Tuesday, March 20, 2007

BHers for Jesus











Grab a glass of wine. This is a long one.

First things first. The last post was something I put there for me to reference and remember. It has nothing to do with anyone who emailed me or asked me about it.

I am a little obsessive with lists. I make a lot of lists. I'm one of those people who has post-it notes all over the place. But these notes are only all over my desk at work. And that doesn't work for me. Some of my lists have longevity, so I may take to making lists here.

OK?

Do a BH, and chill.

Speaking of my fav pastime, I've been trying to figure out what I want to say about the Bong Hits 4 Jesus dealio. I could joke about so many things surrounding this - from BHers, to religion, to Alaskans, to students and authority figures, to the Supreme Court actually agreeing to hear this case.

As I'm sure you are all aware by now, SCOTUS heard oral arguments yesterday on the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case.

In essence:

Joseph Frederick was an 18-year-old senior in 2002 when the torch for the Winter Olympics was scheduled to pass in front of his high school. Frederick was standing on a public street as the TV cameras came into range. He and several other students then unfurled the 14-foot banner that said, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” The school’s principal, Deborah Morse, ripped it away from the students and sent Frederick to the office. She planned to suspend him for five days, but when he invoked Thomas Jefferson and the 1st Amendment, she doubled the suspension to 10 days.
After all that fashizzle, the student sued the principal, alleging violation of Freedom of Speech.

Of course, this has nothing to do with BHers, and I'm a little concerned.

Let's break it down: The Supreme Court of The United States is going to decide whether schools have the authority to regulate anything that one of its students says or does.

Anything?

Let me remind you:

When this student rolled out his banner he was not on school property.

Now, here is the school's argument, which by the way, is fully supported by George Bush. Oh yea, and Kenneth Starr, the attorney for the school.

Primary and secondary public schools should be permitted to restrict student speech whenever the “message” conveyed is “inconsistent with the school’s basic educational mission.”

4 comments:

Meg said...

Fact of the matter is is that kid was being a dickhead when he/they thought of the idea and then followed thru with it. Jackass move. I think he's using the 1st Adm to hide behind his thoughtless, disrespectful prank. He knew it wasn't an "ok" thing to do b/c he hid the banner until the last moment.

However, the school is going to far to use the kid as an "example." And of course Ken Star and Bush are involved it involves the Baby Jesus. I am so sick of POTUS jamming the Lord and his ideas of what God wants down my throught.

Both sides are guilty of hiding behind rules/laws.

Both sides need to apologize for what they did to the other and GROW THE FUCK UP. Stupid ass people in the world.

meg said...

meant to say throat...what God wants down my throat.

shit, I type too fast.

Head Whiner said...

if that's the case then why did supreme court agree to hear the case? there are many idiotic, stupid-people cases they refuse to hear. I think what is decided in this case could affect how schools can or cannot punish their students. what happened in this case is stupid, i agree. but the kid wasn't on school property. he wanted to be on tv. what does that have to do with the school, who does not own the kid, no matter what he wants to say, or how stupid he wants to act. I don't think his stupidity is what's at question here. Most agree he's a punk, and he even admits that. But what if another kid, in a conservative little town wore a shirt to the mall that says,
"say yes to drugs"? Can that kid be suspended? Why? Because he's a punk? What if the shirt said, "I believe in homosexuality"? Should that kid be suspended if his belief goes against what the school's "message" and "basic edcuational mission" are? I happen to think that the kid should be able to use a banner, a tshirt, a journal, a web site, or a soapbox to say whatever the hell they believe, especially when they are not on school grounds.

Anonymous said...

it's time to let parents be parents and punish kids for being stupid. the school had no right to even touch this banner, let alone suspend the kid. the school, could have, however, reached the parents to discuss concerns over the kid's behavior.