Comments on: No Right To “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”

By: RAMMER

RAMMER — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:31:47 +0000

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.

By: wg

wg — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:50:21 +0000

My response to that same statement was, “The right to free speech begins when you can vote.”

By: Venomous Kate

Venomous Kate — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:06:59 +0000

Yeah, she said it. Kids.

By: terry

terry — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:45:14 +0000

Did your daughter really say “what about my right to free speech?”? That is just hilarious.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:19:49 +0000

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.

By: Jeff St Real

Jeff St Real — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:56:42 +0000

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.

By: Venomous Kate

Venomous Kate — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:47:49 +0000

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.

By: SlithyToves

SlithyToves — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:40:21 +0000

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.

By: wg

wg — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:47:28 +0000

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.

By: Venomous Kate

Venomous Kate — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:42:18 +0000

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.