Bong Hits for Jesus

Dear Hank,

March 21, 2007

It’s a strange world we live in eh?

The Supreme Court listened to arguments yesterday about a kid in Alaska who unfurled a 14 foot banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

I don’t even know where to start with this one; so how about the facts? Well, that’s a bit of a problem because even the Supreme Court isn’t clear on the facts. Here’s what I was able to glean from the article I read: (which was, btw, found at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=18309

- interestingly most of the facts were near the end of the article)

A kid going to a local high school got up one morning and didn’t go to school but instead went to a place opposite from his school and stood there. It was the morning when the Olympic torch was coming through town. When the torch came through town he unfurled a banner that said, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”.

Apparently (and I say apparently because some of these things were only mentioned tangentially in the article), the principal went over and tore down the sign and suspended the student.

Okay? Got it? Now the fun begins. (This is the who said what when phase and the what’s it mean phase?)

The student, named Frederick, sues the principal, named Morse, because his civil rights were violated (I think that’s what he sued over) and the case goes to the Supreme Court.

What’s at stake here? There’s a laundry list of stuff. I’ll discuss later.

What’s the question? Ah, there’s plenty to choose from. Later for that too.

Who are the notable players? This is where it gets really interesting.

Arguing for Principal Morse – Ken Starr. I wondered what happened to him after his, (Was it four year?) special prosecutorial investigation of President Clinton on a land deal that lost Clinton money and involved a guy that became a crook long after Clinton had moved on and then the investigation morphed into revealing that the Prez got a bad blow job from an intern (Did it even prove that?)?

Asking lots of questions that would support favoring the student – Sam Alito. This is the latest W nominee to the bench. Before coming to the bench he argued, as a lawyer for the White House, that the President could write comments on bills before he signed them saying how he was going to ignore what they said (This is called an Executive Signing I believe.) Bush has used this a great deal and is one of his cornerstones for ignoring the Constitution. (Makes me wonder about his apparent ‘history’ degree from Yale. Maybe, he showed up for class as much as he showed up for military service in Texas, which as far as anyone can tell was next to never [can’t be verified – records are lost, but no one stepped forward to claim the ten thousand dollars Doonesbury cartoonist Trudeau offered for anyone who could claim they saw him there.])

Asking questions that would have supported the principal’s position and even gone way beyond it? - Chief Justice Roberts. Many of these questions - according to the article - were asked with a sarcastic tone. So the “nice guy” who we were told not to worry about is a passive aggressive little weasel – hum, why am I not surprised?

Who supports the kid? Christian religious groups, now I am surprised.

I had hoped to make a fortune selling caps that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” but someone’s already got it out there. Maybe, I’ll do it anyway.

Oh, the question(s)? What’s at stake? Etc.? Well, the justices can’t decide on the question but there’s plenty of speculation as to the potential result depending on how they rule.

Here goes:

1. Does a school have the right to stop a student from making comments contrary to “their mission”? (and by school I guess that would mean the principal).)

If you say yes then a school could expand their mission to include anything they don’t like; hence, the reason the Christian groups support the kid.

If you say no then are you letting students set the agenda for the school?

Two minor problems: The kid was not in school that day, hence he was not acting as a student when he unfurled the banner. He wasn’t on school ground when he unfurled the banner.

2. What was the banner saying?

According to the student it was a test of free speech.

According to the principal’s attorney, Mr. Starr, it was advocating drug use. So what?

Ah, here’s an interesting little point; there was a case known as Tinker in which it was stated that a school district was not allowed to suppress the free speech of a student even if it undermines the school’s mission. However, there were two outs for the school district: if it was disruptive or invaded the rights of other students.

Was it advocating drug use? (If so there are arguments about the banner being against school policies.)

Was it disruptive? There’s an argument that it was. Picture if you will the whole school turns out to see the Olympic torch come down their street. The school band is out playing. The cheerleaders are there with their pom-poms and routines going rah-rah. Here comes the torch. The place goes crazy in waves of pride, patriotism and good feelings. And as the TV cameras roll, following the torch bearer on his or her journey, and radio announcers tell the epic story to their listeners our man Frederick unrolls his 14 foot banner. (Maybe, he’s got a wing span bigger than Shaq or that butterfly swimmer from Australia but I’d guess he had help, at least someone holding one end of the banner. Don’t know, didn’t come out in the article.)

Apparently, the principal was furious and went over and tore down the sign then suspended the student.

Did the student or the principal cause the disruption? And did the principal have the right to do what she did?

Here’s the problem. If the court says; no, the principal did not have the right; then she is open to liability and might be personally responsible for damages. Do we really want to make our school officials personally responsible for trying to carry out the mission of the school district?

There was one commentary following a follow-up article that I read. The article can be found at:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/03/high_court_takes_bong_hits_4_j_2.html

as well as the commentary.

The writer said that it was mainly the principal’s reaction that caused the disruption and that a better way to have reacted would have been to either do nothing or to ask a few teachers to walk across the street and stand in front of the banner. The writer also makes the point how zero-tolerance backfires and draws more attention to the other side.

Wow, that sounds like a reasonable statement, it will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with this. (I’m betting it will kick it back to a lower court to get more “facts” and Ken Starr can keep charging the principal more money.)

Where’s the student, Frederick? He’s working in China as an English teacher – better not try that kind of stunt there.

I gotta go.

Yer pal.