No Bong Hits 4 Jesus

<h1>No Bong Hits 4 Jesus</h1>

<p align=right>by Douglas Whalen</p>

<div align=justify><BR>The slippery slope of student rights to free speech just got a little more slippery. On Monday, June 25, 2007, the United States Supreme Court overturned a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that a principal did not violate a student's First Amendment Constitutional Rights by forcing him to take down a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at a school sponsored event. See the case Morse, et al. v. Frederick. Freedom of Speech is one of the most fundamental and important rights given to the citizens of a free society. Some societies restrict speech in an effort to consolidate power and to limit the free flow of ideas amongst their citizens, for example, Iran recently banned journalists from publishing any negative news on the administrations fuel-rationing program. Am extreme example, North Korea, has deliberately withheld from its own people every significant, internationally guaranteed right, including freedom of speech. Televisions and radios are built or adapted to allow for only government frequencies, and outside signals are blocked. Any seemingly innocuous actions such as whistling a South Korean pop song, refusing or forgetting to wear special pins with Kim Jong–Il or Kim Il–Sung, or expressing even minor grievances against the government, are considered political treason. In the United States, certain types of speech are given more protection than others, for example, political speech and religious speech are afforded more protection than other types of speech. A banner reading "stop Bush from destroying the constitution" would be afforded greater protection than a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." On the contrary, there are certain types of speech that receive little or no protection. Speech that incites violent or illegal activity is among that type. When we look at the facts of this case we have to ask ourselves what was being said, how was it being said and where was it being said. What was being said? “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” the content of this speech is not political in nature and although it mentions Jesus, it does not seem to be any real religious statement. That being said, this speech did not fall into one of those categories that are offered very high levels of protection. What is being said here seems to have some drug use connotations and can even be construed as promoting drug use. The Supreme Court found that the speech in question actually promoted drug use and therefore would be placed in a category of little or no protection. How was it being said? The speech was written on a banner, which is a neutral way of communicating speech. How the speech was being communicated may have been more of an issue had the student stripped naked and wrote “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” on his buttocks. Where was it being said? The banner was unraveled at a school-sponsored event on a public sidewalk in front of the school. The Supreme Court has historically held that student speech at school can be limited, see the cases Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1968) and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). The Court held that the speech in question was “school speech” because it was held at a school-sponsored event. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case seemingly expands student speech restrictions to locations outside the schoolhouse gates. In conclusion, the United States Supreme Court refused to expand student speech rights in this case because the speech in question was not of the type that is highly protected, but to the contrary, it is speech tending to promote illegal activity. The opinion emphasized the government's "important--indeed, perhaps compelling interest" in deterring drug use by students. The opinion concluded that the principal's actions were motivated by a "serious and palpable" danger of drug abuse. This article was written by <A>Philadelphia Personal Injury Lawyer</A> Douglas Whalen, he maintains a current legal news review blog at <A href="http://www.legalnewsreview.com">www.legalnewsreview.com</A> </div>

<p align=center>Article source: <a href="http://www.ArticlePros.com/legal/rights/article-83591.html">ArticlePros.com</a></p>
 
<table align=center width=550 cellspacing=1 bgcolor=silver cellpadding=5>
<tr bgcolor=antiquewhite>
	<td>
		<p align=center><b>About the author</b></p>
		<p align=justify>Douglas Whalen is an attorney in Pennsylvania concentrating his practice on Personal Injury, Commercial Litigation and Family Law.</p>
		<p align=left><a href="www.legalnewsreview.com" target="_blank" title="will open in new window" class=blue>www.legalnewsreview.com</a></p>				<p align=center><input type=button class=asubm value="Other articles by Douglas Whalen" onclick="document.location='http://www.ArticlePros.com/author.php?Douglas Whalen'" style="height:20px;cursor:hand"></p>
	</td>
</tr>
</table>