"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" can reasonably be interpreted as promoting drug use, and therefore should not be considered 'protected speech' as defined by the US Constitution.
By
Ralph Leyland
on June 25, 2007
If you agree with this claim, you'll be pleased with the ruling of the US Supreme Court today.
The question of whether this banner was also promoting religion apparently never came up.
1
27
3.6% 96.4%
Embed Claim
Make a related claim
Claims inspired by this one
Similar claims
- 52-3 The DMCA is unconstitutional.
- 6-75 South Park should not be allowed on broadcast television
- 19-5 US Patents should only apply inside the United States and its territories/possessions--not in foreign countries.
- 24-0 You don’t own somebody else’s opinion.
- 0-7 The Natural Family Boutique is a front for hateful homophobia.
Discussion (3)
True premise, false conclusion.
Bad SCOTUS. No biscuit.
D'A
Hmm... this claim as worded is not exactly as I would have agreed with it unconditionally. However, it still agree with it.
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" crosses two boundaries: (1) that of religion and (2) that of drug culture. Both sides of the SCOTUS ruling admit that the message being sent is cryptic. As such, it does become the judgment call of the principal, who, I would say, has to err on the side of caution regarding the Code of Conduct that was in place and spoke to the very issue of disruptive behavior at school functions. Students assembled for an historic event is tantamount to a school-sponsored field trip (especially because it specifically permitted students that would be held under the compulsory education acts to be otherwise attending class). (Also note: the principal probably neglected to acquire permission slips for this event - although I saw no reference either way). That one student arrived directly at the event, immediately assuming a position amongst fellow students, etc.., implies that that student was taking part in the school-sponsored activity.
However, the benchmark by which this case should be considered is that of the situation of whether a group of non-students held that sign in front of the school. Many schools (in fact, I think all of them now) are drug-free school zones. Intentionally posting such a sign across the street from a school, regardless of the assembly of students, regardless of the passage of an Olympic torch, would still be reasonably considered as an attempt to contribute to the delinquency of minors, and would certainly disrupt to educational process - which has significant legal precedence protect the right to an education.
I'm not sure that the SCOTUS argued well for this case, but I do support its ultimately ruling.
In fact, it is even regardless of the boundaries cross by the sign - just that a boundary has been crossed.