I’m unaware of any other use for a bong. But, again, in Hess v. Indiana the SCOTUS ruled that speech must pose an imminent danger in order to fall outside of the protection of the First Amendment. I see no reason why the same logic cannot apply to a student holding up a sign on a public sidewalk, even if the act takes place during a school-related event.

“Bong Hits 4 Jesus” doesn’t tell us when or where to procure or use marijuana. The sign was not being held up in a classroom where it would indeed have disrupted the operations of the school. There was a time when the SCOTUS understood the importance of those distinctions. I fear those days are gone.

I can see where you are with this, but is there any use for a bong that doesn’t involve some kind of drug use? Now, granted, I had no idea what a bong was until college when a few of my incredulous friends explained it to me. But it seems to be fairly common knowledge for people that, unlike me, don’t live under a large boulder. So, I can understand where there’d be a problem.

Actually, it struck down the provision that disallowed corporations and labor unions to inject what amounts to “soft money” into the campaign by paying for “issue ads” that really amount to thinly disguised campaign contributions. Those ads aren’t be financed by anyone like me. I don’t have that kind of money.

Bill Mulligan: “Is the problem REALLY that too much money is being spent by outsiders or being given as bribes to our elected officials?”

It’s part of the problem, yeah. It’s one of the ways candidates get around limits on campaign donations.

Bill Mulligan: “At any rate, as we approach the first BILLION dollar presidential campaign, can anyone believe that the Campaign Finance Law has been anything but an abject failure?”

Rulings like this are part of the reason for that failure. When the SCOTUS wrongly decided that money is a form of political speech, they hamstrung all reform efforts.

It’s supposed to be “one person, one vote,” not “one dollar, one vote.”

Bill Mulligan: “Today the Court affirmed that a kid could wear an anti-bush t shirt. Political expression is not affected.”

Not yet.

Bill Mulligan: “But certainly we should have the ability to keep them from making threats or advocating illegal activity.”

The “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” sign did neither. It was quite cryptic.

Bill Mulligan: “Yes, there is potential for abuse by administrators but that is way outweighed by the potential for abuse by some students.”

Or perhaps the potential for abuse of our First Amendment privileges outweighs the vague risk of some intdeterminate harm that may or may not occur because of a sign that made someone uncomfortable.

Bill Mulligan: “And people better be prepared to reap the whirlwind.”

Perhaps. But restricting free speech isn’t free of consequence either. I believe that is a path that leads to things like the Tiananmen Square massacre in China. It really isn’t as far of a leap as many would like to believe. Our nation had the Kent State shootings, after all. And Donald Trump, one of our nation’s most well-known businessmen and a T.V. celebrity to boot, actually praised the Chinese government’s actions against the Tiananment Square demonstrators in an interview with Playboy magazine.

Bill Mulligan: “I know some of my liberal friends think this is all just a bunch of like minded kids wanting to express their opposition to anti-gay seal killing fundamentalist global warming SUV drivers…”

And some of my conservative friends are convinced that free-speech advocates like myself are part of a cabal of pot-smoking neo-hippie elitist commies out to destroy America. Rather than approach this argument from irrational extremes, I’d rather focus on what I believe to be the salient issues.

Bill Mulligan: “…but if we allow any and all free expression in the schools I GUARAN-DAMN-TEE that an amazing amount of said expression will be religious proselytizing, homophobic, sexist, vulgar, and involve various uses of the Confederate flag.”

I agree. The best response to a stupid idea, however, is to counter it with a good idea. Suppressing stupid ideas is a stupid idea, because good ideas are inevitably suppressed in the attempt.

Also, I’m certainly not advocating “any and all free expression” on the school’s campus. I’m merely advocating that we limit restrictions to speech that is actually disruptive, rather than speech that makes someone uncomfortable. A sign reading “Everyone Should Smoke Pot” or “Let’s Murder the Principal” is clearly inappropriate at a school function.

Edited on July 3, 2007, at 11:01 a.m. to remove unnecessarily confrontational language.

Yes, in fact, it is.

The ruling is yet another reversal of a 1969 ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. In that case, students were punished for wearing black arm bands in protest of the Vietnam war. The ruling stated that “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

Jerry Chandler: “It doesn’t matter if that someone else is a school, an employer or a public street, it’s not anything goes.”

In the eyes of the law, it does indeed matter whether it’s a school, an employer, or a public street. The Supreme Court has recognized three forums of public expression: traditional public forums, limited public forums, and nonpublic forums. There are different standards for each with respect to First Amendment protections.

Jerry Chandler: “If you’re going to publicly advocate for something or express your ideas or beliefs in something, at least have the guts to admit what it is that you’re actually saying rather then playing coy about it when pressed for an answer.”

In Hess v. Indiana, the SCOTUS ruled that conviction for incitement cannot be upheld if the danger is not imminent. The case involved a demonstrator who declared to a crowd, “We’ll take to the fucking streets later.” Because he didn’t specify which streets, nor did he define “later,” the SCOTUS ruled that his statement fell under the umbrella of protected speech. Why should the same principle not apply to Frederick’s sign?

At any rate, as we approach the first BILLION dollar presidential campaign, can anyone believe that the Campaign Finance Law has been anything but an abject failure?

Today the Court affirmed that a kid could wear an anti-bush t shirt. Political expression is not affected. But certainly we should have the ability to keep them from making threats or advocating illegal activity. Yes, there is potential for abuse by administrators but that is way outweighed by the potential for abuse by some students.

And people better be prepared to reap the whirlwind. I know some of my liberal friends think this is all just a bunch of like minded kids wanting to express their opposition to anti-gay seal killing fundamentalist global warming SUV drivers but if we allow any and all free expression in the schools I GUARAN-DAMN-TEE that an amazing amount of said expression will be religious proselytizing, homophobic, sexist, vulgar, and involve various uses of the Confederate flag. Will they be as generous with their defense of free speech then? If so, I applaud their consistency and urge them to begin working on allowing said expression at the colleges and Universities where much work remains to be done.

Me, I can live with it. I’m all for stupid people being allowed to say stupid things. It allows us to see, rather quickly, that they are stupid, and keeps us from wasting valuable time on them.

Uhm….. No. No it did not.

Schools have had rules that forbid clothing, signs and misc. things written on/stuck on books and notebooks that promote or represent illegal drugs (outside of an assigned project on the subject) in the school or at school related events. This ruling isn’t really saying anything new.

It’s also not suppressing the free exchange of ideas or open debate. In my high school, we couldn’t wear drug or alcohol related slogans on our clothing or sit around between assignments reading the latest issue of Playboy. This never stopped classes from having discussions or debates on the pros and cons of the legalization of some drugs, the American views on nudity or the absurdity of the arbitrary nature that the legal age for the purchase alcohol or of “sexual” products seemed to be decided from state to state or from year to year. We often had some interesting points of view thrown about as we had lots of Army families (we were right next to Fort Lee) sending their kids to my school and quite a few of them had been overseas.

For me, this is an issue that is somewhat like a school dictating what a student can and cannot wear or jamming up a student for swearing in the hallway. One function of school is to prepare you for the “real world” that awaits you as an adult. One function of that preparation is to make you aware that, while you have lots of freedoms and rights on your own time and in your own place, you do have restrictions on what you can and cannot do when under someone else’s roof. It doesn’t matter if that someone else is a school, an employer or a public street, it’s not anything goes. There’s always a time and a place for things and there’s always a proper way to express ideas. Likewise, there are situations where it’s neither the time or the place and there are improper ways to do things.

Joseph Frederick just got reminded that whipping out a banner that says “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at a school-sanctioned event to see the Olympic Torch go by fell under the category of the wrong way to say something in the wrong place and at the wrong time. I also found some humor in the article referencing his denying that the banner in 2002 was advocating drug use while pointing out that he pleaded guilty in 2004 to selling marijuana. If you’re going to publicly advocate for something or express your ideas or beliefs in something, at least have the guts to admit what it is that you’re actually saying rather then playing coy about it when pressed for an answer.