Scenario: A student stands out the front of a high school with a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesusâ€.
Question: Should he be allowed to? Can the school expel him on the grounds that his message is “pro-drug”? Or is that a violation of his freedom of speech? Can the student sue the Principal of the school for violating his free speech?
This is a real case going on in Alaska at the moment. Education Week has great coverage here. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing the case and the justices are split.
For my money, this should be clear-cut – this is about speech, not drugs. Our public institutions, such as schools, may have anti-drug policies, but TALKING about drugs isn’t DOING drugs. It’s back to my argument about Nitschke. Our freedom to talk about subjects, as offensive as those subjects might be considered by certain members of society, is fundamental to a free society. As soon as we relax our stance on this issue, we’re on a slippery slope.
Your thoughts?
Theres no issue with Nitschke talking about Euthanasia. Teaching/instructing yes! Talking no. The way you could link Nitschke to this issue would be if the kid got up at the front of the room and showed how to take drugs because that is the reason that Nitchke’s book was banned, not because he was talking about the subject. I already proved that argument wrong when I showed you a link to a podcast/audio file of a segment that was on ABC radio where Phil discussed the subject very openly.
And while we are at it, what happen to your response to my the points that I brought up with regards to show 207 that was full of complete untruths?
Molly
I had a PC meltdown and lost your file molly. Can you re-send it?
As for Nitschke – the book was banned for reasons that I, personally, think are wrong. Again, it comes down to freedom of speech. Teaching, instructing, are both forms of speech. If people choose to listen and act on the teaching, then that’s up to them. But when we try to silence dissenters to the social norms, then we stand on the edge of the precipice.
Cam, if you stop saying “Freedom to Talk” and say “Freedom to teach” or “Freedom to instruct” I have no issue (apart from your linking to this story as they are entirely different).
Molly
PS. I will send you the file when I get a chance.
I would think Freedom of Speech includes teaching and instructing Molly. You disagree?
I believe you yourself agreed that illegal acts shouldn’t fall under Freedom of Speech. Oh, thats right, you only said that for the “Genuine crimes” not the fake, knock off of crimes.
So are you say the kid should have showed the other kids how to shoot up?
Molly
This is about more than just freedom of speech, it’s also about appropriate places to be speaking publicly. Holding a banner is a public statement and he’s doing this at school, not in a public park.
If this student’s display does damage to the reputation of a school, they should be able to put a stop to it. This happened at the celebration of the Olympic torch.
People also need to take some responsibility for behaving badly on purpose. If this kid did this in a park, I’d have no problem with it, but it’s pretty hard to imagine that he didn’t realise what impact this might have on his own school.
Personal responsibility is just as important as freedom of speech.
If someone did this outside their place of work, they’d be fired, no question and no one would think anything of it.
Molly – I said what? You’re just making shit up now.
Scienta – I’m all for personal responsibility but, sorry, that’s a furfy. Appropriateness and personal responsibility isn’t the issue here.
According to Wikipedia:
“The case involves Joseph Frederick, a then 18-year-old high school senior in Juneau, Alaska, now 24, 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.”
How does a banner across the road from a school damage the reputation of the school? Now, if the school had a rule that stated something about students not showing pro-drug or satirical banners within 1 km of the school and he did it, then fine. He has to take it on the cheek.
HOWEVER, according to Wikipedia:
“Morse initially suspended Joseph Frederick for five days for violating the school district’s anti-drug policy, but increased the suspension to 10 days after he refused to give the names of his fellow participants and quoted Thomas Jefferson on free speech.”
He was punished for violating their anti-drug policy. I haven’t seen the policy, but I’m assuming it doesn’t involve satirical banners.
But what is worse is that they INCREASED the punishment because he wouldn’t dob in his collaborators.
That’s appalling.
Cam: You comment is in regards to me saying you said that illegal acts shouldn’t fall under freedom of speech? Maybe you should listen to the crap that comes out of your mouth once in a while! Perhaps start with the dribble that you called show 207! (this is fun 😉
Don’t make me go back and transcribe the show!
Molly
Just to followup, as it appears as though you forgot, you made the Genuine Law comment in the part of your
dribblecomments about child pornography.Molly
BW 207 – approx 7:20min – If a genuine crime is committed in the act of producing the material……
Molly
different things Molly. illegal acts shouldn’t be talking. surely.
To scientaestubique – I don’t buy the “damage to the school’s reputation” argument. A good way to measure freedom cases is to apply the argument to a different set of words. The determination of the right to speak should apply whatever the message, excepting the accepted, classic “clear & present danger” scenario.
For example, replace the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” with “Desegregation Now!”. If the student was in a racially segregated high school in the early ’60’s, this banner would certainly hurt the reputation of the school, and be seen by many in the local community as inappropriate, thus failing your test. However, it would be hard to find a reasonable person today that would say a “Desegregate Now” banner should NOT be protected as free speech.
(Too bad the student in question couldn’t think of anything more important to say, but that’s his problem… What a waste of his 15 seconds of fame.)
Now, what if he’d wanted to say something awful… Some racist or Nazi slogan. Much as we might distain the content, whatever the test is, following the wisdom of the American Constitution, it should apply to all opinions.
Nor should a single argument based on policy “anti-drug” or “anti-hate” be used to limit speech. If we allow that, then we allow politicians & local authorities the power to determine what messages should be allowed to enter the “marketplace of ideas”. That is anti-Constitutional and dangerous.
a) First you should apologize for calling me a lier!
b) Not the argument that I am making. Until you get the Terror party up and in power, that is the law and therefor it is illegal! So by your test (depending on your famous “Genuine crime” comment) it is illegal and therefor, by your test the censorship is valid. I would agree that the law however is wrong.
Molly
a) your statement was “you yourself agreed that illegal acts shouldn’t fall under Freedom of Speech”. I never said that at any time. What I said on the show was that “if a genuine crime is committed in the production of the material, then that is wrong. Taking pornographic photographs of children is different to TALKING about child pornography or even telling someone how to take pornographic photos of children.”
b) The point here, as you know, isn’t whether or not talking about a certain subject *is* against the law. The point is that it SHOULDN’T be against the law to talk, and that’s the reason the Frederick case is interesting. Laws should be there to protect us, not stop us from talking. And there are bad, immoral and corrupt laws. The role of the Supreme Court is to determine when those laws need to be changed.
a) Yes, “Taking pornographic photographs of children is different to TALKING about child pornography or even telling someone how to take pornographic photos of children”, I agree but it was shown, as one of your guests and I believe Phil has said that his book is illegal and therefore is the same as your point.
b) I haven’t fully got the entire handle on this case, but I feel I know enough to know that it isn’t the same case as the Perfect Pill as it isn’t illegal to write what the kid wrote but the Perfect Pill is illegal. Also the the kids sign had a stupid comment. The Perfect Pill allegedly has a recipe for creating a suicide pill!!!! Huge difference! The equivalence would if the kid was holding up a recipe for making Ice or something like that!
Molly
Molly
Dear Phillip and ‘Wiki Bitch’,
You pair are the biggest bunch of hair splitters…….. sheesh.
Havent you guys got more to worry about than something some dickhead did in 2002?
With the benefit of maturity I reckon he wishes he hadnt of done it now. These sort of things have a habit of following you around.
As I say to my kids.
“You are free in this world to think whatever you like, its what you do and say that makes all the difference.”
J
nope, I don’t have anything else to worry about. Molly? You?
This isnt about what the kid did, baldy. It’s about free speech.
I don’t have a lot to worry about. But come on, this is fun! You should try it.
Molly
Hang on, if we dont have any free will how can we have free speech ??
But no Im not going to get sucked in, I have Drawings to get out
J
Go on John, you know you want to be drawn in! Come on, just one more comment.
Molly