Previous Next Latest

Supremes: No “Bong Hits for Jesus”

6/25/07, 2:20 pm EST

Thanks to the Roberts/Alito court, juveniles can kiss their first amendment rights goodbye.

Listen, the kid who unfurls a “Bong Hits for Jesus” banner at a school event is probably a douchebag. But, then so is Bill Kristol. Both are Americans, and just because one is a callow pothead doesn’t mean that his first amendment rights are any less deserving of protection. It’s not like the kid helped start a war or anything….

He made himself a nuisance with unruly speech. That’s his God given right in this country. Or at least it was until George’s activist judges took the bench.

Our fragile 84 year old voice of reason, John Paul Stephens gets the quote of the day: “This case began with a silly nonsensical banner. It ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message.”

Assholes.


Previous Next Latest

Comments

ray | 6/25/2007, 3:12 pm EST

Bushs, policies and judges will hurt and haunt America for years.

Brian | 6/26/2007, 12:02 am EST

I agree with the dissent here, but can we drope the trope here of calling every decision with which we disagree “activist.” Perhaps the tag is appropriate in some instances, but more often than not, it’s a substitute for thought, whether invoked by either the right or left. School rights jurisprudence is a mess, and this case just adds to the mess, but that doesn’t make it “activist.”

david | 6/26/2007, 4:17 am EST

he wasn’t even on school grounds which is what makes this even more ridiculous. Can’t stand kennedy doesn’t deserve to be on the bench. He looks at the court as the way to create the values of America not the guardian of them

Seth | 6/26/2007, 10:47 am EST

Yes! This “really” needed to be addressed by the Supreme Court. Not only is the kid a douchebag but his parents have nothing better to do with their money than take their stoner kid’s case all the way from AK to DC.

Kudos to the clowns at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which still leads the league in overturned, dippy rulings.

Dallas | 6/26/2007, 11:14 am EST

0 steps forward. 2 steps back.

uiuc_grad | 6/26/2007, 7:02 pm EST

Gah. So very typical of America’s perennial fear of narcotics – just press your palms to cheeks and a cast a shrieking “he’s promoting DRUGS!”

Hell, I’m just happy he didn’t let the principal off the hook. That’s the important thing.

AnnCoulterneedsamouthfulofcum! | 6/26/2007, 7:40 pm EST

Not only are the right wingers opposed to “special rigths”, they apparently don’t care much for the ones already on the books either!

Word | 6/27/2007, 12:09 am EST

I guess the pot lobby needs to kick shit in higher gear…

Karl | 6/27/2007, 8:20 pm EST

“I guess the pot lobby needs to kick shit in higher gear…”

Fuck lobbies. Lobbies just complicate things. What we need are Judges and Justices that interpret the constitution and the bill of rights for what it truly is, none of this ‘living document’ bullshit.

The liberals are partially to blame for the ‘living document’ horse manure, because they were the ones who started the trend. Nowadays, Neo-Conservatives continue the trend.

C Co... aka I Smell Propaganda | 6/28/2007, 1:40 pm EST

Schools have always been allowed to limit the amount of First Amendment rights if they deem something is worth censorship. This ruling simply enforces that. Keep in mind it was the kid who brought this to court in the first place, looking to sue the school. If the “douchebag” wants to hold a protest in DC with that banner or write a book with “Bong Hits for Jesus” written a thousand times, he can. The issue was that he couldn’t do that kind of thing under school authority. Our rights are still fully intact my liberal Chicken Little brethren.

Jed Clampett | 6/28/2007, 6:36 pm EST

if he would have wrote EARMARKS 4 JESUS he would not have been sensored and this would never have gone all the way to the supremes.

Word | 7/1/2007, 12:43 am EST

Propaganda snorter,

Your position is inconsistent with your ideology. Unless I’m wrong and you believe that everyone who cannot afford to attend a private school-and who is under 18-deserves to have their constitutional rights revoked and be subject to activist constraints on their constitutionally given liberties.

You seem to support the government selectively, as in when it dovetails with conservative propaganda. If not you deride it as overreach and activist. There is a word for this. It’s hypocrisy.

C Co... aka I Smell Propaganda | 7/8/2007, 9:51 pm EST

First of all, you are the one who labels me a conservative. The fact that I support the government, or this administration, selectively doesn’t make me a hypocrite, it makes me independent. The thing is I don’t hate liberal thought; I just hate the liberals who go completely overboard in their ideology without reason or facts. People like Tim Dickinson or those who think his posts are anything more than biased liberal propaganda.

Also, nice to see your spin machine is working on this issue, too. Look, if you attend any type of school (public, private, charter, etc.), regardless of whether you’re over 18 or not, the school has a right to enforce rules that may technically interfere with your First Amendment rights. If this weren’t the case, you would have students telling teachers to “fuck off”, talk whatever they wanted to (about whatever they wanted to), and no order and discipline would be maintained at school (therefore no work would be accomplished). Are you really such a Communist nut that you think the education system could work in an environment like that? Come back to the real world.

Note: Tried posting this a week ago. Thanks RS techies.

Post A Comment

Caution: Off-topic comments will be deleted

Name:

Comments:



Advertisement

Advertisement