A DIFFERING VIEW: Court’s defense of free speech selective
Regarding Tuesday’s editorial on the Supreme Court rulings on free speech (“Free speech sanity”): Chief Justice John Roberts, recently appointed by President Bush, was quoted as saying in reference to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, “Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.”
However, this sentiment clearly did not extend to another ruling issued the very same day. An Alaska high school student was punished by his school district — at an off-campus event, no less — for unfurling a banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” while the Olympic torch passed by. The high court (no pun intended) ruled that free speech does not extend to the student because the message on the banner conflicted with the school’s anti-drug messages. These clearly inconsistent rulings demonstrate the court’s true fealty, which is not to the freedom of speech but to big-monied interests and the authorities.
Todd Runestad is a resident of Boulder.
and why would any one not expect a comment like this from the republic of boulder where the schools teach rec sex is good and try some drugs while you are at it.
Freedom of speech for corporations but not for students who are off campus and not on school time.
That's what happens when you put a bunch of ideological hypocrites in the pocket of big business on the court. "Strict Constructionists" hahah.
Just don't vote Republican for President in '08 unless you want lots more progress rolled back over the next 10-15 years.
Posted by Charles B on June 29, 2007 06:36 AMCharles B - My research of the event that the young man was involved in indicates that it was a school sponsered event. The students were allowed to view the passing of the Olympic Torch as it passed the school. True, he was not on the school property, but schools have been held responsible by the courts for what happens to students at school sponsered events and in this case the Supreme Court held the Principal to be within her authority when she acted.
Posted by f on June 29, 2007 06:57 AMf:
The premise of the ruling is that the sign was advocating drug use. Do you agree?
Posted by Charles B on June 29, 2007 07:22 AMDENVER ACLU: PROTECTS "FREE SPEECH" RIGHTS, OF WHITES ONLY! The Denver and NYC ACLU, "cut and ran" when I asked them to help me, regarding the violation of my "free speech" rights. However, they jumped to help the two whites, who were tossed out of Bush' s political rally.
I had the audacity to file a "friend of the court" letter ,with the Denver Federal Court, when the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) filed a discrimination lawsuit against Qwest. The NBCC filed their lawsuit because Qwest was stealing federal earmark contracts black owned businesses throughtout the USA.
I filed this letter because Qwest was also stealing jobs and contracts from black disabled Vietnam veterans too. This court was "rigged" against the NBCC. Qwest had this lawsuit sent to Denver Federal Judge Wiley Y. Daniels. Wilma Webb, Denver Director, USDOL/Office of Federal Contracts Compliance Programs-OFCCP, was the policewoman, to enforce federal contracting, hiring, and procurement laws with federal contractors like Qwest.
Daniels (draft-dodger) was appointed to the bench by Clinton (draft-dodger), at the urging of the Webb-gang. In violation of federal law, Wilma was AWOL and MIA from the NBCC's trial, because she was protecting Qwest's political financial donations made to her husband.
Daniels eventually tossed the NBCC's lawsuit, which left Qwest laughig in the aisle. I was very upset with Daniels' UNCLE TOM decision and I wrote him a letter. In this letter I said, "you aren't morally and ethically qualified to pick fleas from the rear-ends of greyhounds, that race at our local dog tracks". For Wilma, I said in this same letter, "she is a retired street prositute and an active political prostitute".
Daniels didn't like my "free speech" and he retaliated by having me arreseted by Denver's US Marshals. 8 of these Gestapo types hauled me in and "TERRORIZED" me and my family. They arrested me without a federal bench warrant, and they never read me my Miranda Rights, offered me a phone call, etc. Like something out a "B" spy-movie, they showed me a 10" thick dossier, compiled against me.
I am guilty of serving America for 23 years as a steam propulsion engineering officer in 3 nuclear powered submarines, 4 surface combat ships, and 3 deployments to Vietnam. I don't recall seeing either Welly Webb, Daniels, and Trujillo (surerender monkeys, communist-siders, and draft-dodgers), during any of deployments to Vietnam.
Former USAG John "Disco" Ashcroft refused to discipline those 8 Gestapo thugs, however, he and Bush jumped at their chance to place Black Denver U.S. Marshal Benny Bailey in prison for 6 years, because Bailey got into the pants of a WHITE WOMAN "nookie-gate".
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandvetbennies on June 29, 2007 07:33 AMCharles B - "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Since the term "Bong" is associated with Marijuana and (in movies at least) "Bong Hits" are slang for using Marijuana, then yes, to me it makes a pro drug use statement. Also, if the student had not been at a school sponsered event, I would not have any problem with making that statement.
Posted by f on June 29, 2007 08:54 AM40 acres. What was the result of your being arrested and did the feds charge you with any crime.
Posted by Allen Campbell on June 29, 2007 09:19 AMf
The sign is at best nonsensical. There is no verb such as "do" bong hits for Jesus, or "smoke" bong hits for Jesus.
I think it's a stretch to say it's advocating drug use in the literal sense, but I understand your view.
Posted by Charles B on June 29, 2007 10:08 AMCharles B - What do you think they were advocating?
Posted by KW on June 29, 2007 10:35 AMRepublicans tend to think there is a "drug" clause in the Constitution when it comes to unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, compelled self-incrimination and now freedom of speech. Conservatives think these rights are no longer rights since drugs are involved.
Republicans, why do you hate our freedom?
Read all of the opinions, all justices said schools have the right to restrict speech, and they all agreed the school had a right to take down the banner. However, Stevens wrote that since the banner was really generic, the suspension was extreme. Kennedy wrote that all should have been said is that the student can't sue for money and then leave it at that. People should read ALL of the written opinions before trying to write their own.
Posted by Tom on June 29, 2007 10:51 AMTom I support your idea that people should read all of the info, but I also firmly believe in questioning a court ruling, or a government that IS restricting free speech on every level.
My opinion is that the principle may have the authority to discipline a student accordingly, she is not teaching them what the real responsibilities of freedom are under our constitution. Therefore I would not encourage attending this public school or any other with these kind of nazi ,comunist , Ideaologies.
As for the courts it is clear we do not have people making decision's legal and otherwise that serve the citizens of america. But they clearly do serve some sort of dictator who wants citizens put in work camps, prison camps, and military control.
SO BONG HITS 4 JESUS is good!!!!!!!
I admire the student who took his freedom seriously enough to peacfully protest.
Drugs have been used as an excuse to slowly chip away our Constitutional rights for the last thirty years. The Drug War and its profane abuse of the Constitution as set the foundation for the much bigger Constitutional abuses of the War on Terror.
Posted by Sean on June 29, 2007 11:34 AMSo you all actually know what you are writing about, instead of blathering on about partisanship...
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf
Posted by Dan2 on June 29, 2007 11:57 AMWhere is the liberal tolerance of free speech when a conservative speaker is attacked en mass by liberal supporters and students? Where is the tolerance when conservative speakers were almost killed in San Francisco when they tried to support the US military? Its amazing how that is not ever brought up by the ACLU or other sucj groups. You have the right of free speech as long as it is what you are told it is
Posted by Nick on June 29, 2007 12:04 PMReally, US war supporters were almost killed in San Francisco, I guess that is breaking news to everyone but Nick and his imagination.
Posted by Sean on June 29, 2007 12:13 PM"So you all actually know what you are writing about, instead of blathering on about partisanship..."
I read the decision. What's not partisan about the Supreme Court? Partisan politics are what shape the court.
Posted by Charles B on June 29, 2007 12:30 PMI'm thinking that "40acres" rendition is what persuades a lot, most, of the comments in this forum from having a name attached to their sentiment. W. Bush's conviction that the Constitution is just "a goddamn piece of paper" bodes ill for freedom of speech. I'll be glad when the Vietnam dodger with the silver spoon in his mouth is history who on June 25 managed to fly aircraft piloted by five Catholic Supremes into the Wall of Separation so he could give $billions to Christianity.
Posted by Richard Grimes, a deicide: Risen Ape r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org on June 29, 2007 12:38 PMReally, US war supporters were almost killed in San Francisco, I guess that is breaking news to everyone but Nick and his imagination.
Posted by Sean on June 29, 2007 12:13 PM
My guess it was a case of mistaken gestures. The conservatives were quacking in their shoes and scared out of their minds that some gay would make a pass at them and they would God forbid get excited when the crowd turned on them in a frightening way. What the rest of the world saw were passers by frowning as they walked past the screaming group of nutjobs in the streets. Oh for the sin of it Nick.
Posted by on June 29, 2007 12:41 PMTwo axioms to consider:
1. "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
2. "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history."
The religious kooks, screwballs, and holier-than-thou nut cases who gave the Nation Prohibition, back after World War 1 ("Demon Rum", etc.), have merely put the focus on different "evils" with which to "scare the hell out" of others today.
Take your choice: cannabis, tobacco, gay people/lifestyle/unions/marriage, sex/sexeducation - or anything else that can be used to persuade others to fear, hate, and ultimately make unlawful and penalize, whatever it might be that the benighted, ignorant, and stupid sheeple who follow the leading Elmer Gantrys of the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ (Protestantism) can find to give themselves the feeling of being superior to others. As well as filling up the the great, gaping, empty hole in their individual and collective Psyches that mere book banging and bellowing on Sunday morning does nothing to alleviate. (And that also can - and for a very large number does - include peoples of other skin colors, ethnic origins and cultures, and beliefs and practices as well.)
In summary: Those who are "saved" - or who have "found Je$u$" - DON'T. Only the "sinners and evil doers" DO - or even think about doing. And the best form of "missionizing" is to pass laws that will stop others from either DOING or even thinking about it. Thereby beinging everyone else down to the level of deprivation exemplified by the most fanatic of the self-righteous antis in the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ franchise. (Smoke Free Colorado, for instance.)
Since it is also an axiom that, "Nature abhors a vacuum", it is also true that, for everything demonized, made "evil", or outlawed by the holy baloneys, there will always be the corresponding reality of those people who ARE, or who become, "sinful", "evil", and "outlaws" - "Organized Crime", for instance, by whatever designation. And the "righteous" will always point to this phenomonon of nature as "justification" for their own continuing regressions, and repressions; always patting themselves on the back for being so much "better" than the others.
But, there is also another axiom to consider: "Those who don't want to learn, won't."
Which is part of what makes this forum so much fun.
The Prohibitionist cause lost in the end, insofar as liquor be concerned, that is. Today, they're losing the so called "War on Drugs" even more spectacularly than the old anti-liquor fanatics ever did. Maybe, if we keep on shedding light on the subject, we might even stand a chance of seeing good sense overcome silly superstition after all.
Posted by Old Grouch on June 29, 2007 12:56 PMdo some research, about 3 or 4 moths ago it did happen. It made national news so please, and what about all the other attacks on conservative speakers and individuals?
Posted by Nick on June 29, 2007 01:02 PMOld Grouch,
GREAT post. I could not agree with you any more.
It truly is too bad that Master Frederick was not advised to say that his sign was political speech, and not just a "nonsensical silly message to get on TV."
Charles B,
My post was for information only. My observation on this thread is that of all the people commenting on the issue, my guess is less than 1% read the decision, and either:
1. assumed politics (conservative court)
2. only saw what was on TV
Pretty hard to comment on something when you don't know what the actual opinions were, don't you think? And only 3 Justices dissented. Although Justice Breyer (from the the decision) "BREYER would rest decision on qualified immunity without reaching the underlying First Amendment question."
Hard to say that it is only politics, unless you look at the three "liberal judges" dissenting opinion. Here is an excerpt from that dissent:
"The Court holds otherwise only after laboring to establish two uncontroversial propositions: first, that the constitutional rights of students in school settings are not coextensive with the rights of adults, see ante, at 8–12; and second, that deterring drug use by schoolchildren is a valid and terribly important interest, see ante, at 12–14. As to the first, I take the Court’s point that the message on Frederick’s banner is not necessarily protected speech,even though it unquestionably would have been had the banner been unfurled elsewhere. As to the second, I am willing to assume that the Court is correct that the pressing need to deter drug use supports JDHS’s rule prohibiting willful conduct that expressly “advocates the use of substances that are illegal to minors.”"
So, what was the "real" problem here for these Justices?
"In my judgment, the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students. This nonsense banner does neither, and the Court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding—indeed, lauding—a school’s decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed."
Without going into the merits of "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" (notice the "Hi" part?), it would be fairly naive to suggest that this is not a promotion of marijuana use (although if Master Frederick was smart enough he could have claimed that it was a speech political in nature against the current drug laws, and the court would "most likely" ruled in his favor, in my opinion and in the reading of the majority opinion).
Was the sign really harmful? No. Was it funny? In my humble opinion, VERY. Would he have been within his rights if this was NOT a school function? Certainly. But the overlaying question here is, was it within SCHOOL POLICY, and DOES THE SCHOOL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE SCHOOL POLICY? The answer to that would be no to the first, and yes to the second. And that is what the Court found.
You guys have covered the issues pretty well. I agree with Dan2 in his last paragraph.
When I read that letter, my first thought was, NOW I understand where our forum friend "Todd" is coming from. LOL
Posted by RU Serious on June 29, 2007 02:20 PMReally Nick, there a rash of physical attacks on conservative speakers? That would be a pretty news worthy event if a bunch of people with US flags and signs saying "support the troops" got the snot beaten out of them in San Fransisco of all places. Why don't you provide a link or two to back up your assertions. Or are you confusing the fact that liberals finally found their backbone and are standing up against conservative bullies.
Posted by Sean on June 29, 2007 04:41 PMIf people can wrestle, break bricks with their heads and bowl for Jesus, why not do drugs for Jesus.?
It`s all about the same.
Posted by Sharon B. on June 29, 2007 05:44 PM