Bong Hits For Jesus

Discussions full of RAGE!
gulliver
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:39 am

Post by gulliver »

krampus wrote:Children in public schools should not have the same rights as adults, however when you start limiting what beliefs they can express you begin to enter a scary scary world. Especially when it comes down to "any speech with which they disagree". Imagine the poor kids in Kansas.
But the kid was not in school that day, was not on school property, and was attending a public event.
Day
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:21 pm

Post by Day »

Have any doubts about what would have happened if the banner had said -
SHOT & A BEER 4 Mohammed ?

How long before we heard the call HATE CRIME!!! ?

Just asking, dude.
Last edited by Day on Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
pigsteak
Posts: 9684
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 6:49 pm

Post by pigsteak »

Day makes the point which we should all be concerned about. There are limits on free speech to all of us. We accept those limits, many times without realizing it.

Remember the recent events with that Baptist church from Kansas protesting funerals for iraq soldiers and abortion clinics? Does any reasonable person on here think those religious nuts should go unchecked? Not I.....of course, let them have their public say, but balance it against the rights of the families...

So to those of you who say there is no argument, be ready to stand up for this kid, war protestors, gay bashers, hate mongers, KKK, liberal nut jobs, right wing loonies, AND every other crazy vocalization if ideas.
Like any great idea, "free speech" can be taken too far.

(In this case, BTW, this kid appears to be well within his rights)
Positive vibes brah...positive vibes.
charlie
Posts: 3219
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 4:55 pm

Post by charlie »

It's not a freedom of speech argument, unless it's over 1000 ft away from the school. If an innocent illicit pot deal could be a felony when it's in that range it sets a precedent for lines being drawn outside school property.

Same sign, down the street, could be considered a freedom of speech issue and he can hang the "bonghits for jesus while hanging [insert racist insult you prefer] from a tree" signs and I'd defend that right to the fullest extent of my power (and motivation).

Granted, as a citizen, I also reserve to 'right' to beat the crap out of Kansas homophobes any time I please. Uncivil disobedience is right!
Last edited by charlie on Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
dmw
Posts: 2104
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:48 pm

Post by dmw »

this nonsense about schools "getting limitless discretion to craft broad educationional missions" and also to be allowed to "squelch any student speech that undermines them" is really freaky.
but let's be honest.... did the kid deserve to be suspended? i don't think so. should the principal have to pay money damages to the kid? hard to say... but i don't think so....
rhunt
Posts: 3202
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:02 pm

Post by rhunt »

right so the whole point of this issue is what the banner said and how this kid was punished. I think the kid is brilliant. My guess, he knew exactly how the "adults" would respond to his banner and now is taking those adults to court. I love it, this kid will probably be president someday.
"Climbing is the spice, not the meal." ~ Lurkist
gulliver
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:39 am

Post by gulliver »

from Rueters
" A Bush administration lawyer, Edwin Kneedler, argued for a broad rule that public schools do not have to tolerate a message inconsistent with its basic educational mission.

"I find that a very, very disturbing argument," Justice Samuel Alito said, adding that schools could define their educational mission so broadly to suppress political speech and speech expressing fundamental student values.

Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Kneedler if the principal could have required the banner be taken down if it had said "vote Republican, vote Democrat."

Kneedler replied the principal has that authority."
I think that's funny! It's like the justices plopped a bear trap out in front of him and the lawyer thought it wouldn't take off his leg.
User avatar
pigsteak
Posts: 9684
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 6:49 pm

Post by pigsteak »

charlie, now I am confused. let's take Zspider for example. Should he be able to post anything he wants on here, even when it is hurtful to select individuals? I would say no, that censorship can be a good thing.

Are you telling me you would defend his "right" to say anything he chooses in a pubic forum?
Positive vibes brah...positive vibes.
User avatar
krampus
Posts: 3933
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:31 am

Post by krampus »

depends if its the suck forum or not, the rules are clearly labled
How you compare may not be as important as to whom you are compared
charlie
Posts: 3219
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 4:55 pm

Post by charlie »

pigsteak that's a pretty lame attempt, you can do better than that. This is not the public arena. Ray and Michelle pay the bills around here I didn't read anything about free speech when I registered.

Aside from that, like Kansas homophobes I reserve my ability to blast a general lack of courtesy. He wants to start his own low class bbs let him do it. This ain't b.com but I like that it's out there.
Post Reply