Read the coverage of the Supreme Court hearing, and answer the questions below. Post them as comments to this blogpost.
1. In addition to freedom of speech, what other issues of fact and law did the lawyers and justices raise? List as many as you can?
2. What do *you* think the controlling (main) issue is?
3. If you were on the Supreme Court, how would you rule on it? How would you decide the case?
4. Why? (Or, to speak like a lawyer, what's your legal rationale?
A weblog for Pete Ellertsen's mass communications students at Benedictine University Springfield.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(136)
-
▼
March
(11)
- COM 209: Good 'color story' on Obama
- COM 150: Discussion question, TV and reality
- COMM 317: Libel and New York Times v. Sullivan
- COM 150 -- No, read this YouTube post last
- COM 150: Read this YouTube ad post last. But read it!
- COM 150: YouTube hit artist 'fesses up
- COM 150: Gatekeepers, Hillary and YouTube
- Bong Hits 4 COMM 317
- COMM 150, 209, 317: Free speech, drugs, "Bong Hits...
- Quiz -- COMM 150 -- 500 extra credit points
- COMM 209 -- on the record, off the record
-
▼
March
(11)
About Me
- Pete
- Springfield (Ill.), United States
- I'm a retired English, journalism and cultural studies teacher at Springfield College in Illinois (acquired by Benedictine University and subsequently closed). I coordinate jam sessions for the "Clayville Pioneer Academy of Music" at Clayville Historic Site and the Prairieland Strings dulcimer club, and I sing in the choir and the contemporary praise team at Peace Lutheran Church in Springfield. On Hogfiddle I post links and video clips for our sessions and workshops on the mountain dulcimer (a.k.a. "hog fiddle"), as well as research notes on folklore and cultural studies, hymnody and traditional Anglo-Celtic and Scandinavian music. I also posted assignments and readings in my interdisciplinary humanities classes. The Mackerel Wrapper (now on hiatus), carried assignments and readings for my mass comm. students. I started teaching b/log when I chaired SCI-Benedictine's assessment committee, and reopened it as the privatization of public schools grew increasingly troubling and closer to home.
11 comments:
I don't know if I can post a link here. If I can, it's to a Beliefnet.com story on the Juneau High School case by Daniel Burke of the Religion News Service wire service. If not, you can find it by a keyword search on the headline: "'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' Case Finds Strange Legal Bedfellows."
1) -the principal argued that she is she was acting in accord with the school's anti-drug mission
-another question being raised is whether or not the student vilolated the drug-free school district policy
-the extent of how much power a school has over its students is up for question
-student's opinion and freedom to express their thoughts and opinions is also up for question, in that some are concerned that if the courts rule in honor of the school, students will therefore be silenced
2) I think the main issue is that the school was embarrassed that the media caught footage of the student held banner, and therefore has made it a drug-free policy violation issue, when in fact they are just trying to create a good name for their school
3) I would rule in agreement with the Circuit Court's decision
4) I don't believe the student violated any legal rights, and I think the fact that the case even went to court is ridiculous- he's a kid, and kids will be kids- this was just a prime example that happened to be caught on tape
1. other issues brought up were the schools drug policy and religion.
2. the main issue is freedom of speech without a doubt.
3. i rule in favor of the kid, this principal is just a man tryin to keep a brotha down.
4. i would rule this way because: 1) the banner was vaguely worded, if one hated jesus, then the banner could be construed as an anti drug sign, so it isnt clear that it advocates drug use. 2) the kid in question was off school property and had not been to the school before showing up to hold up his banner, so its none of the schools business what he does in his free time. maybe they could suspend him for skipping school, but not for holding a banner on his day off. 3) freedom of speech was violated by some douchebag principal
1. The content of the message was an issue. Did the mentioning of the bong violate the school districts policy by advocating drugs.
2. I think the issue is the disciplinary controll the school currently has over the students. If the court rules in the students favor other students may follow suit, and as a result the faculty will be powerless where the no drug policy is concerned.
3.I would rule in favor of the student, his constitutional rights were violated.
4.There is no real evidence that the sign was promoting drug use.
Here's another link ... to an analysis predicting "Justices may take centrist view of 'Bong Hits' case" by First Amendment Center legal correspondent Tony Mauro. Notice how he uses the Q&A during the high court hearing to predict how the court might rule in June.
1. In this case, other issues deal with the question of how much power does a school have to promote its anti-drug message? Another issue is the idea of religion being restricted if the school wins this ruling.
2. I think that the main issue is where the line must be drawn in terms of school's control of an anti-drug message.
3. I would rule in favor of Fredrick.
4. The reasoning for this would be because even though this incident happened during a school-sponsored event, it did not happen on school grounds and Fredrick did not appear at school that day. He had called in saying that his truck was stuck in the snow. During the parade, he was not there as a student, but rather as a citizen expressing his right of free speech.
Bong Hits for Jesus
1)other issues raised by lawyers and justices:whether if it effected the school b/c it was off grounds,viwepoint censorship,religion
2)I believe the main issue is whetehr or not the school took away his freedom of speech
3)I would penalize both sides
4)I think that the kid was old enough to know that it was a dumb move to show the bannner. He even admitted that he did it to sort of get back at his teachers,but in his defense it was off school grounds.
1. There were other issues that were brought up about religous and drug policies.
2. What the main issues is does Freddrick have the right for freedom of speech.
3. I would rule in favor of the principal.
4. The student in a way did violate his right of freedom of speech. He really should be punished because he could of protested in a different manner rather than holding a banner Bong Hits 4 Jesus. He could of found a different approuch.
1. Other issues that were brought up were the school's anti-drug policy and religion in schools.
2. The controlling main issue is definatly freedom of speech. The kid was not on school grounds and did not make reference to any sort of drug.
3. If I were to decide this case i would rule in favor of Joseph Frederick and say that his freedom of speech was violated by his principle and the school board and thinking it is their duty to punish a kid not even in there jurisdiction.
4. The incident was not on school grounds and it says that the kids were released from school for the day. the authority of the principle stops when school is not in session. the kid was not even on school grounds when this happened. the kid should win his case.
1. other issues brought up were drug policies, freedom of thought, and religion.
2.The main controlling issue is freedom of speech and embarassment of the school after they realized the bad publicity it would receive for being involved with this incident.
3. I would rule in favor of the kid with reference to the idea of freedom of speech in the constitution.
4. There was no evidence of real drug use being involved with the incident. The youth just spoke from his own mind, which is not against the law or constitution.
1. In addition to freedom of speech, what other issues of fact and law did the lawyers and justices raise? List as many as you can?
- The other issues are drug policy and religion.
2. What do *you* think the controlling (main) issue is?
- Freedom of Speech
3. If you were on the Supreme Court, how would you rule on it? How would you decide the case?
- I think this made the school look bad, but did he really do anything wrong? I don't know, i think I would have to real for him.
Post a Comment