Bangs For Bongs
The Volokh Conspiracy looks at the "Bongs 4 Jesus" decision holding "that schools can punish student speech reasonably believed to promote illegal drug use". The majority opinion ruled that:
The common-sense understanding of the phrase 'bong hits' is that it is a reference to a means of smoking marijuana. Given [Frederick's] inability or unwillingness to express any other credible meaning for the phrase, I can only agree with the principal and countless others who saw the banner as advocating the use of illegal drugs.
However, Chris Weigant thinks the Supremes got it wrong, because in ruling that the banner contained a pro-drug message without being political speech, which would then be protected, they were only kidding themselves.
So there you have it, kids. If you want to (a) get on national television with a stunt, (b) have a message guaranteed to annoy people, and most importantly, (c) really enrage your school's principal -- then you've got to word the message carefully. So remember, don't say "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS," say instead: LEGALIZE BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.
I'm so glad that the legal system does a good job protecting free speech and allowing debates which allow even the criticism of religion. I wonder what would have happened if the student banner had read "Bong hits for 4 Mohammed"? Then the two finger rule might have applied. Michael Yon reported on the fate of cigarette smokers in Baqubah. "On the evening of the 24th I spoke with a local Iraqi official, Colonel Faik, who said the Muftis would order the severance of the two fingers used to hold a cigarette for any Iraqis caught smoking." Now this has nothing to do with the "Bongs 4 Jesus" decision, but it does illustrate how concerned Western society is with preserving the refinements of its freedom on the one hand, while giving away its substance with both hands on the other.
posted by wretchardthecat at 6/25/2007 06:17:00 PM
4 Comments:
You can't do something with both hands and on the other hand.
It is hard to believe how the elites (or perhaps it makes perfect sense) have come to read the first amendment when it comes to speech.
The Supreme Court and law deigns to protect virtual child pornography as a first amendment right, but you dare not mention the name of a politician near an election, unless you have jumped so many hoops and bars.
Funny how we have to choose and most seem to choose to restrict political speech.
This is nothing new. Kids at school don't enjoy the same scope of freedoms as we do.
In other words, it's a specifically parameterized holding. The fact is, over the past 40 or so years, the Supreme Court has been friendlier to free speech than at any other time in our history.
Congress, on the other hand...
If it were a voting adult, off of school property, standing out on the street -- then I think it should be permitted.
Children are not majors but minors. They don't have full rights but they can gain them if they only survive until the right age -- that's why we don't see it as a threat to liberty that we restrict what kids do.
For public order, even an 18 or 19 year old kid who is disrupting the school flow by flying such a banner, should be sanctioned, maybe even expelled. It is only fair.
Post a Comment
<< Home