Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Prosecutor Now Targeting Free Speech
Virchull tells us about a case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, in which former special prosecutor Kenneth Starr will take the side of an Alaska school board against a student who displayed a rude banner off school property. The banner read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and it got the student suspended. He and his parents sued the school board for violating his First Amendment rights. The case is nuanced: while the student did not display the banner on school property, he did do so during a school function. Starr is said to be arguing the case for free.
Maybe he is joining Newt Gingrich on his assault on free speech in a effort at being Newt's running mate.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
nt.
Kenneth Starr will take the side of an Alaska school board against a student who displayed a rude banner off school property.
What's up this guy's ass about personal liberties? anti-free speech, anti-free love; the only thing he seems to like is all the free attention he gets.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
I first read about this over here, and I really find the entire thing sickening. According to the linked article from The Mercury News, this was most certainly not during a school function. Just because the school let's out for something like the torch event, doesn't mean the students are still under the school's "juristiction."
American public education must be stopped. The high school I graduated from recently enforced school uniforms, suspending students who refuse to conform.[1]
For a country full of people shouting "freedom, democracy!" we sure let the next generations get systematically fucked out of their own freedoms.
[1] This same high school suspended me (one day, three days in-school suspension, after which I was banned from using school computers for the rest of the school year) for doing as a teacher had asked me, hooking up computers to the network to use a deparment purchased laser printer, after said printers were used to look at pr0n during school hours.
Error 407 - No creative sig found
There was a time when Republicans worked to lower taxes and respect individual right.
Now, it seems like Republicans are for spying, big-government & 7 trillion dollar debts (which can only be paid for by cutting services WHILE raising taxes). Honestly, what does the party even stand for anymore? "Sacrifice the future for the next election".
Maybe I was just stupid and Naive to know any better, and Republicans were always fascists in disguise.
Mark this post as a troll if you wish, but we all know the real trolls here are the ones who are giving this issue so much attention. By discussing this article, we aren't really accomplishing anything positive..other than giving some clown free publicity and possibly some rabble-rousing. Bong hits 4 Jesus? Please forgive my lack of interest.
-
Wi-Fizzle Research
Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
These Nazis cost themselves Congress; now they're going to cost themselves the rest of the country! LOL!
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
First, this was not a school function. Second, I have no idea why this submission makes a deal out of who is representing the school. Oh, and on the subject of the stupid slogan, being in Alaska, we had heard of this already. My mother read the line and didn't understand it. She asked me, I explained it, and she still didn't understand it. It took a few more readings, and even then she wasn't sure if the guy was advocating people take hits in Jesus' name, or that Jesus needed a hit, or if there was some other meaning that was intended. Those comments are right in line with what the appeals court ruled, that the banner was nonsensical.
What I never understand is why people get demoted over things like this. The principal was the one that went over to him and destroyed the banner. She still works for the school district in some capacity, but not as principal. She stated that she knew it was probably a violation of his rights when she did it, so she was found by the appeals court to be personally responsible, should a suit wish to be filed later naming her individually (usually individuals acting on behalf of an organization can't be named separately when acting in accordance to that organization's rules). If the district agrees she was so wrong, why not just fire her? They are knowingly keeping a civil rights violator on staff. Even if she is not the one that does it next time, if anyone else does it the district will be open to much more liability for "supporting" people that violate civil rights.
Learn to love Alaska
One step closer to a fascist United States. - HEIN BUSH! (sarcasm)
It's interesting how one really stupid person's actions can wind up being the basis for rules governing other's actions. I used to go to JDHS, and was there when this whole thing happened. Quite funny at the time, and now it's turned into this huge headache.
It's poetry with a beat behind it! And guns! They're like beatniks with automatic weapons.
Can anyone explain what's rude with "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"?
I mean, I'm slightly offended by the misspelling of "for", but that can't be it, can it?
"'" does NOT mean "Look out! An "s" is approaching!". Hone'st. -- phunctor
Bong hits Four Jesus. Four of 'em.
You know, I have no problem with this case going to the supreme court. As the summary states, this case does seem rather "nuanced." I don't think that many people would argue that a sign that says "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" should be allowed at school, or at a school function. So, as I see it, the court is to decide whether or not the situation constitued a school function.
Personally, I would agree that that seems to be a bit fuzzy in this case. On the one hand, the kid was "on a public sidewalk" and away from the school. On the other hand, the students were released from class (presumably for the specific purpose of attending the torch relay, as the article says), and were accompanied by a teacher. IANAL, and this just doesn't seem particularly clear cut to me.
This seems to be exactly what the supreme court is supposed to do. If they rule in favour of the school, and people don't like that, then they can talk to their representative and have legislation created to clarify the situation in the future. The same goes for the reverse. But when a case like this comes up, it is useful to have it go to the courts, and perhaps later brought to the attention of the legislature, so that we can have some clearly defined boundaries for the future.
not what the student did or what the school officials did. The student is a dumb fuckup, and the underpaid staffers are just floundering around daily in their inadequacy and incompetence. Everything's perfectly normal up to this point.
What deeply incenses me is this asshole Starr, who has nothing better to do than poke his wiener into other peoples' dirty laundry and who clamors to stand first in line when it comes to demolishing freedom. Starr is a traitor to the American nation and should be hung - by the testicles.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
I think schools can only restrict free speech if it disrupts the learning process. It would be like a restaurant kicking someone out for not wearing the proper attire because it can disrupt the others who are being paid to be served.
However, all this has to do with is the actual property itself. If the student wasn't actually on the school's property, I don't believe the school has one bit of authority to suspend him.
A restaurant can deny you service if you are a famous person they don't like because of your actions, correct? If so, consider this. The famous person, as in this example, hasn't paid for the service, nor is guaranteed a right to the service in the first place. (Supermarkets are a different matter entirely, but please don't get me started on this.) Education is a different matter, which is more guaranteed for someone to have, let alone the fact the payment of the service has been completed. We taxpayers are simply paying it for the student so the student doesn't have to pay for it himself.
No. 86-1278
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
485 U.S. 46
Argued December 2, 1987, decided February 24, 1988 It was an 8:0 decision written by Rehnquist, and agreed to by Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor. "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is hardly "fighting words" which could lead to an incitement to public disorder so how the hell does Starr think he can attack this?
the squalor that the lockwood family lives in is unbelievable, for example, their thanksgiving dinner was a shot glass full of vlad's diarrhea. there ought to be laws against families like this, especially ones that collectively weigh 2300 pounds
thank you
whether the sign belongs in a public school isn't really the problem.. the problem here is involving the legal system because some teen punk wrote something stupid.. I mean come one we all did stupid signs back in school.. Why couldn't it just be removed and the student asked not to do that again?. I think someone needs to chill.
I'd point you to the wikipedia article with the same name, but it just tells you about the case.
Possibly the school is embarrassed that one of their pupils could come up with something so stupid? I know I would be if it was one of my kids. I wonder if 'public display of stupidity' is against the school rules... whether it was on school property or not, someone should punish this person for such stupidity. If the parents won't, then it's up to the school.
As for free speech... I'm not a US citizen, but surely there are restrictions to what counts as 'free', anything that would incite hate or violence seems like it would be exempt from this freedom. The banner was stupid enough to leave a lot of doubt (perhaps the teacher was remembering "the shocker" incident), and if the case has been through 2 or 3 courts and _they_ still can't make up there minds, what hope did the teacher have?
is that Ken Starr needs a blowjob.
Slashdot: news from nerds.
What does his statement mean?
Bert
"They had been let out of classes and were accompanied by their teachers"
Was he released from school free to leave to do whatever he wanted or was school still in session and students supervised by teachers while watching the event.
Was he accompanied by his teacher or supervised by his teacher.
In a nutshell was he on school time or his own time.
Dear Supreme Court,
I'd like to offer Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion" as evidence that religions do not deserve a special treatment when it comes to free speech. Even if you only read up to (and including) Chapter 1, that should be enough to quickly get mr Star back to more deserving causes, such as the trial against monopoly abuse.
Bert
Comment removed based on user account deletion
the problem with public schools today, is they are so tied up in trying to run their students fucking lives, they aren't teaching them you know, to read and write, which is what they are there for. the attitude that schools are jails for children is wrong, and anyone perpetuating that nonsense needs to be sacked.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Is an idiot...plain and simple. Hope he DIAF!
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
Someone needs to check with all the schools and Boy Scout organisations around Washington to find the underage boy Starr has been having sex with. There's no way one man can be such a complete arse unless he's got something to hide. And hey, he's a Republican, so you know he's not into vanilla sex; the GOP makes Britain's Tory party look like Tellytubbies.
I have discovered a truly remarkable
Free speech so long as your speech upholds MY values. It's time for these Reagan (Stalin) administrators to be put out to pasture.
Your use of single quote marks around the word "free" incites me to hatred and, should I ever get my hands on you, violence. Therefore your message is exempt from the protections granted by freedom of speech. You're under arrest, apostrophe boy.
Or to spell it out: there's absolutely nothing that won't incite hate and violence in someone. This is especially true of anything significant (such as political messages).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
That sign ruined the school's ranking under the Leave No Child Behind regime. If that student was properly educated, the "4" would've been "For" and no one would care about the actual content.
If republicans (and right wing ideologies in general) have a knack for facism then democrats (and left wing ideologies) have a knack for totalitarianism. Either side when pushed to its ideological limits have exhibited fascist or totalitarian tendencies in history. The current administration is filled with extremists who need to be outed for sure, but to ignore the democrats weaknesses would leave an opening for a left-leaning populist leader who might take advantage of an American population already rife with fear created by the current administration. Government and ideologies need to be treated with caution.
Apparently, Mr. Starr had some sort of traumatic experience during his Oral stage that he fears anything that goes in or comes out of a mouth.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
There is absolutely no question his speech is protected on a public sidewalk, but the question turns on the student's status as under the care and duty of the school or not. Either way, the school will have a tough time justifying the censorship of non-disruptive yet potentially offensive speech
If the court finds that the student was not in the care of the school, well, I think it pretty much ends there as there is absolutely no way the court will allow the school to censor otherwise protected speech, nonsensical or not, made on a student's own time.
I hope the SCOTUS finds that the student was under the care of the school, because then the court will have to examine the issue of student speech, the often critcized Hazelwood decision. Perhaps with a better microscope this time.
He can blow my dick till Thursday.
Jesus HATES it when you bogart all his shit.
Monstar L
He is a politician. Most dont believe that the constitution extends rights to the common man, so why is this surprising?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Dude, it's HEIL, not HEIN.
You're such a tool.
If the government sends someone to jail for saying something against the government, that's one thing. But if a private citizen or institution decides to punish someone for saying something against its principles, it is entirely different. For example, if you work at an animal rights NGO and you publicly say that animals should be tortured, the NGO should have the right to fire you. If you are a Ford executive and publicly say that Ford sucks and GM rules, Ford should have the right to fire you. The right to free speech does not (or at least should not) mean that people are not allowed to treat you accordingly to what you said. People sould have this right.
I have not yet RTFA, and these are just my 2 cents.
How many times were you molested as a child?
You can't take the sky from me.
I hope the student wins, and the school board has to pay for the student to attend weekend or summer classes to make up for the missed school.
That's what he's suing for, the missed school, right? What else could he want, since he's not paying for the legal representation? It's not like he's losing wages...
Schools had some problems prior to 1980, but given their absolute freefall in the last 25 years, it might be worthwhile to reevaluate the idea of the Department of Education.
The simple fact is that authority and responsibility should be pushed down as far as possible within an organization if you want it to be efficient and effective. States and counties would do a far better job if the counterproductive paper-pushing Washington leeches would just go away. Abolish the Department of Education. The schools did far better before it existed (pre-1980).
Save the taxpayer money, improve schools, and reduce federal government influence. WIN, WIN, WIN!
There are three levels of funding for PUBLIC schools, more or less. This concerns PUBLIC schools only.
Local property taxes, which incidently can be controlled by the local voters. They can also change who is on the school board as some people have mentioned.
State funding, allow it to be in a voucher format. This way the state is giving each school a direct amount of money based on the number of students with no other factors being considered. The less students a school has obviously means less state funding they receive.
Federal funding, see the state funding idea. Replace the word state with federal.
In my idea, each student in a district would have a fundamental right to go to a school within that district, but may choose a school of their choice.
Students wishing to go to a school in another district would have low prioritization compared to in-district residents, and would have to wait their turn to be accepted, and overcrowding would not be permitted.
Additionally, going to a school out-of-district means vouchers alone may not cover "tuition" as when compared to the per capita in-district students are putting forth. That is, if local taxes are giving the district $2/student/year, then the student coming from out-of-district will have to pay that amount, or an adjusted fair amount, to attend.
You mean besides it being against what Jesus would have wanted? Just bad spelling then.
And the Alaskan School Board would want a prosecuter arguing the case with a history of wasting money and failure because?
Thats kind of like hiring Geraldo to help you find a pharaoh's tomb.
Always warms my heart to see tax money used to punish creativity and intelligence, especially in an eviorment where children are sent to learn :)
FRA: STFU GTFO
This is a *public* school, which is an extension of the government. Therefore, they (ideally) cannot infringe on your rights (except that they do anyways).
I'm guessing this wouldn't even be an issue if it didn't say "Jesus". "Bong hits 4 Oprah". I don't see that going to the Supreme Court, do you?
So much for separation of Church and State. It's nailing free speech and everything else in life...
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
They declare that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby :P
FRA: STFU GTFO
I can understand any school position on restricting speech in the classroom. I think we can all figure out why.
Conversely, I don't believe the school has any business what we do in our personal lives outside of school.
The grey area appears to be the school functions outside of the school. When I first read the comment on slashdot, I actually agreed with the school's POV. If a school holds an assembly offsite for students, school rules should apply IMHO. Then I RTFA. He was standing on a sidewalk. Public sidewalks are kind of hard to sell as anything other than "public". To me it seems like it should break down as:
1. He was a student who was part of a school event and subject to school rules.
2. He was a student NOT part of a school event and NOT subject to school rules.
If 1, then 10 days suspension.
If 2, then free speech.
Of course the school could say: If 2, then free speech but also skipping class and appropriately punished for that.
Well, there's my free speech on the subject. I'm sure there are more facts in this than we have seen so far.
"the problem here is involving the legal system because some teen punk wrote something stupid.."
You misspelt "pricipal" as "teen punk" and "suspended someone" as "wrote something stupid"
"I mean come one we all did stupid signs back in school.."
Most of us where not the principal when we did it!!
FRA: STFU GTFO
..those quotes weren't in the title...
"High court takes Bong Hits for Jesus case"
At least I don't think so.
The constitution may protect the speech, but that doesn't mean the student can say or do whatever he pleases. The school has every right to impose additional rules. And if the student doesn't follow those rules, the school does not have to accept that student.
The school is saying: "you can say whatever you want, but not if you want to be a student here."
Similarly, your job can impose such restrictions. Sure, you have the right to say what you want, but you can also be fired for whatever reason. You and your employer have a deal, part of the deal is that you conduct yourself in appropriate manner.
This student put up a device (banner) that emitted electromagnetic radiation (reflected sunlight) onto school property. The School Board stole the electromagnetic radiation (read the banner). Arrest them and charge them for a federal crime.
The only way this analogy fails is that the student isn't "renting" someone else's bandwidth, and reading the banner doesn't deprive the student of any bandwidth.
Hey, gotta find geeky relevance somehow.
Laws against "uttering threats" and such are also very stupid and should be struck down.
If I, in a mad fit, say I'm going to kill you, does that mean I am going to follow through with it? Likely not.
Such things should b valid grounds to get a warrant to pursue and investigation to see *IF* I plan to go through with it, in which case, a charge of conspiracy to commit murder is higher anyway.
The whole reason charges like "uttering threats" exist is because law enforcement is under-staffed, lazy, or both. It's just shortcuts they should not be allowed to take. The same is true of "hate speech" laws in some countries.
Libel is a different matter because it causes direct harm - but you have to remember, libel is a civil offense - you can easily argue against damage claims if they're baseless. It's a big difference from stupid laws like "uttering threats".
is whether or not there exists a bong so large that Jesus himself could not clear? Hrm....
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Give me a hit off that. Oh yes - Duuuuur.
A restaurant is a private business, largely unemcumbered by the first ammendment. A public school is a function of the government (at its most coercive level, since students are required to attend by law), enjoined from supressing free speech.
What would Jesus smoke?
Trick question. He doesn't smoke, he uses a vaporizor.
Its a public school.
Private individual, of age, displaying a "slogan", on non-school property.
The only issue here is whether or not he was under the jusrisdiction of the school at the time. By the reading, the event was "school sponsored" - i.e., students were under the supervision of school officials, and were the resposibility of said school officials at the time. Now, the student was apparently not present at school that day (for whatever reason), so was he under their supervision?
Everything else is clear cut - if it had been a non-student, there would have been no recourse for the school. The only question I see is whether a student absent from school who is proximate to a school group function is automatically under the jurisdiction and responsibility of the school. Personally, if I were a school official, I would sure as hell not want this district to win, as it might create some real liability headaches.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The Independent Counsel was a position created in the wake of Watergate when the public did not believe the normal investigation and prosecution tools of the Executive branch were effective when high-level Executive branch officers were involved in (or suspected of) crime. The Independent Counsel, once appointed, and unlike a normal prosecutor, had only one target to investigate, an unlimited budget, and could not be fired by normal means.
When Ted Olson, a high-level Republican staffer, was accused of lying to Congress, an Independent Counsel was appointed to investigate. He challenged the Independent Counsel law as being an unconstitutional fragmentation of Executive power. He lost the case, but Justice Scalia, the boogeyman of liberals, dissented. His opinion contained an uncanny prediction of the Starr investigation of Clinton. He saw the dangers of the office of the Independent Counsel.
What if [the appointing judges] are politically partisan, as judges have been known to be, and select a prosecutor antagonistic to the administration, or even to the particular individual who has been selected for this special treatment? There is no remedy for that, not even a political one. Judges, after all, have life tenure, and appointing a surefire enthusiastic prosecutor could hardly be considered an impeachable offense. So if there is anything wrong with the selection, there is effectively no one to blame. The independent counsel thus selected proceeds to assemble a staff. As I observed earlier, in the nature of things this has to be done by finding lawyers who are willing to lay aside their current careers for an indeterminate amount of time, to take on a job that has no prospect of permanence and little prospect for promotion. One thing is certain, however: it involves investigating and perhaps prosecuting a particular individual. Can one imagine a less equitable manner of fulfilling the executive responsibility to investigate and prosecute? What would be the reaction if, in an area not covered by this statute, the Justice Department posted a public notice inviting applicants to assist in an investigation and possible prosecution of a certain prominent person? Does this not invite what Justice Jackson described as "picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him"? To be sure, the investigation must relate to the area of criminal offense specified by the life-tenured judges. But that has often been (and nothing prevents it from being) very broad - and should the independent counsel or his or her staff come up with something beyond that scope, nothing prevents him or her from asking the judges to expand his or her authority or, if that does not work, referring it to the Attorney General, whereupon the whole process would recommence and, if there was "reasonable basis to believe" that further investigation was warranted, that new offense would be referred to the Special Division, which would in all likelihood assign it to the same [487 U.S. 654, 731] independent counsel. It seems to me not conducive to fairness. But even if it were entirely evident that unfairness was in fact the result - the judges hostile to the administration, the independent counsel an old foe of the President, the staff refugees from the recently defeated administration - there would be no one accountable to the public to whom the blame could be assigned.
. . . .
The above described possibilities of irresponsible conduct must, as I say, be considered in judging the constitutional acceptability of this process. But they will rarely occur, and in the average case the threat to fairness is quite different. As described in the brief filed on behalf of three ex-Attorneys General from each of the last three administrations:
"The problem is less spectacul
legally its ok for school admin to limit student speech. (e.g. t-shirts slogans, gang symbols etc). the question is whether the school admin has the authority off campus at a school function. People see 'free speech is being challenged' and get nutty. its a legal clarification not a major challenge to free speech. sorry high school kids, you don't have unfettered free speech.
You give up some of your constitutional rights "voluntarily" when you set foot on your employer's property and if you put up a banner at your home or write an editorial to the local paper the employer disagrees with, he can "expel" you at will.
Starr is just making sure kids understand the score early so they'll suffer less pain in their inevitable bovine acquiescence later. Tough cookies to chew, but if you look at it this way am I wrong?
Clinton got investigated for that because he was the president, and lied to a grand jury about it. That was the real crime, the lie to the grand jury. People actually go to jail about that all the time, and it doesn't matter what the lie was. Why it was a big deal-the BJ- is that such and similar things can open up a person to blackmail or extortion, and being the president, it was rather important. The potential is rather severe. In the intelligence games, such a gambit is common, the IT world has even borowed the original term in fact, it is called a honeypot trap. Not saying it happened in that case (it might have, we still don't know), but the potential is there. Impeachment is the only crime you can really use against a standing president, it's a weird exception to normal jurisprudence.
As to shrub and company lying, heck ya they should be investigated about it and possibly be impeached. It is still the lying part that is important. If they took intel analysis and re-arranged it to sell an agenda, or just cooked it up wholesale (which I think they did) yep, that's most likely a crime, even if they have given themselves some sort of get out of jail free card with the recent military commissions act.
If Star wants to attack simple free speech, then that perverted little hypocritical shitbag should go to jail for publishing that maggot-gagging porn called the Star Report.
The decision to suspend the student was made by a public school. As in, by people representing the government and providing a government-sponsored service. If a school can punish you for expressing an opinion outside of class and off campus, then you're effectively saying that the government is allowed to punish people with opinions it doesn't like.
Public schools have an obligation to educate every child. While they have control over what a student does while under their care, they cross a huge line (one supported by numerous judicial decisions).
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Kenny Starr. Oh yeah...he's the guy who cost the US Government several million dollars prosecuting the Bill Clinton Presidency to no ultimate effect. I sure hope that school district has a HUGE capital reserve fund for when they have to eat a lawsuit over this!
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
This story is about your rights, and the article is on the Internet, so cearly it falls under your rights online.
But seriously, Slashdot has been getting MUCH more political in recent years. I personally don't care for it and either block or ignore anything filed under "Politics". However, this shit invariably seeps into other sections; most notably Your Rights Online. Ok, this particular story definately deals with 1st amendment rights, but I fail to see the "online" connection.
Even ignoring the whole political shit, Slashdot has been on the decline for quite some time. Look, if you're going to call yourself an "editor" then you have to do some actual "editing", fuckface. Picking between "Accept" and "Decline" does not make one an editor. Maybe you should just call yourselves "deciders". Then you have all the duplicate articles (sometimes even ON THE FRONT PAGE), articles that have no business being on Slashdot in the first place, and the two minute hate for anything related to Microsoft. The only thing worse than the ingrained groupthink is the moderation system that reinforces it.
The only saving grace is that, by some miracle, Slashdot still manages to get a few decent stories on the front page. Also, it is fun to troll people.
I actually used this case in my advocacy class this semester. I had to argue for the school in a faux case that had some similarities to Morse. I also had to sift through the Supreme Court and 9th Circuit cases relating to school activities and free speech. The 9th Circuit (the West Coast) tends to take a liberal view of free speech, especially when compared to the 4th Circuit (Southeast), for example. The Supreme Court clearly articulated the notion in Tinker that students do not leave their 1st Amendment rights at the door when they enter school grounds. However, subsequent cases have been ruled such that vulgar, lewd speech may be limited, and controversial speech that might appear to be under the impimatur of the school may be limited as well. If the speech is disruptive of the educational mission, it may be curtailed by the school. However, clearly political speech, so long as it is not an attack on a specific group or class of individuals ("Latinos should burn in hell") is solidly protected.
The interesting thing about Morse as the article points out, is that this is really about speech related to illegal drugs. Should the school be allowed to curtail student speech any time it has to do with drugs? How attenuated can the connection between the student and the school be? Should students who are doing homework together in a public library have their speech restricted because onlookers might somethow think that the school is tacitly approving that speech? The Supreme Court will not be able to re-examine the facts in the case, only the holding of the case as it relates to the Constitution. So the arguments will be about how close the connection was between the school and the student during that activity, what the nature of the speech was, what the speech's effect on onlookers was, and whether the speech was inherently political. I wouldn't be surprised if the school's student behavior policies and the notice students receive about these policies comes under scrutiny as well.
Before you jump to the conclusion that the "conservative" Court is going to side with the school, remember that Scalia didn't have a problem with medical marijuana. This is a Court that is very wary of state action, and it is entirely possible that Morse will be decided in favor of the student, thereby cementing the exact result our good friend Mr. Starr would rather avoid.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
It is mind-boggling to me that the very people who make arguments like this poo-pooh supply-side economics. Does anyone doubt that a program that gives thousands of parents the means to choose where thousands of government dollars go will encourage good teachers, stymied by the Byzantine rules of the public schools, to start schools?
I do the s/voucher/food stamp/g thing to make the point that the decision to have government funding for some good or service does not require that the government doing the funding directly provide the good or service in question. Another reason I do that is to show the idiocy of the argument that parents shouldn't be able to use vouchers at religious schools. Nothing prevents the use of food stamps for kosher or halal foods, or requires vegetarians to purchase meat. Those are choices left to the consumer.
Even without vouchers to help them out, parents vote with their wallets. In Kansas City, MO, the government-run schools are so bad that a federal judge took over the district and imposed tax increases. A Jesuit school in KC, Rockhurst High School offers arguably the best education in the entire state, at a tuition rate roughly 2/3 the per-pupil cost to the taxpayers in the government schools.
In the few places where vouchers have been tried, the public schools have also shown improvement, for the same reason why having a McDonald's and a Wendy's across the street from each other makes them both provide better service to their customers. But even if none of this happens, there's another alternative....Two members of KCLUG home-school their kids. One of them fits the stereotype; a very conservative Christian. The other is a leftist atheist. They seem to agree on very little other than their right to choose things like how their their computers and children will be educated. They can choose what sorts of rules their children will have to follow, and there's no need for a court to decide what those rules are.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I would love it if those two vicious little turds were running mates. Nothing could do more to expose how tiny that insipid band of righteous little fuckwits really is. I think the Democrats should steal a page from the Republican playbook: do everything you can to agitate and promote the interests of the opposing parties fringe players. It basically amounts to enlisting the opposition to run a smear campaign against themselves. Give those asshats the biggest microphone you can find; put them on the international stage if possible. Like Borat, give them some rope, and let them hang themselves.
Quote me scripture to support Jesus being against bong hits.
He opens a door and you see a ton of people, all chest high in pig manure.
"No!" Yells, Mr. Starr; "I'm devastatitngly paranoid to germs! I could never stay in that room."
So Lucifer opens the next door. Where Mr. Starr sees people shackled to glowing hot metal frames, tortured by little devils with white hot pitchforks.
"Naaaaooouuu!", yells Mr. Starr; "I can never, ever stand this for the rest of eternity!"
"OK", says Lucifer, "I introduce you to your final option." He opens another door and there he sees Bill Clinton shackled to a wall with irons and Monica Levinsky on her knees in front of him, supplying Mr. Clinton with a blowjob.
Starrs eyes start to glow and he says: "Yes! This is where I want to spend eternity!"
"OK!" says Lucifer, kicks Levisnky in the butt and proclaims:
"Out Monica; your replacement is here!"
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I know it hardly seems worth mentioning, but the Iraq war has also cost about a million (Iraqi) civilian lives so far...
(google for the Lancet study, if you're curious)
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
About 15 times you say? Wow that's rough.. Atleast you turned out to be a hopeless douchebag instead of a serial killer.
You can't take the sky from me.
How do you know what Jesus wanted? Where you there? Remember he turned the water to wine so people could party at a wedding? It was also common in the Jewish religion at the time to smoke hashish after meals (including children). The chance that jesus had smoked hashish and drank alcohol is pretty darn good as they were common customs of the time and his religion. Jesus never said no drinking and smoking, he did say not to let these things rule your life and to never put them before god.
I just wanted to say thanks for being the first person here (that I've seen), when referring to facts not mentioned in TFA, actually gave a link! Several people now have mentioned that he wasn't in school that day, etc., but never bothered to tell WHERE they were getting that information... gah! It's hard to be on the same page as someone if you don't even know where that page is...
The turning point in the trial will be when a stoned Jesus appears in court, and smites the prosecution for being dicks.
At Columbine 15 people died. Compare and contrast with the numbers in these stories.
Perhaps a plea for less hyperbole is out of place in a thread with this much political slant, but I can hope.
Since you mention the view from the outside, this is interesting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Pakistan :
In modern times that a culture is so closed to outsiders that "little is known" about such an important subject is itself telling.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Shouldn't it read "Bong hits 4 Jesii" then?
The government is not the right tool for creating educational or other institutions that are the proper role of Society. "Vouchers, vouchers, vouchers" is just a recognition that some things are better done by the benevolent private sector.
We are all just people.
The relationship that ought to exist between a free man or woman and their federal republican government is the one that is described by the Bill of Rights. Anyone who thinks that that relationship is, or ought to be, the same as the relationship between a high school (be it public or private) and its students, is insane, or is at least advocating an insane form of education. A high school should control where the students are at any particular time, should enforce discipline so that they are, for the most part, keeping their mouths shut and learning, and so on. Of course a republican government should not enforce any of these things upon its citizens. The practice of applying Constitutional Amendments to the administration of public high schools, as if a high school is an extention of the federal government, is UTTERLY INSANE AND MUST BE STOPPED. If anything, elementary schools and high schools, whether public or private, are, or certainly should be, extensions of the parents.
Because the kid mentioned He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Used-In-Jest, the great "Jesus". The USA is very rapidly regressing to the point that few would be surprised to see people locked up in stocks and "witches" being burnt. Who better to lead the way than the good Mr Starr?
To a lot of us, Christian Fundamentalist America with all its nukes is a lot more frightening than Muslim Fundamentalism. Both groups wish to impose their will upon the world but the US has proven many times in the recent past that it has the power to actually do it.
Its about anti-toker propaganda. The law is obliged whenever possible to demonise marijuana smokers in order to justify the perpetuation their exploitation and subjugation by law enforcement.
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus"? I can't think of a nobler message! (Though I would appreciate it more if he had spelled out "for".)
I applaud this kid. He should be a morale officer in the upcoming marijuana rights civil war. The corrections statistics from last year tell me that the army-in-waiting is close to critical mass. I look forward to defending "Freedom City" (pop. 3.5 million) with every ounce of the righteous warrior in my soul. Soon, the blood of our oppressors will flow.
Amen Brother! ;)
Not listed under politics.
Just anti-Republican propoganda.
(NEVER anti-Democrat...)
I'm done with this site. Are you also "done" with reality as well, and its "horrible anti-republican bias"?
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
These things SHOULD be said. We SHOULD ALL stand with a sign saying "Bong hits 4 Jesus!" because that's what freedom of speach was intended for. Your 1st amendment was NOT created with protection from the government in mind. That amemdment was created for ueseless jibberish and rude comments and remarks. Now, I know many of you will say what's useless about "Bong hits 4 Jesus" and how could this possibly be offensive??
I'm sure that when the founding fathers of this nation put forth that right, the intended us to use it to challenge society in absolutely useless ways. NOT to protect yourself from a threatening government. If you look at this country as a whole, I'd say we have accomplished that without a doubt.
Our founding fathers are rolling over in their grave watching you destroy everything they worked for to bring you rightful justice in this country as you drag their honerable name through the mud.
Have you ever thought why the government constantly tells this country you don't have the right to say - yet never clearly explains their perception of what the 1st amendment is? It's because that amendment was created to protect you from THEM!
You disgust me, America.
I can totally imagine The Shat saying that with his inflections. I would mod you up if I could; good show!
Was he supposed to display his banner on a Sunday afternoon when no one was around?
Fucking morons...
THIS is WHY students get a gun and go into a school and shoot people - deservedly so.
My hat's off to the Columbine students. May many more like them appear in schools everywhere. Maybe then the morons who run the educational system in this country will get a clue that you can't treat people like that without consequences.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
If voucher and charter advocates get their way, they will add healthy competition but are you sure they're not motivated by weakening the teachers's unions, which consistently support one party?
If advocates of a public education monopoly get their way, they may offer some benefits in integrating different socioeconomic classes, but are you sure they're not motivated by rewarding the teachers's unions?
While you're over there, be sure to take their poll on exiling blacks. What a freakshow, how is this link to their adultery enforcement in any way authorative?
And the schools which had the best reputation could gouge the crap out of the population, thus ensuring only the rich got the benefit of this competition..
Look.. we have this in the american university system and it's just as if not more unequal than the public school system..
How about this.. how about instead of tying it to local property taxes we distribute the funding equally throughout an entire state.. that would get rid of the "ghetto school" experience much more easily.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I thought for sure there would be some real adultery enforcement here in SC where the blue laws reign supreme (other than divorce financial leverage, political fallout). I don't see shit either, but still find it difficult to believe a court hasn't tried fining someone into oblivion. The stores are terrified of selling alcohol on Sundays, citing thousands in fines and revocation of their liscense. Ohwell, my bad.
Look.. the lady might have a case.. but SUING for free speech over a fscking suspension is really REALLY wasteful..
Many people complain about corporations with no case and too much money filing frivolous lawsuits trying to bully other companies and the general public with hefty defense fees.
This however represents the equally terrible opposite end of the spectrum.. people who technically have a case making a mountain out of a molehill, and in the process clogging the legal system and discrediting cases more pertinent to the idea the founding fathers were considering when they wrote their clause for free speech and freedom to assemble for protest..
This kid didn't receive any harsh consequence for his "protest".. it was a "suspension".. not an expulsion and he's receiving no lasting damage.. at the most he's getting a day off from school.. whoopty do.. I know.. let's take this to court and waste tons of money on the mother's side and the taxpayer's side! way to go!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
...No. They don't. I went to private schools my entire life, and the teachers always, always knew damn well that they could be getting paid a hell of a lot more in public school and complained about it regularly. The average starting salary for a teacher in CA is $33,000. Most of my teachers were getting maybe $25,000. Maybe.
The reasons why they weren't paid as much was purely and simply that the schools I went to couldn't afford to. A minimum of 25% of the tuition at my high school was guaranteed to go to the teachers' salaries. Probably another 25-50% went to expanding school facilities, since in the 6 years my brother and I were there, they built a gym, and built a whole new school next door because they ran out of room in the old building. The rest went to administration and miscellaneous expenses. Please note that this was a for-profit school. That generally didn't. Profit, that is.
The teachers themselves taught for a variety of reasons. One big one was that their kids could attend for free. I knew a number of teachers back in elementary/junior high that planned on quitting working at that school the second their kid graduated. Another reason is that they had a lot smaller classes, a lot more capability to discipline, and could and would expect a lot more out of their students than they felt they would ever be able to in a public school. They just enjoyed teaching at a private school a lot more than they had at a public school, and thought the loss of pay worth it.
A very few of my teachers did get paid more than they would at public high school. But the only one I know who did was the one who completed med school before deciding to take a job as a high school biology teacher, and who was, as I recall, in charge of the science department. This was a school where a lot of the students were doctor's kids who were expected to become doctors themselves, though, so it made a great deal of logical sense to invest in that department.
For the most part, though, teachers at private schools are paid a great deal less than their counterparts at public schools.
Who really cares?
funny, I don't remember seeing an article on "Your Rights Online" about "The Nativity" movie ads being banned by the city of Chicago because it would offend people who weren't Christians. Even when the ads were to be shown in a non-government event, sold to a non-government organization running a CHRISTMAS event.
Hmm... Government censoring speech...is that a first amendment problem?
Or is that too much "reality" for you?
Not really a waste all in all.
1.It helps to define the thin line between reality and where an ever more liberal supreme court wants to harness free speech to.(I know they haven't ruled yet,but you can predict as well as I)
2.It clearly defines who enemies of our freedom are:Starr of the Clinton camp and Liberal Supremes.Know your enemies!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Get a grip and stop crying wolf, a save your breath for when its really needed.
There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
bong1 /b, b/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bong, bawng] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. a dull, resonant sound, as of a large bell.
-verb (used without object)
2. to produce this sound: The church bell bonged promptly at noon. [Origin: 1855-60; imit.] Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
So arguably it could mean "Church bell hits for jesus?"
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
Firstly the separation of Church and state is not one way. Students are free to believe as they want in schoold but that belief can be neither coercive or disruptive. With that in mind head scarves, personal prayer, jewish Students associations, etc. are all legal. Attemtpts to force classes about religion or to isolate or intimidate other students for their beliefs are not. Typically we think of the force of schools on students because they
It works this way outside of schools as well. The state is not free to mandate religion or to enforce any aspect of it on them. Religions are not free to coerce the state either by spending state dollars on religious purposes or attempting to force the state to respect them in one way shape or form.
Religion is fundamentally a private matter between you and your god, gods, or lack thereof. Any social aspects of it must be free and unencumbered by state power.
That is why the Constitution of the United States deals with religion in two places, article 6 paragraph 2 "There shall be no religious test for public office in the United States of America." And the first Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercize therof." The reason it says both prohibitingand respectingis to prevent both raisig one religion (e.g. Christianity) above others by law, or bringing one low (e.g. atheism) by banning it.
So to get back to this issue yes you can make it about religion and religious freedom in as much as about all free speech. The student, minor or not is a U.S. Citizen and entitled to the rights of free speech and free religion. As such the school cannot freely censor him in the public sphere. While the school has in-loco-parentis within the school grounds a) that power is not absolute, and b) this was not on school grounds but in the public sphere If ILC was absolute then the schools would be free to restrict all student actions in excess of the amount for their task. To do so would be to make schools more restrictive than prisons. Similarly if they could freely restrict student activities outside of school then they would be extended far too much control over the students and be free to regulate activities like who students may see or what they may do when not in the school. That is more than the school should have rights to do and serves no essential purpose.
Essentially, as I see it the School District's position is that it was a school activity and therefore the student's actions affected the school activity. While the student's reply is that it was an act of free speech in the public sphere and as such protected by law. The competing principles at stake here are a) the school having sufficient ability to police their students and if they cannot being unable to have out of school activities and b) the need to protect the fundamental right of free speech and prevent schools from being so restricive that students never learn to use their rights and get too accustomed to draconian measures.
To my mind this turns on a) whether this was indeed a school activity or the schools were just "closed" for the function, and b) whether the sign actually "disrupted" anything in a meaningful sense or just made the teachers feel that the moment was spoiled. To my mind I would err on the side of protecting the student's speech because the sign was just a sign and didn't apparently cause a stampede or prevent the torch itself from being carried.
Points two and three were eliminated from the definition for being too broad.
So now sexual relations for the purpose of the court case was defined strictly as:
Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
Notice anything missing from this definition?
So I can close the tag.
> The high school I graduated from recently enforced school uniforms, suspending students who refuse to conform.
/. geeks do not read Harry Potter, only the obsolete LoTr, so they remain uneducated in this respect.
Makes sense. If students from richer family wear Nike, Adidas, Armani and Prada to school and mock poorer ones about their noname gear, now that would disrupt the class and cause grievance for the poorer students. They would feel second class persons due to the lesser financial situation of their parents, on objective condition for which they absolutely cannot be held responsible. School is not a vanity fair, you compete with your brains there.
Otherwise, school uniform is a centuries long standard in Britain, for example. It also boosts morale and comeraderie. Of course
At least geeks should be aware of all those sailor-clad anime and manga babes, who are actually wearing school uniform. In real life the skirts of japanese schoolgirls are not much longer, that is why camera phone was invented in Japan (their men are perverted).
I am a bit pissed myself, I mean we know that Bong Hits got 4 points, but what was Jesus's score? Now, suing might be a bit extreme, though.
If I want my news washed down with political Kool-Aid, I might click on over to Fox or CNN. NEWS FOR NERDS. STUFF THAT MATTERS. Stick with techy stuff and limit the political stuff to stuff that affects the techy stuff - i.e., stuff that matters. Does it matter what Ken Starr is doing? I mean really matter.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
so he has a friend nicknamed Bong who plays baseball, big deal.
I call B.S.! If your wife was praying silently, and not urging others to join her, how could she have been busted for praying? Jesus himself, when asked asked how to pray, answered that the supplicant should go into a private room and pray silently. Asshat!
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
Yes he he did turn water into wine. So? The Bible also very specifically tells you "be not DRUNK with wine" and in the context of that passage it means you should not be "out of control" but allow the spirit to have control. That can certainly be extended to pot. So, please do not try some half-assed argument about it being "okay" with Jesus becuase it CLEARLY is not. You clearly do NOT know what you are talking about.
For right or wrong, as independent counsel Starr's investigated the perjury allegations in addition to Whitewater, the Travel Office firings, etc.
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
Staring at a white background [on a computer screen] while you read is like staring at a light bulb — Maddox