What will the Supreme Court rule in the "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" case?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I can't believe there's been no thread... [Removed Illegal Link] href=''>Nat Hentoff concludes in this two-parter that Alito will vote to protect student speech (at least if expressed across the street from the school).

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:17 (eighteen years ago)

i'm actually for the school on this one. dude was on a field trip. straighten up and fly right, bucko.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:19 (eighteen years ago)

I still don't understand why they took this case. Kid wasn't on school property!

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:20 (eighteen years ago)

(not a field trip!)

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:21 (eighteen years ago)

In January 2002, students were released from Juneau-Douglas High School to watch the Olympic torch pass by. Frederick, who had not attended school that day, joined some friends on the sidewalk across from the high school (off school grounds). Frederick and his friends waited for the television cameras so they could unfurl a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." When they displayed the banner, then-principal Deborah Morse ran across the street and seized it.

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:22 (eighteen years ago)

yeah I don't get it either. I would think the principal doesn't even have a case...

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:23 (eighteen years ago)

(taken from Wikipedia, although none of the parties dispute the relevant facts)

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:24 (eighteen years ago)

Let's try Hentoff Part 1 again.

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:24 (eighteen years ago)

why did i think he was in school? okay, then i vote for the jesus bong dude. wait, was he playing hooky?

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:26 (eighteen years ago)

he claims he couldn't get to school because of snow

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:26 (eighteen years ago)

i vote for him ESPECIALLY if he was playing hooky.
fuck high school principals everywhere.

― ian, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:27 (eighteen years ago)

I just don't understand how being let out of school to view a parade = a "school activity", especially when it doesn't occur on school grounds or involve any supervision...?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:28 (eighteen years ago)

the supreme court was confused as well:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/03/analysis_a_new.html

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:28 (eighteen years ago)

he couldn't get to school but he could get across the street from the school? dude was stoned.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:28 (eighteen years ago)

I mean that seems to be the key to the principal's case, that their watching the Olympic runner was a "school activity"...?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:29 (eighteen years ago)

guys he was not playing hooky.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:29 (eighteen years ago)

Much of the one-hour hearing was taken up with either puzzled efforts by the Justices to find out just what had happened in the student speech censorship incident outside a Juneau high school in early 2002. It was far from clear that the Justices had a settled view of whether senior Joseph Frederick actually had disrupted anything by holding up a 14-foot banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" during a rally to honor the Olympic torch. And it was not plain that the Justices were sure of what that banner's message really was.

The Chief Justice, for example, seemed uncertain about what drove the high school senior to make his demonstration across from the school during the torch rally. He ascribed a number of motives to Frederick that Frederick's lawyer, Douglas K. Mertz, promptly disputed, saying the record disputed Roberts' assumptions.

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:29 (eighteen years ago)

"I just don't understand how being let out of school to view a parade = a "school activity","

field trip. did they go BACK to the school after watching the torch thing? if so, school activity. kids under jurisdiction of school authority.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:30 (eighteen years ago)

what do you mean "back to the school" - it was right across the street! No one had to go anywhere!

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:32 (eighteen years ago)

no one even had to be in school that day!

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:33 (eighteen years ago)

i'm confused now. it wasn't even a school day?

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:34 (eighteen years ago)

dude, he went to class after the torch went by

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:34 (eighteen years ago)

i thought the kids were in school, they had them all go out and watch the torch, and then they went back to school. shows what i know.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:35 (eighteen years ago)

Really interesting comment to that SCOTUSBlog post:

Under Alaska law, students are not required to attend school after reaching the age of 16. Sixteen, seventeen and eighteen year old Alaskans attend voluntarily, in the manner of students attending college.

Previously, Frederick elected to sometimes attend school, sometimes not attend school. The principal could have dismissed him for failure to attend school consistently. But, the school followed a pragmatic laissez-faire course with Frederick, because it received state funding for his being a student of record, and probably the principal decided that Frederick was learning more than if he were expelled, or dropped out.
We presume he completed his assignments and passed his tests satisfactorily (he ultimately graduated), so his spotty self-scheduled attendance pattern was accepted.

Frederick was allowed to "do his own thing" during school hours, as someone who was under no legal compunction to attend school, either regularly, or at all, prior to the Olympic torch relay.

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:35 (eighteen years ago)

He told the principal the banner stood for Better Olympic National Games - Head Into Town 4 Jesus

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:35 (eighteen years ago)

"dude, he went to class after the torch went by"

aha!

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:35 (eighteen years ago)

wikipedia sez: "In January 2002, students were released from Juneau-Douglas High School to watch the Olympic torch pass by. "

that's all I have to go on.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:36 (eighteen years ago)

weird schools in alaska.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:37 (eighteen years ago)

don't trust wikipedia for anything.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2006/march/morse-v-frederick-06-278.html

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:37 (eighteen years ago)

Oral Argument Transcript

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:38 (eighteen years ago)

from the 9th circuit opinion:

One January day, Coca-Cola and other private sponsors
supported a “Winter Olympics Torch Relay” in Juneau,
Alaska. Students were released from school so that they could
watch the Olympic torch pass by. Joseph Frederick, then an
18-year-old senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, never
made it to school that morning because he got stuck in the
snow in his driveway, but he made it to the sidewalk, across
from the school, where the torch would pass by. He and some
friends waited until the television cameras would catch it,
then unfurled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” Deborah
Morse, the school principal, crossed the street, grabbed and
crumpled up the banner, and suspended Frederick for ten
days.

― elmo argonaut, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:38 (eighteen years ago)

Mr. Que, I think that's a bit of an overstatement.

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:38 (eighteen years ago)

i thought it was a case of: dude gets let out during the day to watch torch, pulls a stunt, goes back to school and gets in trouble. i mean, they suspended me for less when i was in school. but it's a weirder situation than that. i don't know what to think. dude wasn't even legally there or whatever.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:38 (eighteen years ago)

I think they were furloughed rather than released.

Kid is teaching English in China now, per Hentoff.

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:39 (eighteen years ago)

i think ten days is a bit harsh. but i can see most high school principals doing something similar despite the dude's quasi-student status.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:40 (eighteen years ago)

okay so I guess he WAS playing hooky and it WAS a "school-sponsored, faculty-supervised event" - although whether he was actually participating in that event seems kinda murky to me, since he obviously wasn't being supervised by anybody, nor was he on school property.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:41 (eighteen years ago)

yeah ten days seems crazy unless the guys got in trouble a lot??

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:42 (eighteen years ago)

but he went back to school property, right? he should have gone home.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:43 (eighteen years ago)

yeah he went to class

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:43 (eighteen years ago)

i got a one-day out-of-school suspension once for running in the halls. i got a five day in-school suspension once just cuz the principal thought i was a jerk. and i was. but still...

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:44 (eighteen years ago)

Haha, this kid is awesome:

Frederick says that the principal initially told him that he was suspended for five days, but when he quoted Thomas Jefferson to her, she doubled it.

― elmo argonaut, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:45 (eighteen years ago)

going to class was his fatal mistake, maybe. he was admitting that he was a part of the school event in a way.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:45 (eighteen years ago)

he claims in his brief that he was suspended for five days at first but then quoted Jefferson on free speech and then the principal added another five days. crazy

haha xpost

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:45 (eighteen years ago)

The Court's apparently decided to assume away those factual questions anyway. Still seems very weird to me that they took the case.

I'm reading Starr's oral argument right now, and it's not very coherent. I actually expected better.

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:46 (eighteen years ago)

i got threatened with a two-day suspension once in the principal's office and i asked if they could make it five days instead. i really was a jerk.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:46 (eighteen years ago)

they were always yelling at me and telling me i was gonna end up like my brother. so mean...

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:49 (eighteen years ago)

They didn't just take the case because of the free speech thing, see the second question. These are the reasons they took the case.

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.

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit departed from established principles of qualified immunity in holding that a public high school principal was liable in a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when, pursuant to the school district’s policy against displaying messages promoting illegal substances, she disciplined a student for displaying a large banner with a slang marijuana reference at a school-sponsored, faculty-supervised event.

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:51 (eighteen years ago)

Okay, but (a) the event was privately sponsored by Coca-Cola and (b) it states that no permission slips were required for the event and that students were not required to stay together or with teachers, so I don't see how it could be school-supervised

― elmo argonaut, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:53 (eighteen years ago)

Wow:

18 JUSTICE KENNEDY: This, this -- this parade
19 had a theme to celebrate the Olympics, with -- the high
20 school kids are carrying the torch, the band is in it.
21 And suppose the banner said vote for, vote Republican,
22 vote Democrat. And he wants to be on the TV with that.
23 Could this, the principal make him take that sign out of
24 the ground in that it's inconsistent with the whole
25 theme of, of, of the parade? Something like our Kurle

1 case?
2 MR. KNEEDLER: Yes. I -- I mean, I think
3 for this reason. This was essentially an outdoor
4 assembly, where the -- whether the students were
5 assembled to watch a particular different, just as in an
6 indoor assembly.

No wonder so many groups jumped in after the Solictor's brief was filed!

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:54 (eighteen years ago)

because it was across the street from the school, and they were under school supervision. it was like a field trip.

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:56 (eighteen years ago)

Factual exchange with the US attorney:

20 JUSTICE GINSBURG: But it wasn't, it wasn't
21 like an assembly, was it? As I understand it, the
22 children were released from school, but they were not
23 required to attend this event and they were not required
24 to stand in front of the school on the opposite side.
25 They weren't monitored by their teachers, so they -- and
27
1 there were nonstudents in the crowd. So it's not like a
2 school assembly.
3 MR. KNEEDLER: The students' present at the
4 event, presence as the event, was like an assembly.
5 Students may go into an assembly hall and not have to
6 sit with their class. They were released from class,
7 but they were not released from school or school
8 supervision. There were teachers around there and the
9 school could define what is the nature of our assembly
10 at this public event and, just as in, in the auditorium
11 a school could say there will be no political banners
12 or, frankly, no banners about anything other than what
13 the event is --
14 JUSTICE SCALIA: Were they required to go to
15 this event and could they have skipped off and gone home
16 without violating --
17 MR. KNEEDLER: They were not allowed to go
18 home. They were required, they were required --
19 JUSTICE SCALIA: They were required to
20 attend.
21 MR. KNEEDLER: They were required to be
22 there if the classroom teacher decided to let them go
23 out there, but they were under school supervision at
24 that time.

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:57 (eighteen years ago)

Even assuming this "school assembly" interpretation, it would be a MAJOR departure to say that a purely political banner could be the subject of school discipline, where it is at best unclear that it was disruptive to the education of other students. I mean, that pretty much overrules Tinker entirely!

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 19:59 (eighteen years ago)

"(b) it states that no permission slips were required for the event and that students were not required to stay together or with teachers, so I don't see how it could be school-supervised"

they let them out to watch it, right? and then everyone went back to school? that was school-supervised. i don't think it even matters what the sign said. if the principal felt the kid was being an idiot during school, they can punish them. doesn't matter if it was across the street.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:01 (eighteen years ago)

Dude should say that he was practicing freedom of expression of his Rastafarian beliefs and let the lawyers chew on that.

― elmo argonaut, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:02 (eighteen years ago)

oh that's funny. Bong Hits brief claims that he wasn't subject to school's authority when this happened.

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:02 (eighteen years ago)

If it doesn't matter what the sign said, they sure spent too much time on it:

{i]"Illegal drug use and the glorification of the drug culture are profoundly serious problems for our nation," Starr argued, and if the court gives First Amendment protection to the banner, school anti-drug policies around the country—and like that of Juneau High School—would be undermined.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a First Amendment supporter—and a likely swing vote if there's a 5-4 decision—gladdened Starr by stating that Joe Frederick's banner "was completely disruptive of the theme that the school wanted to promote."

And Chief Justice Roberts chimed in: "I thought we wanted our schools to teach . . . something besides just basic elements . . . including character formation. . . . Can't the school decide that it's part of its mission to prevent its students from using drugs?" [/i]

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:04 (eighteen years ago)

yeah, THAT Starr

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:05 (eighteen years ago)

they did spend a lot of time talking about what the sign could have said

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:05 (eighteen years ago)

it's pretty fun to read the transcript

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:05 (eighteen years ago)

"Bong Hits brief claims that he wasn't subject to school's authority when this happened."

this is really the issue. not the bong hit thing. a principal could punish a kid for holding up a banner with nothing written on it if they felt like the kid was being an ass or disruptive or whatever. schools have a lot of leeway when it comes to disciplining kids.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:06 (eighteen years ago)

Morbius in case you can't tell i was agreeing with you, sorry.

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:07 (eighteen years ago)

More interesting fact stuff in re the in-or-out-of school discussion:

16 JUSTICE BREYER: But I mean, that's -- I
17 have, I guess his note, you accept this with what the
18 teacher said. The entire class went to view the relay.
19 Individual students -- this is at 9:30 in the morning.
20 They were not given the option of remaining in class,
21 nor were they released to do as they pleased. They were
22 to watch the relay with the rest of the student body,
23 either just in front of the school or just across the
24 street -- that's me, not them -- and then return
25 directly to their classrooms, which I guess the school
43
1 did. So it sounds like you're going to one place, stand
2 together, behave yourselves, watch the relay, and the
3 teachers will be there and take you back to class. Now
4 is there something else in the record that suggests
5 something different?
6 MR. MERTZ: There is a major dispute on that
7 point, Your Honor. We presented several affidavits that
8 showed individual teachers --
9 JUSTICE BREYER: Just tell me where to look.
10 Where are the conflicting affidavits? I'm just reading
11 from page 51 of the joint appendix. I didn't know there
12 was a dispute.
13 MR. MERTZ: It would be on pages 32, 34, 36.
14 JUSTICE BREYER: Okay, I'll look at those.
15 Another somewhat minor point. Can I ask you another
16 point about the record? I'll read those.
17 MR. MERTZ: Okay. Can I finish the
18 description of what actually happened? According to the
19 students, for those who were released from class, there
20 was no requirement for staying on campus, and many of
21 them did not stay on campus. No requirement for --
22 JUSTICE BREYER: No, they went across the
23 street.
24 MR. MERTZ: Some of them did. Some went
25 down --
44
1 JUSTICE BREYER: Was there any -- there was
2 no requirement, they didn't have to go across the street
3 or stay on campus, they could wander off distantly.
4 MR. MERTZ: They could, and many of them
5 did.
6 JUSTICE BREYER: Okay.
7 MR. MERTZ: And there was no requirement
8 that they stay together, no requirement that they do
9 anything in particular. They --
10 JUSTICE SCALIA: I had to watch -- not even
11 watch the parade, no requirement they watch the parade?
12 They were released in order to watch the parade.
13 MR. MERTZ: That was the intent, obviously,
14 for those released.
15 JUSTICE SCALIA: The intent, it was the
16 direction.
17 MR. MERTZ: But --
18 JUSTICE SCALIA: It was not only the intent,
19 it was the direction.
20 MR. MERTZ: Actually it was not. According
21 to these student affidavits, they were simply released
22 and said, you can go watch --
23 JUSTICE GINSBURG: Was there any fact
24 finding on that? You referred to affidavits.
25 MR. MERTZ: No. It was decided on cross
45
1 motions for summary judgment in the district court, and
2 there were no findings, actually no factual findings at
3 all, and certainly nothing on that particular point.

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:07 (eighteen years ago)

court bloviating shocker. the issue SHOULD be whether the school has the right to discipline the kid for doing...anything! and the kid going back to school after the torch thing makes me think that the school has the upper-hand.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:09 (eighteen years ago)

my short transcript take: Pace Frazier, the SCOTUS consensus appears to be that the word "disruptive" means far more than you or I might believe.

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:11 (eighteen years ago)

if the kid had just gone home and said fuck them i wasn't even in school that day, well, that would be different. the whole alaska don't-have-to-go-to-school-if-you-don't-want-to thing makes it more complicated!

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:12 (eighteen years ago)

the definition of "disruptive" is usually completely up to the school.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:12 (eighteen years ago)

Fredrick's lawyer admits to Justice Ginsburg that he was required to be in school that day but wasn't. So maybe that SCOTUSBlog comment isn't so interesting after all!

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:13 (eighteen years ago)

(xpost) Scott you're wrong about that.

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:14 (eighteen years ago)

Scott, I somehow doubt he attended any classes after that! The principal crumpled up the sign, and he was probably dragged into the principal's office by the ear and suspended on the spot.

― elmo argonaut, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:14 (eighteen years ago)

That's my own speculation, tho, I'd like to know if that was the case.

― elmo argonaut, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:14 (eighteen years ago)

the definition of "disruptive" is usually completely up to the school.

-- scott seward, Friday, April 13, 2007 4:12 PM (1 minute ago)

Actually, now that I think about it, that's probably the most succinct way of stating exactly what the school district and the U.S. are arguing for in this case. You should have argued this instead of Starr!

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:16 (eighteen years ago)

17 JUSTICE GINSBURG: Where did he go
18 immediately after? He went to the school building for
19 whatever it was, the third period of the day.
20 MR. MERTZ: Yes. The principal instructed
21 him to do so and he did.

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:16 (eighteen years ago)

dude should have gone home. i'm telling you...

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:19 (eighteen years ago)

yeah - why did he go back to school? what a dumbass.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:20 (eighteen years ago)

he was high

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:21 (eighteen years ago)

by going back to school, he's admitting that they have the right to punish him!

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:22 (eighteen years ago)

The more I think about it, all this stuff about whether he was in school that day or not really only relates to the second cert question (specifically, the part about whether the principal could reasonably believe that he was under school supervision), and has really very little to do with the underlying First Amendment claim.

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:23 (eighteen years ago)

We have two
25 independent bases for defending him here. One is the
57
1 pure free speech in a public place argument. That's the
2 one that hinges on the fact that he was not among the
3 released students. The other argument, which we believe
4 in equally, is that even if it were a on-campus or on an
5 extension of campus like a field trip, then under Tinker
6 because it was not disruptive they cannot punish it.
7 My time is up. I thank the Court.

Nice conclusion.

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:24 (eighteen years ago)

the first amendment thing is a red herring.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:25 (eighteen years ago)

or a macguffin. one of those.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:25 (eighteen years ago)

Starr's entire rebuttal is about the qualified immunity issue, and he doesn't get a single question.

(xpost)

What do you mean, Scott?

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:26 (eighteen years ago)

If they overrule or substantially cut back on Tinker, that's not a macguffin or a red herring!

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:27 (eighteen years ago)

Starr's entire rebuttal focuses on the drugs

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:27 (eighteen years ago)

I understand why he probably shouldn't have attended class after the incident, scott, but I'm still unclear on why it matters to the case. I really DON'T think he is implicit in his own suspension by following the principal's direction to attend class after the incident. I understand the general argument, but it just seems contrived.

― elmo argonaut, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:27 (eighteen years ago)

The facts state there WAS a disruption at the torch-running (students fighting & throwing Coke bottles at each other) but that it occurred before the banner was unfurled

― elmo argonaut, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:29 (eighteen years ago)

Starr's entire rebuttal focuses on the drugs

Yeah, that's probably more accurate.

― J, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:30 (eighteen years ago)

i think it matters. if he goes back to school with them then he is basically saying that he is under their supervision. and if he is under their supervision then whatever wack definition of "disruptive" they go by can be used against him. i don't think what was on the sign matters in the end. they could have decided that unfurling a banner and waving it in front of a t.v. camera was bad behaviour no matter what was on the sign. i'm sure what was written on the sign was what pissed them off, i'm just saying that school principals punish kids for all sorts of behavior. it's really more a case for the PTA Board. Not the Supreme Court. a six year old child was arrested recently in florida for bad behaviour!

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:35 (eighteen years ago)

er, elmo x-post.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:35 (eighteen years ago)

arrested in school i should have said. six years old!

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:36 (eighteen years ago)

i guess what i'm saying is that the SCHOOLS decide what is or is not disruptive to the school and other students. and this can be some pretty petty stuff. but people go along with it mostly.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:38 (eighteen years ago)

scott, that's the point I have trouble with -- if the kid had not attended first period, and had not been released from class, and was not on school property, his attendance that day BEGAN at third period, and until that time he was not under the supervision of the school.

― elmo argonaut, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:39 (eighteen years ago)

but it was a school sponsored event

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:40 (eighteen years ago)

also i should note, it seems like from the oral transcript that the justices had a lot of confusion on this, almost as much as we do.

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:41 (eighteen years ago)

Que, allowing the students to attend was a school decision, but the event itself was privately sponsored and open to the public, and there were many non-students in attendance

― elmo argonaut, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:43 (eighteen years ago)

I haven't yet read a pungent Scalia-ism, so he must be confused.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:43 (eighteen years ago)

yeah to be honest i think the case is pretty confusing and unusual.

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:45 (eighteen years ago)

the principal probably didn't know that the kid wasn't in school that day. he just saw the sign and said not on my watch buddy get over here mister you are going down! the olympics for christ's sake! like any principal worth their heartburn and probably thought that was the end of it. but the free speech thing? that's after the fact stuff. that's dude being all "i wuz robbed" and shit.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:46 (eighteen years ago)

ensnaring the principal in a protracted constitutional case is probably the best revenge, though.

― elmo argonaut, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:50 (eighteen years ago)

it will be if he wins. which isn't clear to me.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:51 (eighteen years ago)

dude is a culture jammer, maaaaan.

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:53 (eighteen years ago)

I, for one, fully support taking bong hits and reading the Bible.

― elmo argonaut, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:54 (eighteen years ago)

eucalyptus hits more historically apt

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:59 (eighteen years ago)

burning bush, dude.

― elmo argonaut, Friday, 13 April 2007 21:01 (eighteen years ago)

dude better watch out or he'll end up like my brother.

wait, he's in china now? hope he doesn't have too many first amendment battles while he's there...

― scott seward, Friday, 13 April 2007 21:02 (eighteen years ago)

BONG HITS 4 MAO

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 13 April 2007 21:06 (eighteen years ago)

Those wacky evangelicals will do anything to win converts.

― fife, Friday, 13 April 2007 21:37 (eighteen years ago)

two months pass...

BONG HITS FOR NO ONE

― Mr. Que, Monday, 25 June 2007 15:00 (seventeen years ago)

bong hits for no one,
a love that should have lasted years.

― Frogman Henry, Monday, 25 June 2007 15:10 (seventeen years ago)

wow this is some bullshit

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 25 June 2007 16:34 (seventeen years ago)

and they were just WARMIN' UP!

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 16:13 (seventeen years ago)

three months pass...

Paramount, MTV take 'Bong Hits'
True story inspires free-speech tale

By MICHAEL FLEMING

Paramount Pictures and MTV Films have made a deal for fact-based drama "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

Story concerns a high school student in Juneau, Alaska, whose suspension turned into a battle over free speech that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Double Feature Films partners Michael Shamberg and Stacey Sher will produce, with Mark Poirier penning the script.

The student, Joseph Frederick, his father, Frank, and Doug Mertz, the local attorney who took his case, all made life rights deals for the film.

Frederick already had a contentious relationship with the school principal when he got suspended for 10 days for displaying a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" message on a 14-foot sign outside the school. The principal felt the banner promoted drug use. The case made national headlines, and Frederick became a poster boy for the First Amendment, but in a split decision, the Supreme Court upheld the principal's right to suspend the student.

"The heart of this story is the relationship between a father and son," Shamberg said. "Frank Frederick was an insurance adjuster facing the loss of his job if his son didn't back down."

Frederick, who'd often discussed the importance of First Amendment rights with his son at the dinner table, would not force his son to drop the case, and he was fired from his job. Father and son now teach English in China.

"The tone is 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' about a young man standing up for his rights," said Shamberg, who with Sher has mined true stories for the films "Freedom Writers," "World Trade Center" and "Erin Brockovich."

Poirier wrote Dennis Quaid-Sarah Jessica Parker starrer "Smart People," which recently completed production.

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 20:21 (seventeen years ago)

"The heart of this story is the relationship between a father and son," Shamberg said.

FUCK YOU, SHAMBERG

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 20:24 (seventeen years ago)

yeah, I sense the Farrelly brothers might've had a different approach.

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 20:34 (seventeen years ago)

oh christ

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 27 October 2007 03:50 (seventeen years ago)

This movie better fucking be called BONG HITS 4 JESUS.

― Abbott, Saturday, 27 October 2007 05:10 (seventeen years ago)

otfm

― latebloomer, Saturday, 27 October 2007 05:29 (seventeen years ago)

for real though!

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 27 October 2007 05:34 (seventeen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.