, Joseph Frederick, went to China after pleading guilty for the sale of marijuana in Texas on March 17, 2004. I doubt that Joseph Frederick supplied the Chinese with a copy of his police record when applying for a job in China. I don't think that the Chinese would hire a convicted drug dealer to work in their country. Did the Chinese ask Frederick if he had any prior arrests? I can't imagine that they didn't.

Joseph Frederick, whose free speech rights the ACLU is so worried about, instigated an assault on an innocent bystander soon after the Bong Hits incident. Frederick was charged with two counts of fourth-degree solicitation of an assault, a misdemeanor, stemming from the April 16, 2002 incident. This is a matter of public record, but no news media has mentioned it. Joseph Frederick initiated an assault on a boy who was innocently jogging down the street minding his own business. Word has it that this boy was a learning-disabled Native American boy. Two boys asked Frederick for a ride in his car. Frederick said he would give them a ride, but one of the boys would have to punch someone for him, and one of the boys agreed. Frederick picked out who he wanted hit. He pulled his Camaro up behind the boy, his rider got out of the car and punched the chosen boy in the face with enough force to bloody his nose and send him crashing through a fence. The police were notified. The attacker admitted that he hit the boy at Fredericks request. The 15 year old victim told police that he didnt know any of the boys who assaulted him.

I guess free speech rights are more important than the right NOT to be assaulted for no reason at all! That is the bigger story here, all the trouble and arrests this man has gotten into before and after the Bong Hits incident. This is the story of a school trying to discipline an out-of-control trouble maker. The bong hits banner was raised in a federally-mandated drug-free school zone. The school is required, by law, to keep this zone drug-free.

The founding fathers idea of freedom of speech was that one should be able to speak out against the King and not get one's head lopped off. I believe the founding fathers would side with the school board in this case. They would be shocked to see how much freedom even the most irresponsible students have today. Any reasonable person would conclude that Frederick needed more discipline from authority, not more free speech rights.

Is this 1984 or something? No school can tell an 18 year-old how to make a joke, not in my country. We have freedom and this school will have to pry that from my cold dead hands before they can take it away.

The 18 yo student was off school grounds in a public space.

It was not only religious speech that was potentially infringed upon, but political speech as well.

Alaska had ballot initiatives regarding medicinal marijuana and marijuana decriminalization pending at the time of the incident.

If a student had the same banner with the idea of promoting Christian compassion towards the terminally ill, is that a suspendable offense?

".. the student has a reponsibility to adhere to school policy. even if the school did not have any specific policy on the matter, the Principal made a valid request..."

Unlike the military, schools -as yet - don't require a sworn oath of loyalty or fealty to the institution.

Tough cases make bad law, and this might be just such a case.

Basically the Court is going to craft a test then apply the facts of this case to the test. The test will be used in student speech cases in the future.

That is, unless the Supreme Court is feeling lazy. Then they will make a ruling based on some obscure reasoning, confusing the situation further in courts everywhere.

Yes Please take massive bong rips for me. and just say NO to tobbaco. God would not have it any other way. Will someone please roll me a phatty since my hands are kind of bound to this cross.

If the young man holds up a sign that says "Bong Hits 4 Jesus", it is his right. It is freedom of speech to do so.

If the boy is on a field trip and holds up a sign, no matter what it says, it is subject to the rules of the sponsor of the trip, no matter who that is.

This case then comes down to the definition of the crime. The boy was obviously in violation of the rules of the sponsor of the field trip.

YAY! ANOTHER opportunity to watch Ken Starr make an ass of himself in public!

NEO-CONS hate free speech, hate the freedoms enshrined in the constitution, and love a police state - as long as they can operate it in total secrecy and are above the law themselves.

Bong hits for Jesus!

George: "Freedom of speech isn't extended to everyone all the time"

thank goodness we have a constitutional scholar on hand. some people might have suffered under the illusion that the 1st amendment actually means what it says. mercy.

1968 slogan 'bong !!,the only thing wasted is you !!!!!

It doesn't matter what was on the sign, how old the person was or where he was at the time. The question under debate is; Does a person in authority have the right to censor a written message just because that person finds it offensive. Unfortunately the professional politicians and religious zealots have embraced the due to the content of the sign. They are now using that content to cloud the true issue (censorship) so they can move their own agenda under the umbrella of the final outcome. Just remember when you read this article, it has nothing to do with religion, drugs, adolescent rights, or whatever. It's a question of censorship and do we allow it in this country. If the outcome of the case is anything other than supportive of the student I'll be surprised.

*Rules* have to be Constitutional. School rules have to be pursuant to supreme Law. Jesus for Equal Protection under law may be nearly as offensive to so- called Christians... who by the way for a long time largely supported the *rule* of Separate but Equal... which was known at the time to be pursuant to discimination rather than supreme Law especially Equal Protection. **quote**It is illegal for a school to regulate free speech unless that speech is offensive or potentially dangerous. Bong hits are neither.**unquote** is right! i.e., if clarified**It is illegal for a school to regulate free speech unless that speech is offensive to reasonable people ... which would exclude people who want everyone to have the same faith as they do that a man walked on water AND turned water into wine... a dangerous drug by the way made *re* legal by continuous organized criminal activity... SCOTUS will limit speech and give prudential standing to fanatics to interfere with the rights of reasonable people. Thanks uncle Thomas Elito, and Scullitor...

This message is for Laurine. so to prevent a "potential" generation of thugs you propose we use the thug tactics of the principal and quash or beat anyone that doesn't aggree with your sick little ideas.

Get a life and find another country to live in. People like you have ruined america. If all you have to say is "make the other person shut up" then you my dear are not an american.

Thats a scary thing when thats all the supreme Court has to worry about ,this is almost like the witch trials !
"WHAT YEAR IS THIS AGAIN?"

I THINK BONG HITS ARE FOR JESUS;JESUS RULES!
IF BONG HITS WERE USED AS A SPIRITUAL BOND WITH CHRIST;F*CK IT!!! 420 FOR LIFE

WHAT'S WRONG WITH BONG HITS PEOPLE? THEY'RE FUN AS HELL!!!!!!WHITE POWER...IGNORANCE IS STUPID.

OK, OK, so at 18 you are NOT a child but, you are at a school sponsored event. Now the fun part for the administrator is the sign offensive to anyone? Everyone? What does it matter, in her view he was violating school policy by promoting "illicit" drugs (by the way for those of you who don't think he was promoting drugs, please lay the pipe down now, we were all 18 and know damn well what a bong hit is in reference to). A waste of time an dmoney again!

I wouldn't call Joseph Frederick a "kid". After all, he was a high school senior at the time of the incident. Moreover, the "school sponsored event", for which the students had been "released" for was across the street from the school on public property!

The key issue in this case is that Deborah Morse, the principal, suspended Frederick for the content of his "speech" and thus engaged in view point discrimination -- in violation of the First Amendment.

To me, the interesting part of the article is that the American Center for Law and Justice, Christian Legal Society, Alliance Defense Council and the Rutherford Institute -- all nonprofits defending the Christian way -- have come out in support of the ACLU's defense of Frederick.

Of course, they have no sympathy for Frederick. Rather they are afraid that should he loose, the free speech of Christians could be impaired.

Bob Ritter,
Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty

Mind if I do a jay?

you know it would not matter what the sign said. The kid was ON a PUBLIC street....not school property. It may have been a public street across from the school...but it was deemed PUBLIC a long time ago. NOT school property. They had no right to tear the sign down or CENSOR it....he had every right to his free speech. I think this has been a fabulous way for all of us to sit back and really think about just HOW free our freedom of speech really is or isn't.

AND if not.....WHO is doing the censoring and why? What makes them right and the kid wrong?

the banner offended me deeply and i can understand the teacher wanting to rip it down. Any advertisement for religion makes me sick to my stomach, regardless of whether they tried to water it down with the "bong hits" comment

Get your facts on case history. Refer to Tinker vs. Des Moines School Board. Freedom of speech rocks!

What does that banner mean? Was he saying that Jesus took 4 hits?

Whatever it meant, explain how it was promoting drugs. Was he selling marijuana back in school? I saw where he was found guilty of selling marijuana in Texas.

There is a new website at www.pswatch.org. It was started by a former FCPS student Scott Bradford. Visit the site and read Scott's story. When he was a student at Chantilly High School he started a website about his school where students could post comments about the school-good and bad. At one point, they mentioned actual fire code violations at the school. Well guess what? The principal made him take it down and threatened to expel him from school if he didn't. Anyone see the similarity here? Off school property, content comsidered offensive. Read his story and you will understand why this case is so important. Kids have rights. They are our most vulnerable citizens and schools have a long ugly history of stomping on their civil liberties on a daily basis.

You are not protected by the 1st ammendment untill 18 nor why at school this is insensetive and intended so If you dont like religion tune it out but we are the majority and your a vocal minority.

It's the TV stations decision whether footage of that sign should show on the air or not. His rights were violated, no question about it. You bible thumpers need to relax and maybe take a few bong hits yourself!

Man, this just goes to show that people have way to much time on their hands. Suing the school? Get real..whatever happended to adults running our schools. Way to go parents...most of you suck and this is another prime example. This kid was probably breast fed until he was fifteen.

What are Bong Hits?

I think there are more Christians who don't believe it's a sin to smoke pot then you all think. I am one of them.

The huka pipe "bong" goes way back in middle eastern history, so there is a good chance that Jesus was known to take the odd hit of the bong. Given the beard and robes, long hair and sandals, i reckon Jesus had more than just the odd hit, give the kid an A on his banner, for bringing a bit of historical knowledge to the field trip.

Does a preacher have the right to stand at a funeral service and once all have gathered say... "Listen before we get started, I DO have a washing machine for sale if anyone is interested"? Whose audience was this anyway??? It was an audience for the passing of the Olympic Torch, it wasn't "free speech day". The boy is lazy, he knows noone will gather on purpose to hear him so what does he do? He finds someone else who has done all the work of organizing this huge undertaking THEN jumps in. Psssst. let's just all ignore him and he will fade away.

Ridiculous. When you are with a school group, you act according to school rules. When you are with any group, it is your obligation to act in a way the doesn't embarrass the whole. I'd have more respect for the boy if he did it to promote legalizing marijuana, but since he's admitted to doing it just for the attention, it's absurd. The school has every right to limit what a student can and can't do.

To the person who said the boy has done nothing but perplex the ignorant---nothing he's done is perplexing. It's stupid. It's immature. It's grossly pathetic. Saying "perplexing" is giving him way too much credit.

I personally find this all to be very funny, yet sicking. I mean if this is really a important case for determing what is free speech something is worng with our nation. The kid got suspended for purposely pissing off his principle. The principle had every right to ask him to tak the sign down. Its just common sense. The message wasnt political nor important it was just a sophomoric reference to religion and drugs. I could care less about pomoting drugs, its the disrespect that matters. This isnt about civil disobedience or a significant protest its about some dumb joke and a lack of respect. I also find all this fuss odd since high schools regularly violate the fourth admendment by drug testing andsearching students. This case is a joke and has little to do with the first admendment.

Yah, let our students keep chanting Jesus while rest of the world passes us by like a Bullet train at local Japanese station.

Actually, yes the preacher would have the right, it's probably just poor taste. The first amendment covers poor taste as we have so often seen...

Go head on, Big Jim!! It's in the boy and it just GOT to come out! If I've seen any sign of freedom left in America, it is in this man-child! You go, youngun!!! Boo! to all you folks that are scared of Democracy!!!

Try saying anything that offends the damn Zionist Jews and see what happens to you.

Justin: "You are not protected by the 1st ammendment untill 18 nor why at school this is insensetive and intended so If you dont like religion tune it out but we are the majority and your a vocal minority."

The student was 18 years old.

He was not at school.

Was it intended to be offensive? I don't know and it doesn't matter. We don't live in Iran where they jail you for trimming your beard.

P.S. Jesus loves you and me and people who take bong hits daily and people who don't even know what they are. He loves EVERYONE and he doesn't care if they love him back or not. Get it?

I have several problems with the original decision. Promotion of pot is "potentially dangerous". Pot was my first illegal drug I used, but progressed to shooting heroin. And yet, if a student hung up a sign saying "Jesus is the only way to get off drugs", all of the sudden it is no longer a question of first amendment rights. You can't allow the use of Jesus' name to promote drugs (joke or not), and then not allow Jesus' name to be uttered in schools.

Yes, the torch relay did occur during school time. It coincided with the first period of the day. If the students hadn't been watching the relay, they would have been in class. But that point isn't relevant. The viewing of the relay was a school-sponsored event, regardless of the time of day. Many field trips and sports events occur out of the normal school day.

Like many school-sponsored events, it partly occured off school grounds. Frederick's age and his location are not relevant.

Which is not to say the district was necessarily right in what it did. That's a separate issue. If this was a school-sponsored field trip to a beach, the district would have some authority over the students, even the 18-year-olds. The constitutional question is: what kind of authority?

Cindy- "Ridiculous. When you are with a school group, you act according to school rules. When you are with any group, it is your obligation to act in a way the doesn't embarrass the whole..."

A Japanese saying goes, "The nail that sticks up will be hammered down."

- I would guess by your own statement, you include yourself in that group and that it makes no difference to you, that he joined with a group of people who didn't belong to his High School.

This is to address Alex Wilson's posts above about all the reported bad stuff this kid had done prior or since the BANNER episode.

Those issues are NOT the issue at hand here. The issue at hand here is a freedom of speech/censorship issue.

Free speech is a fundamental value for all Americans, regardless of age...but especially for those over the age of 18. If you're up in arms over this, then perhaps you should be organizing for better parental accountability as opposed to making our government deal with it. And to the commenter who stated that "schools are surrogate parents", well, that's just disturbing and I truly hope that you rethink that statement. Nothing replaces proper parenting.

Besides, from other sources I've read, the school was actually dismissed at the time of the incident. Students were not required to go, nor were they required to sit with their classes. Therefore, the principle acted outside of her authority anyway...

Bottom line is the Supreme Court shouldn't have to decide if Jesus can take bong hits, that should be left up to his parents. The Supreme Court also shouldn't have to decide if free speech is a fundamental right...If they're supposed to uphold the Constitution, then it seems to be pretty clear that it is. My guess is we'll see more of this as our nation moves closer and closer to a police state.

What rules would you like to follow? Rules which hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children faught and suffored for, or rules that are made just because some person with 'power' holds a certain opinion over a matter?

Parental Duty Vs Constitutional Rights

Parents have the right and the duty to monitor and discipline their children's behavior. No one would suppose that a child who 'smarts-off' to a parent would have the right to sue for being punished by the parent. Such a punishment could be said to infringe upon their right to speak freely. We all know that the rights of a parent supersede the constituional rights of the child--assuming the child has yet to reach the age of consent.

Likewise, schools derive their powers to monitor and discipline the behavior of children from the consent of the parent community.

This was a schools sponsored event in a public setting. The question is 'who was responsible for supervising this child'?

If the child was technically under the supervision of school staff at the time of the incident, then the school staff have the right to administer standard disciplinary practices--detention, suspension, etc.

If the child was not under the supervision of the school staff, then it's up to the parents to discipline the child.

Parental authority (by consent of the parent community) must be transferable to school staff and administrators. There should be a process of input and review and documentation.

If parents cannot be expected to monitor and discipline groups of children while studiously adhering to all aspects of the Bill of Rights, how can teachers and principles be expected to do the same thing?

This wasn't a school sponsered event and he wasn't on school property - right? So what if that was the name of his band - "Bong hits 4 Jesus" - and he was just trying to promote his band. Maybe he put flyers on street posts saying the same thing. Would that give that teacher the right to tell him he can't do that - and to tear them down. NO WAY!

This reminds me of when I participated in a SCHOOL sponsored art show. I entered many pieces that were displayed on school property....one very questionable piece. A sketch drawing/painting of Charles Manson with his swastika clearly drawn on his forehead and red paint on the bottom writing out Helter Skelter.

My mixed media artwork was put on display, allowed to remain in full view by the entire school staff and visiting public. No one ever said boo to me about removing it because I might be supporting anything that went against school/political, or even public policy/opinions then.

Austrailia is like ....WTF!!!mate

yo
if the kid wants to promote jesus and bong hits,
let him

I like it in my ass

that is really lame

world of warcraft is taking over my life .....i love jesus

Hit the BONG and jack your slong.

Hit the BONG and jack your slong.

"Bong hits 4 Jesus," has become a legitimate free-speech issue. I would encourage all students who are interested in their free speech rights to demonstrate 'accordingly' in support of the issue.

I hate pussy, i like dick

i say the f goverment there a bunch a lame-os who dont kno jack a bout the world and
+ bongs aren't eligail it could be for tabacco so anyway f*ck the goverment + jessus takes bad ass bong rips

Hey pass the peace pipe

that last comment is not kool damn!!!!!

I am just now catching up on this story. The child in this case does not have the freedom to promote jesus...especially when it is against school rules! I think "rules" are what keep us accountable, and when we try to "twist" those rules and call it "freedom of religion", we are in a serious situation. That child was on a "school sponsored trip" and should have abided by the "school" rules. When we take away the "boundaries our youth desparately need" and replace those boundaries with wishy washy "slap on the hand" disciplinary attitudes....we will be raising a generation of thugs!!!

hello im manson im a dingleberry who takes it up the pooper shooter and blow dogs for quarters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ILOVEMIKE

Melinda said:
"This is to address Alex Wilson's posts above about all the reported bad stuff this kid had done prior or since the BANNER episode.
Those issues are NOT the issue at hand here. The issue at hand here is a freedom of speech/censorship issue."

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
George Bernard Shaw

i love my mom she gave me head last night while we were 69ing ohh yeah.

He was 18 and it wasn't on school property? It sounds like the Principal commited an act of vandalism. Why wasn't she arrested and charged?

Who is promoting drugs??

hi im randy and im gay and i liek to finger my butt hole at nite with my tv remote

Bill Maher is going to have a "field day" with this.

I would argue that jesus could really use a b load

Alex:

there you go again veering even ever so slightly off the issue at hand.

An interesting question to raise would be, was he an agent of the school at the time. That is, were the students acting as representatives of the business that is the school itself? If so, does the school have the right, indeed the responsibility, to control the public messages that are made on the school's behalf? As an employer, I can regulate the messages my employees can make while acting as a representative of my company. Do high school students fall into the same rules, or does the fact that the school is both mandated and funded by the government change that dynamic?

We have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "freedom of speech" means.
It means you are free from fear of government arrest. It is a protection for the people from the police.
It is not a protection for the people from the rules. If a librarian tells you to be quiet, you better be quiet or you will be asked to leave. If you refuse you can get thrown out- legally.
Let's stop pretending "freedom of speech" means freedom to sat anything or do anything anywhere you want. It absolutely does not.
Does anyone actually believe that we have the freedom to say whatever we want, as loud as we want in a library? If you do you probably already smoked a few bong hits.

hey i have a butt rash

hey i like to lick dick and smoke out of a bong

I'm gonna take a bong hit for Jesus RIGHT NOW! Praise him!

How do we know whether the bong in question was loaded with marijuana or tobacco? Perhaps it wasn't intended to refer to an illegal substance, after all. (Although I think it's a reasonable assumption that it was.)

Then again, maybe it's just incomplete, and was intended to give the score:

"BONG HITS 4, JESUS 0" ;^)

Ryan: "derogatizes"? The verb form is "derogates". To derogate, vt. to ascribe something as, or hold something to be, derogatory.

From what I read, it WAS a school-sponsored event, happening during school hours, and supervised by teachers. Therefore, he WAS part of that particular group, regardless of where he was standing.

All this amounts to is a snotty, arrogant boy is going to make a big deal out of nothing and make things worse for public school teachers everywhere.

The little baby wasn't going to get the attention he needed from the original intent of the sign, so lucky for him the school official had sense enough to do something about it.

Slowly but surely we evolve into a nation where we're supposed to let kids do whatever they want--forget common sense, forget responsibility, forget decency. The Constitution apparently doesn't cover those issues.

'Bong hits 4 Jesus' is unclear. Perhaps he just made a misitake. Did he mean 'Bang this for Jesus', or 'Bongits for Jesus'. We shall never know. Too bad that the anti-religious right wingers are cramping free speech and killing the spirit of america. Do you really think that a person like Pat Robertson is religious, no he''s a horrible parasite on the ass of dumb america.

That is one FUNNY kid!

Pat's on board because when he says go kill Hugo Chavez he can get away with it. The point is we have such a high quality of life that cases as dumb as this make headlines. The Supreme Court's more important cases aren't as voyeur so we follow these links instead? Careful now, you 9-5ers have work to do.

Have you ever been to a school so neglected that when someone brings up this case in class the first thing everyone starts talking about is not the right to free speech in school, but legalizing marijuana?

At least y'all are actually discussing Free Speech.

I heard the Frederick kid has a teaching job in China. Do you think he could pull this crap over there? Free speech? Pathetic hypocrit moron. When this moron and his supporters are confornted By God, with the exact quote, it won't be so funny. Millions of Christians are praying for those who sleep. Amen.

Was he an agent for the school:

You bring up a point I was pondering myself. I am sure that was part of the reason the banner was removed/torn down/whatever. The school did not want to be viewed as the banner being representative of their opinion or policies.

However, from what has been "reported"...the banner was being held by a student who was NOT in school attendance that day and on public property (which was apparently across from the school).

I have to ask would it have made a difference perhaps if the banner had only been an 8 x 12 inch sheet of paper? Or smaller like an iron-on patch? WHAT if the banner had said STUDENTS 4 Jesus? or

I AM FOR JESUS...or just JESUS....

I know many would scream "separation from church and state"....and I think most out here are aware of our responsibilities that go along with the common sense practice of our freedom of speech and all that it entails.

I stood at a Bush Rally in my old hometown one summer. There were protesters all over the place. They held swastika signs and did all sorts of things but in a very civilized manner. They were not disruptive. They had every right to be where they were....calmly displaying their opinion to the masses.

The kid was on public property. IF THAT IS the truth.....I do not see where the school had any right to remove his banner in any fashion. Some may not have liked it. BUT he had every right to stand calmly there displaying it....on public property. If he had been an anti-school protester who just happened to choose the day of the parade to protest.....as long as he followed the rules set forth in public protests....he would have been allowed to display any sign or banner he wanted in protest.

The fact too that this particular case has gone on so long and not been resolved is amazing to me.

Okay, so I think the problem is that some people don't recognize cannabis use as a legitimate albeit illegal practice.
My point would be that a lot of people are trying to legalize cannabis so this becomes not an issue of promoting illegal drug use but a political issue of trying to reform the system. It's akin to posting a banner in a state where gay marriage is banned saying, gays get married for Jesus! That is grammatically an endorsement of an illegal act, homosexual marriage, but more accurately it is a political statement calling for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Certainly a principal couldn't pull down a banner advocating the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Well, the issue is similar here, just because cannabis use is illegal doesn't mean it isn't part of the political forum and doesn't mean that people can't say they want it to legalized.

p.s. As a sidenote, people really need to open their eyes and realize that cannabis does merit being illegal. It is a milder drug than alcohol, does not cause cancer like tobacco does, and is less addictive than caffeine. Of course, cannabis is somewhat bad for you, but the legal drugs available in our country, i.e. tobacco, alcohol and cough syrup!, are all so much worse than cannabis. I mean, if I work 5 days a week and come home on a friday night, who is the government to tell me I can't take a bong hit to help me relax? Instead I have to take a disgusting beer that contains a poisonous substance, ethyl alcohol?

If a librarian tells you to be quiet, you better be quiet or you will be asked to leave. If you refuse you can get thrown out- legally.

They were not in a library, they were on a public side-walk and were not yelling fire in the crowded theatre

It's funny how people are getting bent out of shape for a banner about drug use and not about the obvious use of blasphemy. Blasphemous that this attention-seeking sh1th3ad would take the image of the Son of Man and make him into a dope-head. I don't care if it is not en-vogue to love Jesus and obey God, this kid is an ass and all you nay-sayers can p1ss off.

"We have a duty to teach them that drugs are bad."

Drugs are bad?... why wasn't I informed? What are you basing this on... the blue lens project?

Psychologically, I don't think children have the intelligence or the responsibilities that adults have... though to pull a stunt like putting a banner up supporting the rights and freedoms of our societies to smoke marijuana, I say Right On! And then to defend him self from having his rights revoked, he stood up for him self, gee, I would think this kids got balls! Obviously we are teaching him something, and he has his own ideas, and everyone that attacks him on that idea is obviously against the purpose of this country...

Question the Supreme Court will consider:

1. Whether the First Amendment allows public schools to prohibit students from
displaying messages promoting the use of illegal substances at school-sponsored,
faculty-supervised events.

--

It does seem that the question of whether this was a school-sponsored event and whether the sign promoting an illegal substance has already been determined...

The same Bill of Rights protects people like Rev. Fred Phelps, as well as Joseph Frederick. Or do you live in a different country?

I had this wierd thought. You know what would Jesus do. Probably be turning all the tables over on the TV evangelist shows when they beg for money. When he would forgive so many it's kinda hard to believe that he would be offended by the sign. But it might be a bit upsetting for someone who gave up their life for us to see Pat and his gang turning him in for profit. Ooops, I mean non-profit (for tax purposes).

Shamans used several methods in which to receive "visions" .3 of which were :Fasting,No sleep or the use of entheogens .If you consider Jesus a shaman than there is a possibilty that he took a couple of "bong hits" so to speak .

All freedom has its limits. How often has freedom of speech led to violence, among other things? Everything has it's limit.

God bless

My friends, you are right. I have sinned by using Jesus's name to fill my pockets. Please forgive me. From now on, no matter how terrible the lies you here on my TV show, I implore you ... do not, I repeat do not send money. Let me prove my faith by denying evil money today! Amen.

I agree w/Miek's (from Australia) comment....It must show how lame & ridiculous persons like Ken Starr must look. Furthermore, if it wasn't a school fxn, then what's the BFD?
Also, Ms. Laurine definitely needs to learn some computer "etiquette". All of those "quotations" are just "obnoxious"! LOL.

How in the world could anyone read this as purporting Jesus to be a dope head?

If anything it was telling other pot smokers out there is you are FOR Jesus to take a hit for Jesus. That would not display JESUS as a dope head in my eyes.

Dell: I take my Christian faith seriously. Also, I'm considerably left of center on many political and social issues. To me, there's no incompatibility between being Christian and being liberal. In fact, it's *because* of my faith that I believe we are called to promote human rights and social justice.

Yes my friends. I have seen the light. My brother Pat has just called and asked me to deny money as well. I salute hime and I hereby ask publicly for forgiveness in the terrible things that I too have done in pursuit of it. PTL and stop sending in the cash.

Maybe if you did a little research you'd realize that Frederick was not just pulling some stupid gag. He was literally testing his right to free speech as he was protesting the unjust actions of his high school administrators. Good for you for reporting on this, but shame on you for pretending this was all a joke. These are serious matters and the outcome of this case affects you directly as a journalist, even if you do look like a Barbie Doll. (see, THAT was a joke.)

Why can't we, as a society, stop playing law-maker everytime something is in the news or someone does something unusual or out of tune with social rules of America and just say "ok...whatever". Everyone has to be a critic. Everyonen has to put their 2 cents in. So he made a sign. So he might or might not have offended people. So the teacher didn't like it. Who cares. At least he wasn't bringing guns to school or selling crack out on the baseball field. I think society needs to stop worrying about the next person and go take care of your problems first - and who cares if you get offended - just say aww, who cares, whatever.

I used to do THOUSANDS of Marijuana Bong Hits for Jesus at my fraternity at Yale.

My fellow Americans...even your President, "The Decider", did plenty of Bong Hits...heh heh. Why does everyone seem to have their panties in a bunch?

school was out and the student wasn't on school grounds. case closed.

it's not even clear what the sign meant, so how could it be offensive?

I don't have an issue even if he was testing his rights.....I did the same when I was in high school myself. I think most teenagers do that.

I think the fact that this has happened is a good thing....as it should very clearly eventually reveal to us all what rights we really do or don't have.

We may not like what we see. I don't like what I see already.

The student has every right to his freedom of speech and expression. Words are free to use and so is thought. What is your definition of bong hits and also what is the definition of Jesus? Both terms are ambiguous and since we can't prove who or what Jesus is why does it matter?

Speaking as a former high-school pothead turned dishwasher-college-dropout, I can say in retrospect that I truly wish our young would learn to moderate their drug intake.

Speaking as a proud member of ACLU, I wish that the rest of the western world could see how great our freedom of speech is, and that our Constitution should be a beacon for others. I can't think of another country-yes, even in "enlightened" Europe-where one can fight all the way to the Supreme Court to defend such an obvious right.

I was suspended from high school in 1983 for wearing a button that read "Mark Chapman Sucks". Have we evolved yet?

Dear frendsch. I am the decider, the head huncho. My job is to make the deshishons. My job, the buck stops here, is shimple. No its not always shimple and shomtimesh it ish. Sho ash they shay in showbusinesh. We mush prevail, endure and shometimes yesh even we musht er, yesh we musht and what

Our individual freedom stops where someone else's starts.

How did this sign infringe on someone else's freedom?

That is the question.

Get your facts straight. This was not a school function, rather the students were released from class to see the Olympic torch relay that passed the school. The student was not on school property but across the street.

The number and type of comments on this issues is almost baffaling. What ever happened to a sane a respectful debate?

The Supreme Court has previously recognized "that just because a student enters the school house doors does not mean that they shed their constitional rights". The Bill of Rights gives us freedom of speech, and if that freedom can only be exercised in government designated zones then we are not far from eliminating that right. Since this event was not on school grounds, and therefore not disruptive to the process of education, there can be no legal justification for censureship. As American's we have the right to freedom of speech, no where does it say we have the right not to be offended.

Further, some of the ignorant views expressed here that children do not have rights, reminds me of the narrow minded bigotry that has inflammed our planet. If we do not treat children with respect and rights, and respect thier right to constitutionally protected freedoms, then how can we expect that way to function as adults and respect the rights of others. Suddenly, the day they turn 18 we tell them okay now you finally have some rights and we want you to respect everyone else's rights too???? No citizenship starts at birth and is enhanced and grown by a lifetime of learning.

Next let us look at the issue of legality. People waved banners against segregation, for African Americans to have the right to vote, for women to have the right to vote. All of those things were unlawful at one time in our nations history. Indeed, the right to freedom of speech is most precious when we are protesting the law as it stands, just or unjustly. It's a critical part of the public discussion. We don't have town hall meetings anymore, at least not in the traditional sense, our right to free assembly requires police, security, permits, and other hinderences to that freedom. It appears getting the message out in whatever form we can is indeed an important aspect in modern public debate.

Whether a pubilicity stunt, whether a student, whether a child or adult, this individual has the right to free expression. If you don't like that, becareful, because when we begin to carve away at and limit the bill of rights, all of our freedoms become targets of those with differing views.

If you don't like what he has to say bring your own banner, write a letter to the editor, or just ignore him, you have a right to speak your piece, you don't have a right not to be offended.

Wow... everyone just needs to get over it. It was a high school prank for God sake. Oops I said God.... I must be promoting religion... jeeesh people! If you just open your eyes, I'm sure you could find real issues in the world with legitimate sinister undertones to read into! Personally I hope someone hangs a "Take A Toke 4 Freedom" banner up for the trial, just to piss everyone off. Oops... now I'm promoting drug use, My BAD!

I have reviewed the incident and I can say that the Vatican has no opinion on this matter.

I for one smoke pot, I for one have done other drugs(alcohol,ciggarettes,hallucigens ect)
ciggarettes being by far the worst(now serving 1billion deaths)My religious beliefs sway from buddism,to my own interpritaions, but what I think separates me from the crowd, is respect.Respect for the drugs is so important so critica