‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ Case Update
Supreme Court watchers, myself included, have felt from the outset that the high court would rule against the government in the now notorious “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case. There’s nothing to change that view based on yesterday’s oral arguments.
If you’re unfamiliar with the case, it involves Juneau, Alaska, student Joseph Frederick, who was suspended from high school in 2002 after he unfurled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesusâ€? across from the school while the Olympic torch passed by.
Frederick said the banner was a joke and a publicity stunt and sued the school district over his suspension.
Frederick’s position was affirmed by an appeals court, which ruled that the school principal had violated his First Amendment rights, but the district — with the help of Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), took the case to the Supreme Court.
Marty Lederman writes at SCOTUSBlog that only Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia seemed to be persuaded by Starr’s argument that that a school district can suppress any student speech “inconsistent with the school’s basic educational mission.”
There are some strange bedfellows involved in the case, notably religious groups that once were in Starr’s thrall who are siding with Frederick and civil libertarians because they fear that schools will punish students who talk about their religious beliefs.
Stay tuned.
16 Responses to “‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ Case Update”
This really isn’t even the most troubling ‘rights’ case argued at SCOTUS yesterday.
If you want to read about a REAL power grab, and hubris of an unbelievable magnitude, check this out: This Is My Land
This really deserves a front page treatment, in the MSM and on TMV, IMHO.
This is even more threatening to everyone’s rights if the government somehow prevails in their argument that there is no ‘right against retaliation by the government’ for asserting your Constitutional Rights against the government.
This is a strange case by which to test our freedoms. At the core, it seems so petty.
The boy wasn’t on school grounds.
The suspension was only for 10 days.
Couldn’t they just all get along?
Their signs make them look as ridiculously stupid as the subject of the lawsuit. “4″ is not a substitute for the word “for.”
DLS, they are basing their signs on the sign in question, which said “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS”.
I really hope that the student wins this one… You are supposed to learn how to think in school, not what to think…
Both very interesting cases, thanks Shaun and Austin for drawing my attention.
The “This is My Land” Case seems to be a bit less clear cut to me, because the ruling in question is NOT the ruling which declares that Robbins has freedom to choose his own easements without fear of retaliation.
Rather, Robbins in turn sued the individual government official which played “hardball” with him. This seems like a fine line to tread, and changes the status quo quite a bit.
For example, the famous Capone case, where Capone was finally indicted on tax evasion rather than the numerous murders etc that he was associated with. A good defense lawyer, if Robbins were to win, would sue the prosecutor personally, saying he had an “intention to extort” Capone by throwing the book at him for a relatively minor charge. Given Robbins, the case could not be thrown out directly, but rather you would have to have some hearing to determine if the “intent to extort” existed or not. That seems like a step too far.
I’m sure there is a way to word the ruling which draws a line between these two types of events, but it would certainly be a tough case to adjudicate.
Matt said:
> DLS, they are basing their signs
> on the sign in question, which said
> “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS�.
I know that. In this case it is a PR stunt.
It also is stupid. Too many people actually write that way, intentionally, even seriously (beyond a mere matter of [poor] style), rather than as a gimmick or stunt.
(They also misuse “2″ for “to” or “too.”)
Public schools are becoming ungovernable because of the erosion of authority due to excessive litigation that makes schools playgrounds for crime and everything except learning.
Kevin – the issue here is that Robbins exercised his rights, and then was threatened and harassed by a government representative acting within the confines of their office.
The government’s position in this case was clearly stated as there being neither an implied right of denial of use in the 5th Amendment, nor protection against retaliation by the government. If this goes the government’s way, then it is not only worse than Kelo, but extending that logic (no protection from government retaliation in the Constitution) guts the protection of ALL Amendments.
What would prevent the government from using all means at its disposal to nail you for every ticky-tack violation they can to get you to capitulate on any exercise of your constitutional rights?
Austin, the question comes in because Robbins isn’t suing the government, he’s suing the official.
The government actually has 3 arguments (see pg 2), the one you are strongly objecting to is the 3rd. I think your completely right on that front, although it is less clear to me as to why that particular amendment is the best proof as to why such an act is wrong. That might have to do with the acts that went beyond simply removing Robbin’s right of passage over government land, or some legal precedent I am unaware of.
What I find less clear cut is the first argument, where Robbin’s position is that the individual official can be held personally accountable (meaning if damages were to be awarded, he would pay them out of his own pocket, not the governments) for acts which did not directly benefit the official, but were taken (misguidedly for sure) on behalf of the government.
I think the second argument is some legalize end run around should they fail in the first argument…
It is the correct Amendment because this is an attempt at a taking (transferring right to use is classified as taking).
Maybe the kid should claim he left off part of the sign. It should have said, “Bong Hits 4, Jesus 9.”
just to play devil’s advocate, the amendment says “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” yet as far as I can tell the removal of the right of transport across federal land was well within the officials legal ability. It is his intent, not the legality of the act itself, which is at question under the RICO act.
Again, I don’t know everything about the case, it sounds like there might be other acts which flat out break the due process argument.
And, also, do you feel as strongly about the 1st argument posed by the government? Should officials be held personally responsible for acts they perform on behalf of the government?
daveinboca, do you really think this is a crime?
I think my favorite (read most thought provoking) part of the SCOTUSblog linked would have to be:
HA! In doing more reading on the BH4J case, I’ve found that we have a similar underlying issue. Frederick is also asking that the principal be held personally financially responsible for her actions.
Again that seems to be taking things a step too far to me. I want a principal who is willing to do what they think is right, even if it is wrong in the end, without worrying that they will loose their house and be unable to send their kids to college if a court disagrees with them.
I think damages are usually excessive in our legal system, and certainly I think those damages should be payed by the state, not the official who is just doing their job, even if they are doing it poorly. Imagine if you screwed up a spread sheet for your company and then suddenly they send you a bill for the cost of fixing the mistake.
What is Frederick suing for? Was it because his sign was taken down, or for being suspended? In school we are studying this and I was assigned the par of Morse and I don’t comprehend what Fredrick is suing for
please help