Skip to content

Bong Hitz for Jesus

August 23, 2007

Reporter for the Cornell Daily Sun feels high school students should have the right to say stupid stuff, in direct opposition to the Supreme Court.

So, what do you think? Is the supreme court sticking it up our ass again and limiting our right to free speech, even if what we have to say is utterly devoid of usefulness or intellectual merit?

Discuss.

Advertisements
9 Comments leave one →
  1. August 23, 2007 8:23 pm

    I have little hope that the current Supreme Court will protect any of our rights — it may take generations to regain the lost that has been and will be lost any time Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Scalia can scarf up a majority.

    Nevertheless, this case wasn’t so much about “our” rights, unless you count teenagers as “us” (a stretch for some of us on the other side of 50 or better). It only addresses the free speech rights of minors in the context of a public school setting — rights that even the Tinker decision from the 1960’s allowed was substantially limited compared to those of adults. While those of us on the side of the “angels” (loud *cough*) would disagree with how today’s court read and applied Tinker in this situation (yea, bong hits 4 Jesus is harmless dumb stuff), the issue still was whether schools can give free reign to the Dolores Umbridges among us. So the stuff written by the student author you linked to about Nazis marching in Skokie simply does not apply (that being about adult rights to speak in public – not that we have any more after Bush and his “free speech zones” — go to mimi’s today for that).

    [BTW, I only just saw the Harry Potter movie the other night. I LOVED it. The whole Dolores Umbridge bit was brilliant — she a cross between Hyacinth, Anita Bryant, Phillis Schaffley, and Margaret Thatcher — and she even looked a little like my mom, who had a similar hairdo and EXACTLY that color purple-pink tweed suit in the 1960’s. I haven’t checked the book yet, but one of her early speeches sounded like she should be the new Network spokesperson. And didn’t you just LOVE all the framed pronouncements on the wall and how they all fell down in the end? ] [Sorry, someday I’ll write something on my own blog — it’s late and we’re behind packing my dear son who leaves for college TOMORROW, my baby.]

    Back on topic. Try the Wiki article on the Supreme Court case at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

  2. August 23, 2007 8:23 pm

    Sorry – no preview button or rewrite privileges for editing.

  3. August 23, 2007 9:19 pm

    I’m not worried about Bong Hits for Jesus but after the work day I’ve had I damned well could use a Gin and Tonic for Jesus.

  4. episcopalifem permalink*
    August 23, 2007 9:41 pm

    (((Klady & Klady’s son))))

    Good stiff drink for Dennis – Tanqueray and Tonic, coming right up…

  5. August 23, 2007 10:07 pm

    It probably isn’t right to ask for three debilitating strokes for the others and a Atkins-induced heart attack for Scalia, so let’s just admit “Constitutional right” is a null concept for a generation, shall we?

    With that out of the way, there is an appropriate distinction between minors’ and adults’ rights. It also seems apparent to me that the school authorities were heavy-handed bureaucratic nitwits afraid of any parental objection.

    “Bureaucracy is the encounter of the blind with those whom they treat as blind.”

    Karl Barth, *Church Dogmatics*.

  6. August 24, 2007 7:21 am

    johnieb, is that really a Barth quote?? I love it. Never heard it before.

  7. August 24, 2007 7:30 am

    Yup. You want me to look up the exact citation? I think I still have a few volumes around.

    Here we are: Church Dogmatics. III. 2.~45. p.252. It’s the second sentence in the block of smaller type in the middle of the page.

    I used to use it as a screen saver at work.

  8. August 24, 2007 12:34 pm

    I’m not familiar enough with the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case or the applicable law to comment on that. However, I do hope that we never reach the point where our speech must be considered “worthwhile” or even “smart” to be protected. After all, who gets to define those qualities in the determination process? I find that a scary question.

  9. August 25, 2007 7:19 pm

    I know who defines it now; that’s what scares me most.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: