Bong Hits 4 Jesus; Supreme Court Case

[Hearsay]

The legal question presented is whether or not a school has the right, as part of its student policy, to punish a student for non-school conduct, particularly when that conduct involves quasi-free speech.

 

It is a rapidly evolving area of the law. Some other food for thought in relation to this question would be a school's punishment of students for items put on their MySpace accounts; whether a student's off-campus arrest for narcotics (or other offenses) poses a subsequent but imminent danger to students at the school; or punishment of a student on a school sports team for a non-school violation of team rules.

 

For example, lets say the school football team policy is "no tolerance" for a team member drinking in-season. A football team member is reported for drinking at a non-school function during the season. The coach kicks him off the team. What is the difference between that and the Bongs 4 Jesus dude? The fact that one is being suspended from school and the other just from a team?

 

Yes. Participation in sports or any other extracurricular activity, for that matter, is a privilege not a right, for lack of a better term. Attendance at school, however, is mandatory and enforced. Disciplining him from a sports team does not implicate any constitutional issue. Disciplining him from school does.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I've got a number of thoughts.

 

The banner was inappropriate in place and time. The kid should be punished for thumbing his nose at school administration.

 

Suspension from school is absolutely the most laughable punshiment that has ever been concieved by administrators. Letting a kid stay home from school IS NO PUNISHMENT, I was suspended once I speak out of experiance.

 

As far as free speech is concerned, baloney, this isn't about a view this is about attention. As a person who appreciates free speech, I'm bothered by the association of this cheap gag with what truly is one of our most important rights. By giving this clearly juvenile act credibilty we cheapen what our rights really stand for. Rights need responsibility, or we should become in danger of losing them.

It is up to the parents for suspension to have teeth. I dug a ditch on the day that I was suspended. 2 feet deep and 50 feet long around the house to lay drainage pipe. Better believe that was the ONLY day I got suspended.

[acemona]

The Tinker case talks about students not having their rights abridged when it came to expressing a particular message. This student even admits that he has no message - therefore no protected right to say whatever he wanted.

 

Schools have a responsibility to create environments that are safe and conducive to learning. I am now working in my third different school system and each one of them have had rules forbidding students from wearing shirts mentioning drinking, drugs, and even sexual innuendo (remember the Big Johnson shirts of the 90s).

 

This should not even be in the realm of protected speech, and if you have read my other posts you know that I am a big LIB.

 

 

Just for the record - I give up my first, second and fourth amendment rights a great deal 'out in the real world' - have you been on a plane lately? You can yell "fire" in a crowded theater . . . you just accept that in certain places there are certain rules that you follow - as much for decorum as anything else.

[cshs81]

 

Just for the record - I give up my first, second and fourth amendment rights a great deal 'out in the real world' - have you been on a plane lately? You can yell "fire" in a crowded theater . . . you just accept that in certain places there are certain rules that you follow - as much for decorum as anything else.

 

None of the above applies to this case.

[acemona]

Sure it all applies - given the function of a particular circumstances we agree to give up some of our freedom for the benefit of the function.

 

Schools, as places of education, have generally agreed that they would not allow the promotion of activities that they feel are detrimental to the health, education and welfare of students. "Society" has agreed that this is a good thing. Therefore the "right" of free speech to wear shirts or unfurl banners that promote these things are restricted so that a healthy learning environment can be maintained.

 

It is really pretty simple and straight forward.

[True blue (and gold)]

I don't believe that it is simple and straightforward. Otherwise, it would not have became a Supreme Court issue.

 

I think that the point of 81's argument is that this may not constitute being a school issue. This kid had not even attended school that day before they were dismissed to attend the activity. As such, the argument is that he was acting as a private person and would not be held to school rules and prohibitions.

 

I am a teacher and I would not allow a student to hold up such a sign at a school event. However, I don't think that this falls under the premise of being a school event.

 

Example: At a basketball game I would not allow a student to hold up such a sign. Nor would I allow any fan (from either team) to do so. This is definitely a school sponsored event. However, if I go to Wal-Mart and see a student of mine holding up a sign, I cannot discipline them for it. I can't take it away from them. As an individual (not as a teacher) I can give them my opinion on it, but they are acting as a private person.

[HHSDad]

I think the court is going to come down with a decision that is so focused that it only applies to this particular case.

[acemona]

I don't believe that it is simple and straightforward. Otherwise, it would not have became a Supreme Court issue.

 

I think that the point of 81's argument is that this may not constitute being a school issue. This kid had not even attended school that day before they were dismissed to attend the activity. As such, the argument is that he was acting as a private person and would not be held to school rules and prohibitions.

 

I am a teacher and I would not allow a student to hold up such a sign at a school event. However, I don't think that this falls under the premise of being a school event.

 

Example: At a basketball game I would not allow a student to hold up such a sign. Nor would I allow any fan (from either team) to do so. This is definitely a school sponsored event. However, if I go to Wal-Mart and see a student of mine holding up a sign, I cannot discipline them for it. I can't take it away from them. As an individual (not as a teacher) I can give them my opinion on it, but they are acting as a private person.

 

You are right, the issue of jurisdiction is not straightforward, however, the issue of the school having the authority, and I would argue the responsibility, to stop the behavior WHEN the school has jurisdiction is straightforward.

 

Think the court will rule only on the matter of jurisdiction. If the school had jurisdiction then they acted appropriately, if not they may have stepped outside of their bounds.

 

TB & G - would it make a difference to you if the student had not been at school and the event was a school softball game played on a field owned by the city or county and not the school district?

[Habib]

I read that the superintendent changed the reason for suspension to truancy. Under those circumstances it wouldn't be a federal case, but the Court has taken it anyway. I think they are going to give a rather broad ruling on school censorship and possibly jurisdiction.

[True blue (and gold)]

TB & G - would it make a difference to you if the student had not been at school and the event was a school softball game played on a field owned by the city or county and not the school district?

 

I might need a few more details to make my determination. If it was a school sponsored event, then I assume the student would not be allowed to participate if he had not been at school that day (that is our athletic policy - exceptions occur on a case by case basis). I assume that administrators/coaches/teachers would be in charge of the team/event. If that is the case, then yes, the school has jurisdiction.

 

Several years ago, President Clinton came to a nearby school. Our school was granted permission to take about 100 or so kids and teachers to hear him speak. Being a school of 500, we decided to limit this to juniors and seniors that signed up. They rode buses (with teacher chaperones) to the event. In this case, it was a school sponsored event and would have been well within our limits of jurisdiction. However, we had underclassmen whose parents signed them out of school (or they never came to school) and went anyway. We did not consider them a part of our group, so they would not have been under our jurisdiction.

[cshs81]

Sure it all applies - given the function of a particular circumstances we agree to give up some of our freedom for the benefit of the function.

 

Schools, as places of education, have generally agreed that they would not allow the promotion of activities that they feel are detrimental to the health, education and welfare of students. "Society" has agreed that this is a good thing. Therefore the "right" of free speech to wear shirts or unfurl banners that promote these things are restricted so that a healthy learning environment can be maintained.

 

It is really pretty simple and straight forward.

 

Yelling "fire" in a theater has already been declared as a no-no. Having a sign that says "Bongs 4 Jesus" across from a school by a student who was not in school that day is , at best, gray. Its not black and white like your example.