Pubdate: Tue, 26 Jun 2007
Source: Daily Reveille (LA Edu)
Copyright: 2007, Daily Reveille
Contact:  http://www.lsureveille.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2879
Bookmark: 
http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Bong+Hits+4+Jesus 
(Bong Hits 4 Jesus)

COURT INFRINGES ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The U.S. Supreme Court made an important decision Monday that placed 
tighter control on students' freedom of speech.

The Court ruled, 5-4, that schools can restrict student expression 
when their messages seem to support illegal drug use. This decision 
directly stemmed from an incident where a high school student 
displayed a 14-foot long sign reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" near his 
high school in 2002.

The student, Joseph Frederick, who was later suspended from the 
school, displayed his banner outside the high school grounds while 
the Olympic torch relay passed through Juneau, Alaska, for the 2002 
Winter Olympics.

However, this ruling appears unconstitutional.

The U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 
or abridging the freedom of speech."

According to the Associated Press, Frederick said the banner was 
meant to exercise "his right to say anything at all."

The school's principal, Deborah Morse, said the sign did not belong 
at a "school-sanctioned event."

While children should receive more consideration for legal protection 
from potentially obscene or offensive material, how can we teach 
these same children the value of the most fundamental right on which 
this country was founded if the highest court in the land is 
restricting that right?

We believe this ruling was handed down mainly because of the 
potentially-offensive nature of the message. Free speech is built on 
a strong foundation that supports citizens' rights to say anything 
they want, regardless of how offensive someone may interpret a message.

How far can the Supreme Court go with interpreting obscenity?

Using the Miller test as the constitutional standard for obscenity, 
would the Supreme Court object to an atheist or agnostic being 
offended by a "What Would Jesus Do" bracelet?

Notice the Constitution has no asterisks that limit the bounds of the 
First Amendment.

Perhaps the most upsetting part of this ruling is the implications it 
may have on future cases. With this ruling, how is someone to know 
where to draw the line when saying something that may offend a 
certain group of people?

We can only hope Monday's ruling is not a sign of what is to come for 
our rights in the future. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman