No Right To “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”
My teenage daughter would tell you that I’m a hard-ass when it comes to the whole concept of children enjoying a right to free speech. In short, my attitude is that she’s allowed to say what she wants at home if – and only if – she’s willing to suffer the possible consequences.
Take an afternoon from a couple of months ago when, after being told I would not spend $150 on a pair of jeans, she called me a rather nasty name. I told her that, in addition to not getting the jeans, she wasn’t getting an allowance and, by the way, was not going to be using the phone, the TV or the computer for the 24 hours.
“What about my right to Free Speech,” she balked.
My response: “You’re a kid. There’s only so much you have a right to say. Your right does not include anything that offends me within the house, or makes this family look offensive outside of the house. You do, however, have the right to shut up.”
It’s a pity the parents of the kid that hung up the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner at school didn’t take the same approach.
After a lengthy court battle following the boy’s suspension — which his parents protested because the kid claimed the saying was “nonsensical” — the Supreme Court has had to remind students and their parents that kids are not adults. As such, they do not enjoy the same protections.
The Court didn’t buy the kid’s claim, even if the parents did. Did you?
[tags]Bong Hits 4 Jesus, free speech, students[/tags]
VK,
Just found your blog today and already I can tell that I will be a big fan of yours… Great blog and, while I tend toward the left and am a Big-L Libertarian (contrasting your politics statement on the ‘About’ page), I enjoy intelligent political discussion. From my initial reading, your writing would qualify as such.
Now, to the real meat of the comment on this entry (played by me in my favorite role as Devil’s Advocate). I’m always surprised by the right’s view on free speech cases.
Per your Operation Bot Roast entry from June 15,
But, the restriction of speech of any kind would seem that the Nanny State is protecting the public from offensive or controversial speech. Thus, right-leaning people should be protesting this decision rather than heralding it.
I do understand that the technical question in the Bong Hits case wasn’t purely free speech, but rather more of a question of the student’s right to free expression during a school sanctioned event. But, that technicality only exists because of previous court rulings that created a special exception to the 1st Amendment for students.
But is there a difference between parents restricting their child’s speech, and an arm of the government (the school) doing so, especially when this was an off campus event?
I’m all for parents being able to censor their child. That’s the job of parents. I’m less confident in the ability of the government to do so.
I’m with Nick. This was an off campus event, the banner was gibberish, the teacher over reacted big time.
I happen to value free speech in this country. It’s not just for those of us legally old enough to vote, nowhere in the constitution do I see an age limit on freedom of speech.
If it’s there, I hope someone points it out to me.
This is school, this is where our students go to learn math, reading, science and history. Our history.
And in our history, our forefathers made sure we the people, not we the adults, will have freedom of speech.
I hate the idea that from this court ruling forward, any time a teacher feels a student has said something they don’t like, that the student shall face punishment.
Yes it’s a public school, yes our tax dollars pay for it, but those tax dollars come from hard working Americans of all ages, kids with summer jobs, and the students should have the right to free speech within certain boundaries, just like the rest of us.
Ya know, don’t threaten the president, don’t swear at school, stuff like that.
Bong hits for jesus? What the hell does it even mean?
Absolutely nothing.
Frankly, I think the parents should have taught their child better than to make drug-related jokes at school.
My point is that I believe schools should be given the authority to say they’re not going to tolerate drug-related activities, statements, symbols or paraphernalia. The fact that so many parents — including you folks above — want to protest when schools do just that is, frankly, mind-boggling to me.
How the hell do you expect schools to have the authority to cut down on violence, drug use, distractions and behavior problems if parents are continually trying to micromanage the schools from the outside?
Screw that. Give the schools the power and authority we expect of them and shut up about it already.
I have to say, I’m with Kate. Any protected right or freedom carries with it the implied responsibility of its use. The right to free speech includes the ability to make libelous accusations, too, for example…but they’re not protected against penalties for doing so. This is no different – the school has a clearly outlined policy on certain things, and nonsensical statement or no, the banner clearly violated the agreement that the student and/or his parents would have signed to allow his attendance. The policy was violated, there are penalties for doing so. QED.
I never said I disagreed with the ruling in the case. I actually support the ruling in principal and especially in light of the precedents restricting free speech in schools and granting the principal of the school wide latitude in determining what constitutes a disruption in school.
However, there is little doubt that this is an erosion of pure “free speech.” The same argument can be made about disruptive and/or offensive speech as can be made about public smoking. I find the smell of cigarette smoke disgusting and would not expect anyone to find it appetizing, so I am often surprised to see people lighting up in restaurants. The smell bothers me when they do and I will often choose to leave or not go in the first place.
The same can be said of offensive speech. Humans are unpredictable and often rebellious creatures. Offensive or disruptive speech can come from anyone at any time, even in places where one would not expect it. If you want to avoid all offensive speech, you should choose to not be anywhere any other human might be (obviously a ridiculous argument). Thus, if you argue against no-smoking laws, you have to argue against censorship/speech-restriction laws.
To be clear: I don’t consider it a matter of “offensive speech.” I consider it a matter of a minor advocating illegal behavior at a government-funded institution.
I just think it’s silly that things of this nature are even taken this far. It never should have gone beyond the school, the student, and the parents.
Kids in high school do stupid shit. The parents and the schools (but primarily the parents) have a shared responsibility to dissuade or prevent this type of shenanigans. The offender should get a stern slap on the wrist, and as long as they don’t do the same stupid shit or something worse, we should drop it, so they can graduate and go on to college to do even more ridiculously stupid shit.
Then, when they get caught, they are old enough suffer the consequences on their own.
I wonder what the left-leaning types would have said had the sign read: “Bong hits 4 Muhammad”? They would pitching hissy fits and flapping their wrists over how intolerant that is, I am sure.
Did your daughter really say “what about my right to free speech?”? That is just hilarious.
Yeah, she said it. Kids.
My response to that same statement was, “The right to free speech begins when you can vote.”
First, anyone putting up a banner that is not anti-drug at a school function should be suspended. Every school has anti-drug policies and simple enforcement is required to maintain public order.
Second, that the message was not easily understood by adults just makes it more important to follow the rules, because teenagers make up all sorts of new language incomprehensible to others. Who knows, perhaps it would have become the new pro-drug message if not suppressed.
Third, if “All men are created equal” includes women, then it surely includes children. I’ve heard more sense about public policy from a three year old than from my mother. Enfranchise the children and let them vote. Then the school board will have a check on egregious behavior.
Fourth, children should honor their parents and their parents should not anger their children.