|
Bong Hits for Jesus Ruling
Opinions on politics, sports, and current events.
|
Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 October
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
My Links
Old Bull's Club
Oregon State Football
Gonzaga Bulldogs
Alaskan Republican Party
National Rifle Assc.
Anchorage Daily News
Cuban Cigars
Yahoo
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Bong Hits for Jesus Ruling |
| 06.26.07 (9:26 am) [edit] |
|
The Supreme Court finally issued its ruling on this freedom of speech case. I must admit that even I am surprised at their decision. Let’s break it down. First, the Justices decided that the parade was indeed a school sanctioned event. The students were let out of school to witness the parade. This decision is questionable to me. Second, though it was vague, the Justices ruled that the banner could be interpreted as promoting drug use. I tend to agree with this portion of the ruling. Even though the kid said that was not his intent, the Justices saw through his lies. Third, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s (again) decision that the principal could be held personably liable in her actions. This is one portion of the decision that I whole heartedly agree with. You just can’t have public officials running scared when they enforce policy, worried about being personally sued. Their job is to enforce the policies handed down by the school board. If they stray from the policy then it’s another issue. But clearly in this case the woman did nothing wrong. Fourth, and finally, the Court basically said that as a student, you check some (not all) of your freedoms at the school house door in terms of the administration’s ability to maintain order and a constructive learning environment. Again, I don’t have a problem with this either.
My first knee jerk reaction to this case was to toss the brat out on his ear. He clearly misrepresented himself in front of the courts as to his original intentions. This was merely a stunt to shock people with a stupid banner that got turned into a freedom of speech case once the ACLU got a hold of it. So in that regard, I’m glad the Court slapped the ACLU on its wrists. But I am still leaning toward the kid and the ACLU on the issue of where it occurred. He was clearly not on school property, and not under school supervision (in my opinion). So I’m still a little on the fence in this situation. But, I support the Court’s decision and thought they explained it well.
To me, the real importance of this case was two fold. One is to support a public employee who was simply enforcing public policy. And two was to send a message to punks like him that, yeah, you have freedom of speech, but even that is taken too far when it promotes drug use during a school activity.
A tough issue that I think was fairly resolved. And once again, the 9nth Circuit got slapped around! Hahahahaha.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
|
|
