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.
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.
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
I used to go to JDHS as well ;p
I was not there when this happened, however. (Was only there for a semester).
This basically boils down to one thing: The principal (morse) is a douchebag. Her husband also happens to be quite racist against natives--(for bonus points for non Juneau people try to find out what his job was--might still be, I'm not living there at the moment)! I honestly don't know if she is still the principal there or not and I don't care enough to check. I do know that the previous principal never would have given two shits if this kid did that.
The kid just wanted attention and put up some nonsensical sign. And get real, the sign didn't change anyone's mind on whether or not they wanted to do drugs. When I went there almost everyone I knew smoked weed or drank. Yes, even some teachers.
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
"'" 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?
is that Ken Starr needs a blowjob.
Slashdot: news from nerds.
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....
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.
Jesus HATES it when you bogart all his shit.
Monstar L
I don't think it has anything to do with free speech.
Starr is said to be arguing the case for free.
Think free as in free lunch (not like fsf) and that pro-bono work is lawyer speak for "Can't get a paying job and I need the PR"!
That's still less kinky than the Tories.
I have discovered a truly remarkable
You say "might be worthy", personally I don't think ANY speech is worthy of censorship. Speech I disapprove of is the speech that most needs protecting.
Look what free speech did for Michael "Kramer" Richards. Neonazis shoot themselves in the feet all the time; abhorrent as their words are, they are their own worst enemies.
<sarcasm> Ban Kenneth Starr's speech! Forty million dollars to investigate a blow job? WTF? That's the kind of speech that should be banned!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Without a doubt this case is pure comedy but the issues are real.
This kid was on a school trip, supervised by school faculty. IANAL but I'm pretty sure "In Loco Parentis" applies. So the kid unveils the banner and gets suspended for breaking school policy for "promoting illegal drug abuse". Once could also argue he crossed the line on the separation of church and state by promoting his religious views during school time.
Should public school districts be put in a position where they effectively have no control over what their students say and do during school trips? Is it ok for the kids to distribute pro-drug, racism, etc., literature while on the class trip to see the capitol? Or while standing just outside school property? The student was not a minor at the time but undoubtedly some of his schoolmates were under 18.
The basic issue isn't really about free speech or the coveted Right to Take Drugs-it's about the ability of the school district to maintain an educational environment during school time.
Granted, the banner was funny but the case makes me think about parents who complain about school uniform policies infringing on their coddled children's sacred right to wear Prada.
Or perhaps I'm wrong and the school nurse ought to give out free hypodermic syringes to prevent the spread of HIV?
In this case the Appellate Court has already found that the student was illegally censored.
I hope the SCOTUS finds that the student was under the care of the school
The student sure as hell doesn't. The Appellate Court found that Tinker applies to the case which implies that Frederick was under school supervision while exercising his speech. The same decision ruled out the Hazelwood (actually referenced as "Kuhlmeier") decision:
Kuhlmeier is unlikely to be tested because it's only applicable to school-sponsored activities. Since the students were free to go and were unsupervised, it would be hard to argue that Frederick's sign could be seen as school-sponsored, certainly less so than the Coke-fight which broke among other students. Starr may argue that by letting the students out with the intention that they attend the parade, school sponsorship could be implied, but again the Appellate Court has already stated that this event was non-curricular; it couldn't even fall under the brad scope of "social studies".He doesn't need one.
The anointing oil he used contained cannabis-extracts, and in the quantities it was used in (being doused in it) would be far more potent than your average joint.
Here's the Youtube version of Olbermann's Gingrich-killing-free-speech rant.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
An American Public school IS government-run. When the principal punishes a student, that IS government punishment. When a public school censors a student, that IS government censorship.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
it was a public school, which is a part of the government
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
This kid was on a school trip, supervised by school faculty. IANAL but I'm pretty sure "In Loco Parentis" applies. So the kid unveils the banner and gets suspended for breaking school policy for "promoting illegal drug abuse". Once could also argue he crossed the line on the separation of church and state by promoting his religious views during school time.
Separation of church and state has no bearing on this issue. Students are not barred from promoting religion on school grounds and never have been. The ban is to prevent state entities from promoting religion. Students are free to practice as they choose.
The argument that the kid was on a field trip is, in my opinion, bupkus. Regardless, I think that the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" could be easily construed as political speech or parody/satire, both of which are protected even on school grounds. But that's not ultimately for me to decide.
But yeah, you can't make the argument about separation of church and state.
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
So this is what passes as insightful on this site nowadays. It's more like libertarian utopianism. Your main contradiction is that threats limit other people's freedom (of speech. movement, whatever): If someone threatens to kill you under certain conditions, then they've already succeeded if they scare you sufficiently to do as they say, not when they've finally murdered you. That's not a civil offence.
English is easier said than done.
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.
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 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."
You forgot to close your sarcasm tag, and the sarcasm formatting is spilling over to all of the comments below you!
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Are you kidding? That's an extremely political thing to say.
The relationship between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was consensual. She was sold out by Linda Tripp. Lewinsky also lied about the relationship under oath before she knew Tripp had been taping their conversations. So why wasn't Monica tried for perjury? Is it only a crime when your political enemies do it?
At my school if you were caught doing anything they did not like while in school, but you were off school property but still within sight and a teacher or principle seen you they would be able to get you in trouble. Technically speaking I was not allowed to smoke cigarettes off school property but be visible to them or I would get suspended, even if I was 18.
hello
It was a $40 million payback for what happened to Nixon over 20 years earlier. This was just the first time that the Republicans could actually do anything - they had just come to power a few years before.
Although, if you actually start adding up the dollars spent tying up congress from actually doing the business of the nation, I'm sure that amount would quickly spin into the multi-billions.
Slashdot really needs a -1 dumbass moderation. I have mod points but there wasn't an option appropriate for the idiocy of the parent post.
The canonical "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example is a proxy for any behavior which creates grave, immediate danger of irrepairable harm to others with little or no benefit to self. If civil courts had the power to take your life and/or remove your body parts and organs and give them to the people you killed or maimed with your reckless actions then perhaps that would work for your victims. It still would not represent a significant deterrent as if you'd thought about the consequences of your actions prior to taking them you wouldn't have taken them. We use the criminal justice system to deal with such persons because either because they are incredibly reckless, representing a significant, persistent threat to others or because they are sadistic psychopaths who take such actions becuase they enjoy inflicting the inevitable pain.
The parent post neither understands the function of our criminal and civil systems nor the underlying reasoning behind their function.
Oh no, whatever shall we do.
...or so I've been told.
If the school is a public school, it is considered an entity of the state and has to observe the constitution. There have been reports of lawsuits on
Private schools have more leeway since they are not part of the state.
BONG HITS 4 JESUS is pretty ambiguous. It might be interpreted as political speech that drugs should be legalized. Or it could be interpreted as promoting illegal drug use (the interpretation of the school officials). Or maybe just as a stupid joke.
In the absence of a clear meaning, I think the state should be careful not to infringe on civil rights by choosing the interpretation that is most damaging to the speaker
C - the footgun of programming languages
If it was a silent prayer, how would anyone know it was done? Seems like a huge stretch to even make it up the chain, let alone to the realm of punishment. Precident is pretty clear- so long as it isn't disruptive of class, no student can be prevented from expressing any belief, religious or otherwise. Faculty and staff are in a bit of a harder position, and generally can't talk about pro or anti religious sentiments (because the kids are a captive audiance to the government employee).
Really, though, there is no persecution of religion in this country, though there are idiot school administrators who don't bother to read the laws/court decisions (and they go to both sides on this). Overall though, I don't understand how you can claim religious persecution in a country where the president is a born agan Christian, over 99% of the legislature follows a Jeudeo-Christian religion, all of the Supreme Court is Jewish or Christian, and every state governor is religious. Heck, can you come up with a single politician on the national scale that doesn't wear their religion on their sleeve?
I'm pretty sure it was the "bong hits" part - references to alcohol and drugs are routinely censored and squelched in high schools, and rightly so (at least on school grounds/trips), just as pornographic, racist, and vulgarities are censored. Children do not have unlimited free speech in schools.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
The President is not above the law. Nor is he below it. If they both agreed to it, it's consensual. I'm not sure where you're from, but in the US consensual sex does not make someone a sexual predator.
Yes, he lied about getting a blowjob in court. Yes he deserved to be reprimanded for he lies. And he was.
Why should these wounds be reopened? Because our current president lied to us and due to it hundreds of thousands of people have died.
Granted, he didn't lie under oath. But I think (rather, I sincerely hope) that everybody would agree that a single human life is far more important than a single instance of lying under oath.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
I appreciate where you're coming from, but can this also be applied to actions? If I sit on a hill with a sniper rifle, shoot at your head, and then miss, have I done anything wrong? Let's say the bullet whizzes past your head and lands in the ocean. Nobody is harmed. You never even notice that it happened. Should I go to jail for attempted murder, or is the "no harm, no foul" rule still in effect?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"