seattledave

Was this guys constitutional rights violated?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...onghits19.html

teamben158

Looks like he got exactly what he wanted. He was looking for a fight and he got one. I hope he gets counter-sued by the district and loses a lot of money over this.

Jenna

Gosh, I don't know. I don't think it's okay to just hang any old banner at a school function, you know? I also think the kid's argument that he wasn't implying "Bong hits" in any other way than promoting marijuana. The bong is used for drugs, marijuana or tobacco (the tobacco one is a tad weak).

I'll have to wait to hear what other's say. I can't form an opinion on my own.

dugzilla

It wasn't on school grounds, and I don't believe the principal should have yanked it down. But WTF??? Bong hits for jesus?????

Jenna

Doug, it was at a school sponsored function or something, I believe. I'm too lazy to click the link and verify that though.

Jenna

Oh, and it'd be nice if Jesus wanted more bong hits. I would probably try to be more religious... even holding church within my house.

BigMURR

^^ it was, so that means no matter where it was they have to comply with the rules set by the school

Students have limited free speach simple as that, much like they have limited rights elsewhere. he crossed that line and the principal had every right to do what he did.

seattledave

legally:
water pipe = tobacco
bong = marijuana, specifically.

Whether the kid knew or not. But Marijuana is legal in Alaska for medical use, so he's not technically promoting illegal drug use in the state.

Personally I think if you can wear a shirt promoting the seatbeat law to school, you should be able to wear a pro-pot shirt to school. Do you have to say "pro-medical-marijuana" to be legal? No, that's like saying you have to specify "pro-medical-use-penicilin" instead of "pro-penicilin" because some people use recreationally.

but this kid really just wanted to just put up a stupid banner on t.v. and school function? i guess, barely. the kid's got out of school to see the torch go by.

The problem is, the kid put up "jesus" there, which make it a landmine legally.

If I'm against Jesus, am I then against bong hits? making that a poorly done anti-drug statement.

dugzilla

If you have ever been to Juneau, but it is a small town and I'm sure that everyone came out for the olympic torch going through town. So weather it was a school sponsored event or not that doesn't make it school property. IIRC it was school sponsored because the band was playing.

BigMURR

It doesnt have to be on school grounds
i.e. prom is rarely ever on school grounds but you still can't walk outside and light a cig. because it is a banned substance during school.

seattledave

right, but the only reason why at prom you can't smoke a cig is becuz you wont be handed your diploma, they use it as collateral for you acting like a good student at their offcampus activity. But technically, at 18, if you're at the prom, and you walked out of the dance (if off school property)to smoke you legally would be allowed to. You may not get your diploma, and you may not be allowed back into the dance, but legally you can do anything you want.

While arguing about that is not-relative, if you're "in school" standing on a public sidewalk off school property, at anytime, legally, you can choose to not be in school. Technically you don't have to tell someone, or walk away from people, you can just be skipping school, standing next to your teacher even. You just have to prove YOU THOUGHT you had just became truant.

matt_a

Rights come with responsibilities. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you should be allowed to say (or display signs) which are obviously inflammatory. Should he have been allowed to display a banner with graphic pornographic images or vulgar language? Why not? That's freedom of speech...right? See my point? Just because we are supposedly "allowed by law" to say something, doesn't mean we should.

teamben158

+1. The kid who did this was trying to see how far he could push the line, but he jumped over the line and got punished for it.

seattledave

But his banner was not legally vulgar or inflammatory (a judge has already ruled on this as well.) Had it been pornographic, abusive language, or condoning illegal activity it would have not been challenged.

Legally, his banner is to be viewed as is part political statement part religious one.
If his banner had said "Support the seatbeat law" or "Jesus loves you" the principal would be in such clear trouble, but because of the wording the principal thought otherwise. Again, remember bong hits are legal in alaska for medical patients. Saying "I support bong hits" means "I support the law" just as much as "I support seatbelts".

While society might view those other statements as less than "Bong hits 4 Jesus", technically it's not.

matt_a

My point is that schools (or school santioned events) are not run like our general society. School administrators need to be able to maintain order with hundreds of kids who constantly test the limits of what they can get away with. It's not always going to be a black & white, letter-of-the-law issue. Sometimes it's plain common sense. The principal was right and the suspension was justified.

BigMURR

^^exactly what I was trying to get at

seattledave

I'm just trying to debate the other side here. I do agree the suspension was justified if everything else schools can and do do is justified. I was paddled at schools, I received suspensions for less myself. I realise you have to impose hard rules on kids to make them do what you want.
But the question is: Was his constiutional right to free speech violated?
i think the short answer is yes.

and while legally public schools can have rules that violate your free speech, the rules were not breached.
The rules for suspension are that you can not display vulgar, sexual or otherwise offensive material. A judge already ruled what he did was none of that.

Just think, if a guy held the same sign in front of alaska's capital, and he was arrested
would that not be a violation of free speech? Obviously yes, right?

Legally, for the school even, the kids message wasn't against their rules, and other kids were holding signs that were not suspended.

matt_a

OK...for the sake of debate, what if his banner simply said, "Jesus Loves You"? That's not "vulgar, sexual or otherwise offensive" either.

seattledave

again the principal would be sued for violation of free speech.

While myself am an atheist, I know legally I can not be offended by "Jesus loves you" t-shirts worn by kids at school or politicians, even though I do find it very offensive. If there was a religion that having the mere existence of jesus causes their religion to be found untrue, that could be legally found offensive, i think.

But if a teacher, or my employeer wore that "jesus love you" shirt I can sue because their views were being endorsed and me, whose under them, felt I couldn't disagree for sake of retribution.

But make that shirt say "Jesus hates muslim" or "Thou shalt have no other gods before me(with a picture of jesus standing there)"and that would be offensive.

Tomas

Off school property, on public property, NOT at an official school function (the kids had all be dismissed from school to watch the Olympic Flame go through town (they could have gone to the mall instead - attendance watching the Olympic flame was not mandatory).

The principal had zero right to rip the banner down, and in fact damaged private property in so doing.

Had this been an official school function on school property, AND had the banner been specifically against school rules (instead of nonsense just to get a rise out of folks), she MIGHT have been right to remove the banner, but as each of those items is removed from the scene, so are her rights to act removed.

(Shouldn't even comment, then.)

Bottom line, though, is school students do NOT lose their Constitutional Rights simply by attending school, and a school principal can not legitimately abrogate the rights of their students just because they are peeved.

Student 1, Principal 0

Tom

P.S. I may disagree with the kid's actions, but his right to act like an idiot is one of the things I was defending when I was in the military.

T