I'm gonna send Lee Ward and the rest of the Blue gang into cardiac arrest.

I agree with this decision. The right to free speech includes the right to say things that I do not agree with.

But don't tell the lefties that.

C-C-G,

that is very american of you C-C-G.

Now if only this gang were for free speech across the board.

Mixti, tell me where we are not for free speech, please? Give specific examples, with news stories for verification, not just vague "well, they're against X."

Anything that doesn't create a "clear and present danger" should be protected speech. That includes "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and critical statements aimed at any politician or political position.

Protecting only popular speech is no protection at all.

Personally, I think Justice Roberts could use a few bong hits. (or at least a drink).

C-C-G,

I did not accuse yoo, of being against free speech, I was saying you are taking the position of all good Americans on the case Kim was posting about.

The folks I was accusing of not being for free speech across the board, refers to the supreme court \"bong hits for jesus\" case. and I my comments were regarding them.

What kind of parents does this kid have? I wouldn't let my kid wear a shirt like that even if it had Ted Kennedy on it instead of Bush. Believe me, that's sayin' a lot.

Publicus, the difference between the t-shirt and the "Bong Hits for Jesus" scenarios is that one didn't promote illegal drugs. Guess which one.

Sorry for the triple post. I am having some weird webpage issues.

Oyster when did you become against America and free speech?

So Bong Hits 4 Jesus is bad, but coke for GWB is ok. A very fine line the SCOTUS is traversing here.

Oh, for anyone interested in seeing the shirt in question, here it is.

So Bong Hits 4 Jesus is bad, but coke for GWB is ok. A very fine line the SCOTUS is traversing here.

I was thinking the same thing. I wonder what legal reasoning differentiates the two?

Seems to me that they punished the kid for the drug references not the political references, so I would say that the school was right and the Supreme Court was wrong.

Does anyone believe that a school in Vermont would have a problem with an anti-Bush shirt (I mean were it not for the lines of coke and the martini)?

\"Does anyone believe that a school in Vermont would have a problem with an anti-Bush shirt (I mean were it not for the lines of coke and the martini)?\"

Nor should they.

"Oyster when did you become against America and free speech?"

I'm sorry, I don't know where you got that idea. Could you be a little clearer telling me what I said to give you that impression?

Oyster, Mixti is obviously just blanket accusing anyone that responds of being against free speech.

Ignore him/her/it.

Guvmint skules, guvmint rooles.

Having taught there, I believe the basis of not allowing the shirt should be disruption of others' rights to learn without distraction by some kid needy for attention. I've long been a proponent of uniforms at school. Let them be as individual as they want to be on their own time, just like in the real world. But, in the real world, teachers have to deal with what steps off the bus in the morning, and, too often, it's an already damaged human. This kid and his parents show symptoms of a common derangement syndrome, epidemic in America. The courts are obviously not where you go to find a cure.

oyster,

This is what gave me the idea.

"Publicus, the difference between the t-shirt and the "Bong Hits for Jesus" scenarios is that one didn't promote illegal drugs. Guess which one."

I assumed from it you are saying that that you agree that it is ok to censor free speech as long as the term bong is in it. Am I incorrect?

C-C-G,

I didn't accuse you of being against free speech, and just in case you were not smart enough to infer it, I posted the same mesage THREE TIMES, where I said I am not accusing you of being against free speech.

I am begining to think you are against reading though.

The fine line here is the difference between political speech, which the SCOTUS is saying is protected in the schools, and speech promoting drug use, which the court is saying schools can restrict. Who's to say what is or isn't political though? If the bong hits kid had argued his was political speech, would the court have ruled in his favor?

I know the difference here is subtle but bong hits for Christ is advocating drug use. The other t-shirt is accusitory. Claiming Bush uses coke and drinks. No basis in truth, but still protected speech as long as the lie told is about someone in the public sector. Too bad libel and slander laws do not apply. I wonder if those parents would act if they could be drug into court to defend their statment or face paying financial damage.

ZR, you are right. There is a difference. ww

This ruling did seem a bit schizophrenic when compared with the "Bong hits 4 Jesus" banner, but that is a nice description of the fine line separating the two, Mantis.

One thing that mystifies me about the banner, is that it wasn't on school property, right? Guess I could research it...feeling lazy about looking it up, for once...

"I know the difference here is subtle but bong hits for Christ is advocating drug use."

Why do you hate America? In the U.S.A. We suport free speech. Talking about drugs is to my knowledge not illegal, doing drugs is.

"Publicus, the difference between the t-shirt and the "Bong Hits for Jesus" scenarios is that one didn't promote illegal drugs. Guess which one."

Well,first of all..."Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is at best an unclear "message". (I would call it incoherent.) However, in the past promoting illegal ANYTHING wouldn't have been restricted speech...unless there was a "clear and present danger." In this case, you'd have to argue that there was an extremely strong likelihood that students would start taking illegal drugs directly as a result of this sign.

I might also note that if the student was arguing that "bong hits" should be legal, that is political speech which is, of course, protected under the first amendment.

I hold free speech to be an unalienable right, as Justice Holmes did...and only a "clear and present danger" should restrict it. Certainly NOT unpopular content.

"Claiming Bush uses coke and drinks. No basis in truth"

Actually they don't claim he "uses" they claim he "used". And for that I believe there is a "basis in truth", at least for the drinking part, but likely for the coke part, too.

BTW - if the student and his sign was disrupting a school event, the school could have (and possibly should have) suspended the student for disrupting the class or event. But to punish the student on the basis of the content of his poster is simply absurd. At least, in America.

I think you all (and the Supremes) are missing a key element. It is a school. Stupid stuff on shirts can easily be disruptive to the learning environment. Idiotic crap like this is why some areas are pushing for school uniforms. If my kid tried to go to school wearing something like that he'd be snatched up in a hurry and straightened out. The fact that this kid does not have anyone in his life willing to teach him right from wrong doesn't bode well for his future. Failure to square away your kids is a hidden type of child abuse. Basically you're setting them up to be losers.

"Personally, I think Justice Roberts could use a few bong hits."

Indeed. And I would add the other 4, including the
chimerical Kennedy.

How is it that marijuana is not a political issue.

SCOTUS is ignorant of the fact that there are states which have legalized Medical Marijuana?

On the contrary. I think that position leaves
their constitutional cherry-picking an open venue for the DOJ (should they ever be able to find their collective arses again) and DEA to be more vigorous in their challenges to those states.

I refer to the case 'Bong Hits for Jesus' in the above comment.

Let his parents support his support of drugs, which is what he was doing. Using the accuations of the Presidents drug use as a 'pre-setup' excuse for his own. Poor democrats are getting crazier every day.
No problem, in the near future some medic will be standing over the boy with the duct tape on his shirt saying, dead of a drug overdose. I'll defend his right to die like millions of drugged out idiots do. Laying in an alley in their own vomit and feces. Ran a call last night for seizures. Seizures ma A**, druggie on methadone at age 26, who can't be helped by anyone on this earth other than herself. Will she help herself? No, a few months and there will be a DOA call to the same address.
Suicide and suicide attempts shot up last night. Did something happen to send the lefties over the edge? Would the failure of the blanket pardon of 12-20 million non-American criminals have something to do with it?

Semanticleo, I know you think you know more about law then the justices on the Supreme court, unfortunately your opinion doesn't mean shit, theirs does. Had you not spent your entire short life taking bong hits and then drinking the water, you too could have possibly had a career in law. Who knows, maybe so deluded communist lefty democrat President, if a fit of complete and utter stupidity, named you to some future Supreme court. Ah thats the shit dreams are made of.

Part of what school should be helping to teach children is appropriate behavior. There is a time and a place for everything, and school should not be the time, nor the place, for a shirt that depicts illegal drugs. Dissing the president aside, the drugs should have been the issue. The school was right.

Those parents? Trash.

Zelsdorf,

If you hate America for its freedom you should leave. Perhaps you should consider Saudi Arabia where where the hate freedom of speech as much as you.

I wish they had decided this when I was younger. The very next day I would have been in school wearing a shirt witha large pot leave and the words "legalize it." Even if I didn't think pot should be legal it would have been fun to know since I was stating political opinion and not advocating illegal drug use, there would have been nothing they could have done about it.

Mixti, you're quickly becoming as much a walking punchline as Lee Ward is.

A word to the wise is sufficient.

Do I question the court's ruling on free speech? No.
Do I question the parent's judgment on raising a seventh-grader? Yes, emphatically.

Mixti, you're quickly becoming as much a walking punchline as Lee Ward is."

Why for not hating America? For telling those that hate America as Zelsdorf clearly does, to go some place where they won't have to put up with freedom?

What are you a commie sympathizer? if you love them, then you must hate america and you are a traiter. Go create your stalinistic paradise where freedom is not tolerated somewhere else! :)

Keep on making yourself a punchline, Mixti. Far be it from me to stop someone making a complete and total fool of themselves.

Here's a clue: Freedom is not absolute. I do not have the freedom to rob, to kill, or to do lots of other things. The sooner you get that through your head the smoother life will go for you.

"Here's a clue: Freedom is not absolute. I do not have the freedom to rob, to kill, or to do lots of other things."

But you do have freedom of speech. it's even in the constitution, you can go check.

Freedom to rob, kill, didn't make the final cut though. brilliant point by the way. I mean if we can't rape and rob why should we get free speech?

"The sooner you get that through your head the smoother life will go for you."

The sooner you go to Saudi Arabia where you unamerican beleifs are prevalent the happier you will be.

I posted twice to aid you with you reading comprehension problem you demonstrated earlier.