The phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" doesn't have a hidden meaning. In fact, it doesn't mean anything at all. When high school senior Joe Frederick held up a banner with those now-famous words in 2002, though, he triggered a chain of events that led to the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling drawing new lines around student free-expression rights in public schools. Frederick unfurled his "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" message while students and faculty were gathered to watch the Olympic torch pass by his school in Juneau, Alaska. [continues 439 words]
Inside The First Amendment "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" doesn't have a hidden meaning. In fact, the phrase doesn't mean anything at all. But when high school senior Joe Frederick held up a banner with those now-famous words in 2002, he triggered a chain of events that led to the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling drawing new lines around student free-expression rights in public schools. Frederick unfurled his "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" message while students and faculty were gathered to watch the Olympic torch pass by his school in Juneau, Alaska. [continues 622 words]
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" doesn't have a hidden meaning. In fact, the phrase doesn't mean anything at all. But when high school senior Joe Frederick held up a banner with those now-famous words in 2002, he triggered a chain of events that led to the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling drawing new lines around student free-expression rights in public schools. Frederick unfurled his "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" message while students and faculty were gathered to watch the Olympic torch pass by his school in Juneau, Alaska. "The phrase was not important," he recently explained. "I wasn't trying to say anything about religion. I wasn't trying to say anything about drugs. I was just trying to say something. I wanted to use my right to free speech, and I did it." [continues 569 words]
Religious freedom won a round in the Supreme Court last week -- but only because the justices deigned to let Congress restore through legislation what the court took away under the First Amendment. The case, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, should have been decided under the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment -- but it wasn't. Instead, the court relied on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 federal law prohibiting the government from burdening a person's religious practice unless a compelling state interest justifies the restriction. [continues 628 words]
