Bong Hits 4 Jesus

[BillyTheMountain]

Do you support free speech? I do. Last week several high school girls got suspended for doing a reading, I think it was from the Vagina Monologues, becasue they were told not to say the word "vagina."

Morse v. Frederick is another First Amendment student free speech case to be argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 19, 2007. The case involves Joseph Frederick, an 18-year-old high school senior in Juneau, Alaska, who was suspended for 10 days after displaying a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner across the street from his high school during the Winter Olympics Torch Relay in 2002.

The kid had seen it on a snow board, I think, and just wanted to get his picture taken.

[James_Potter]

That reminds me of this....
A few weeks ago some students at the U of I decided to display a message from their dorm windows:
http://photos-512.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v47/73/45/40308749/n40308749_30662512_5324.jpg
A bunch of angry feminists made the U of I make them remove it, though, so instead they put BOB in three of the windows.
One of my friends who was in on it said they were going to use the other side of the building, that had six windows, to spell out VAGINA, but decided against it.

[wickedbob]

Haha they need an award for that.

[BillyTheMountain]

A bunch of angry feminists made the U of I make them remove it.

I didn't know feminism was against free speech and personal expression. Seemed harmless enough to me.

It could even be viewed as a shrine in honor of wonderful feminine attributes. What do feminists have against that?

[ntappin]

What makes me sad is the fact that the school probably wouldn't have that big a problem with them playing music that glorifies violence, yet the believe empowering women and saying the name of a body part is wrong.

That is just sad.

I also think that the boob thing is pretty funny and shouldn't get anyone unhappy. They should do breast instead of vagina on the other wall, that way nobody can argue with it being slang. Either that or jugs or something that isn't technically saying boob but still has the same idea.

[monkeyman]

I didn't know feminism was against free speech and personal expression. Seemed harmless enough to me.

Feminazis only value free speech when it benefits them, just like all the other extreme ends of the spectrum.

That Supreme Court case is disgusting. While it might have been in poor taste, he had the right to do it, unless I'm completely misinterpreting the First Amendment (Gilby, correct me if I'm wrong).

[wickedbob]

Boob can mean more than one thing other that a woman's breasts.
Example calling someone a boob. Plus why would they be mad they should be happy they have a power over us men so much so they are willing to put a huge sign up on the side of a building as a shrine...

[monkeyman]

Plus why would they be mad they should be happy they have a power over us men so much so they are willing to put a huge sign up on the side of a building as a shrine...
Best feminist comeback I've seen. :D

[wickedbob]

Best feminist comeback I've seen:D

Yeah is that sarcasim? If not cool.

[dudewithasock]

They should do breast instead of vagina on the other wall, that way nobody can argue with it being slang.

Since when has "vagina" ever been slang? I guess those crazy scientist hipsters need to stop making up words.

[monkeyman]

Yeah is that sarcasim? If not cool.

Nope, hence the :D

That actually is a good comeback...funny, and oh so true. You don't see many buildings with penises in the windows.

[wickedbob]

Yeah to bad woman don't love our penises that much they have all the power with their breasts!... Matter a fact I don't think many even like penises that much at least not as much as men love breast (ok most men)...

[wickedbob]

It doesnt really mean much and I am not sure if it is true, but I heard men think about sex every 2.5 or some odd seconds and who can we blame? Woman! See feminist should attack woman for taking advantage of use we can't control the fact that we think with our penises it is just how it is and after all to some feminist we are just stupid men...

[ntappin]

Since when has "vagina" ever been slang? I guess those crazy scientist hipsters need to stop making up words.

Sorry I typed that out wrong, I mean that breast isn't slang as boob is, I never meant it to mean that vagina was slang but thats certainly how it read.

[john_childs]

Here's an interesting NY Times article on the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/washington/18scotus.html
http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=10942

The vagina case is a little bit different because the students were told not to use that word. It has some of the same issues as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case but not quite the same. The "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case is a better one for the free speech side to go after.

Kind of fun to have groups on the religious right and the ACLU on the same side of a Supreme Court argument. I like that, especially when involving free speech.

Speech codes and speech restrictions at a public school do not help give you a broad education or allow students to explore issues fully.

[JJuggle]

When it comes to free speech issues I make it easy on myself and just go with whatever Nat Hentoff says.





















Can anybody tell me what Nat Hentoff says on this one?

[monkeyman]

According to wikipedia, he completely supports free speech "and excoriates those who he feels favor censorship in any form".

[john_childs]

According to wikipedia, he completely supports free speech "and excoriates those who he feels favor censorship in any form".
Those of us already familiar with Nat Hentoff know which side he would stand on without needing to go to Wikipedia. You ought to read some of his books, essays, or articles. He's well spoken and worth the read. He writes for the Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0712,hentoff,76094,2.html) and that's a good place to start for reading up on him.

I find it funny that our resident research librarian is asking us what Nat Hentoff's view would be without pointing us to a relevant article by Nat Hentoff. ;)

I don't know if he has written about this case yet. I do hope he does.

[monkeyman]

Those of us already familiar with Nat Hentoff know which side he would stand on without needing to go to Wikipedia.
Or the people already familiar with Raphael. ;)

You ought to read some of his books, essays, or articles. He's well spoken and worth the read. He writes for the Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0712,hentoff,76094,2.html) and that's a good place to start for reading up on him.
Consider it favorite-ed. I will read it tomorrow.

[john_childs]

Consider it favorite-ed. I will read it tomorrow.
He also writes for Jewish publications. Archives of his articles from there are here (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff1.asp).

I wish the Village Voice had an actual archive of his articles. Maybe they do, I just can't find it on their site.

I first read of Nat Hentoff when I read his book "Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee (http://www.amazon.com/Free-Speech-Me-But-Not-Thee/dp/0060995106)" back in the early 90's. Since then I've followed him in a passing manner. I don't regularly read The Village Voice, but if I see an editorial by him in a newspaper I'll read it for sure.

[JJuggle]

I find it funny that our resident research librarian is asking us what Nat Hentoff's view would be without pointing us to a relevant article by Nat Hentoff. ;)
Nat Hentoff is to free speech as Playtex is to breasts. He supports it faithfully and does so by accentuating its natural beauty without the need for false embellishment.

I was being flippant by suggesting I didn't know his views on the matter, playing the part of one who needs others expert opinions to form his own. I don't know why I did that, but I thought it would be amusing not confusing.

[monkeyman]

You ought to read some of his books, essays, or articles. He's well spoken and worth the read. He writes for the Village Voice and that's a good place to start for reading up on him.

I like this guy...he seems pretty centered, and concerned mainly with the Constitution (specifically, upholding it...something lacking in our government as of late).

[john_childs]

I like this guy...he seems pretty centered, and concerned mainly with the Constitution (specifically, upholding it...something lacking in our government as of late).
That's why I like him. Always makes well founded and well reasoned points.

This thread motivated me to make a Google News alert for "Nat Hentoff". Now I'll be alerted when he has articles or editorials published.

[BillyTheMountain]

Kind of fun to have groups on the religious right and the ACLU on the same side of a Supreme Court argument. I like that, especially when involving free speech.

Why do you like THAT?

and where is the religious LEFT?

[john_childs]

Why do you like THAT?

and where is the religious LEFT?
I like that because free speech is not a partisan issue. I like cases that demonstrate that free speech needs to be defended by both the left and the right.

The religious left is out busy trying to ordain homosexual ministers. They don't seem to be part of this issue or are for some reason not interested.

[BillyTheMountain]

I like that because free speech is not a partisan issue. I like cases that demonstrate that free speech needs to be defended by both the left and the right.

The religious left is out busy trying to ordain homosexual ministers. They don't seem to be part of this issue or are for some reason not interested.

Maybe Civil Liberties are not a left-right issue, tho in the USA the right tends to restrict them more.

Is therer anything else like free speech, that needs to be defended by both the left and the right?

[Chris.James]

Nat Hentoff is to free speech as Playtex is to breasts. He supports it faithfully and does so by accentuating its natural beauty without the need for false embellishment.
lol, nice analogy.

[dan de man]

this reminds me of some thing funny that happened in class the last year

our teacher used to get on femenazi rants
the whole primise of the 30min long rant "was a woman do anything a man can do"
she asked the question
CAN ANY ONE HERE THINK OF ANY THING A MAN CAN DO AND A WOMAN CANT!

i calmly replied
Produce sperm?

she stopped those femenazi rant after that

[john_childs]

Maybe Civil Liberties are not a left-right issue, tho in the USA the right tends to restrict them more.
Both sides are just as guilty of restricting free speech. Neither side is a saint. If there was a score card I would call it a draw. The left is demonstratively willing and able to restrict free speech when it suits them. Likewise with the right. The left doesn't have a stellar record so saying they aren't as evil as the right just doesn't fly.

The left and the right tend to go about restricting free speech in different ways with different methods, but the end result is the same.

That is why I try to view free speech issues in a non partisan way. That's the only way to stay consistent and truthful on the issue.

My ideal politician would probably be a Republican with Nat Hentoff's views on the constitution and civil rights.

[tomblackwood]

My ideal politician would probably be a Republican with Nat Hentoff's views on the constitution and civil rights.
My ideal politician would probably be a Democrat with John Childs's views on the constitution, civil rights, unicycling, and micro brews.

[dan de man]

hear here

[Gilby]

My ideal politician would probably be a Republican with Nat Hentoff's views on the constitution and civil rights.

You're in luck. A libertarian and true republican is running. You don't have to settle for a neocon that is really a democrat in disquise.

[john_childs]

You're in luck. A libertarian and true republican is running. You don't have to settle for a neocon that is really a democrat in disquise.
I had to do some googling to find out who that could be. Must be Ron Paul. It's not someone I can recall hearing much about.

Reading up on him and he's a little too libertarian for me.

Ron Paul 2008 (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)
Ron Paul at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul)
Ron Paul Google News search (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Ron-Paul+&btnG=Search+News)

[BillyTheMountain]

I had to do some googling to find out who that could be. Must be Ron Paul. It's not someone I can recall hearing much about.

Reading up on him and he's a little too libertarian for me.

Ron Paul 2008 (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)
Ron Paul at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul)
Ron Paul Google News search (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Ron-Paul+&btnG=Search+News)

Right.

You really CAN have too much LIBERTY.

And Ron Paul would bring it on.

[BillyTheMountain]

In the meantime, here is a good article about the invisible hand of democracy: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr012903.htm

Here's Ron Paul, brought to you by !Gilby!

[Gilby]

You really CAN have too much LIBERTY.

Apparently. Liberty would mean that people would actually have to take responsibility for themselves instead of hoping that the powers that be will actually have an interest in taking care of them.

[BillyTheMountain]

Apparently. Liberty would mean that people would actually have to take responsibility for themselves instead of hoping that the powers that be will actually have an interest in taking care of them.

Does this idea also exist on a smaller scale within an employment situation? How so? What would it mean for an employee to take responsibility? Is that possible?

[JJuggle]

Does this idea also exist on a smaller scale within an employment situation? How so? What would it mean for an employee to take responsibility? Is that possible?
http://imagesource.allposters.com/images/pic/HPM/FM302~Not-Paid-To-Think-Posters.jpg

[Gilby]

Does this idea also exist on a smaller scale within an employment situation? How so? What would it mean for an employee to take responsibility? Is that possible?

Yes, it means read your contract. Understand it. Know your rights, and assert your rights. Employment is a voluntary action, so it's up to the employee to take responsibility for their situation, instead of hoping the employer is doing what's in your best interest.

[BillyTheMountain]

Yes, it means read your contract. Understand it. Know your rights, and assert your rights. Employment is a voluntary action, so it's up to the employee to take responsibility for their situation, instead of hoping the employer is doing what's in your best interest.


Assert your rights with a Union if need be.

[john_childs]

Can anybody tell me what Nat Hentoff says on this one?
Nat Hentoff has finally weighed in on the issue. He supports bong hits 4 Jesus.

Joe Frederick, First Amendment Idol (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0714,hentoff,76230,6.html)
Will the Supreme Court hold high the banner 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus,' or crush free speech?
By this June, the John Roberts Supreme Court will have ruled on whether the First Amendment protects Joe and his unorthodox banner, along with much other student speech around the country.

The case of "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is Deborah Morse, Juneau School Board v. Joseph Frederick.

I recognize that what the justices say during oral arguments does not necessarily predict the outcome of a case; but the comments on March 19—particularly by Chief Justice John Roberts and the current swing voter, Anthony Kennedy—could lead a majority of the court to gravely limit the free-speech and free-press rights of public school students (including at public colleges) for many years.

[john_childs]

The "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case lost at the Supreme Court today in a split 5-4 decision. :(

From the ACLU
ACLU Slams Supreme Court Decision in Student Free Speech Case (6/25/2007) (http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2006term/morsev.frederick/30230prs20070625.html)

From the Student Press Law Center
Supreme Court rules in 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case (http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1558&year=)
Decision says school administrators can prohibit speech advocating illegal drugs

[monkeyman]

Yay for more damage to freedom.

:(

[MuniAddict]

Feminazis only value free speech when it benefits them, just like all the other extreme ends of the spectrum.

That Supreme Court case is disgusting. While it might have been in poor taste, he had the right to do it, unless I'm completely misinterpreting the First Amendment (Gilby, correct me if I'm wrong).+1

[mcnuggets300]

+2

[dan de man]

+4