Ok so the other day the Supreme Court decided that the boy who hung a banner across the street from a school was to get punished. The banner read, Bong Hits for Jesus. While this may be inappropriate and immature on his part, I don't believe he should get in trouble for this. He was not on campus, and the reason they gave was that it could be interpreted as promoting drugs. Well I don't think that's a good enough reason, what does everybody else think?

While i agree it was juvenile and immature, i think he got what he deserved. But the excuse that was use to justify it was way out of line. Even this moment i may be irrational because i am a christian and what that boy did offends me greatly, but he WAS in the wrong. You know this freedom of speech crap is really getting on my nerves. Everyone complains to the government about the speech oppression they get. Yet when someone wants anonymity and someone tells, if someone leaks info, if someone told a lie, everyone gets upset about that but hey, the perps are just exercising their 'freedom of speech'. If some one tells a national secret to the enemy, their just exercising their 'freedom of speech'. But don't no one come to their defense, no they condemn them. So what makes this 'Bong J.C' guy any different than any of the perps that have seriously hurt people. Everything has a limit and when you cross the line you get hurt. Like that butt mentioned above.

__________________
What it do?

We already have limits on free speech. I believe if the banner was not across the street from the school, it still may have run into problems according to whatever laws/rules they have in that jurisdiction in regards to signs. I seriously doubt that banners promoting illegal activity are protected speech most places. Had the banner read "Legalize Pot", and assuming the local laws didn't restrict the size, I would be on the kid's side.

On this forum, we try to restrict posts that are merely meant to inflame other members - otherwise, we are open to all kinds of opinions and ideas. I believe the banner was not intended to convey an idea or opinion, but merely meant to offend others.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

The judges also said because the banner was shown during a school-sanctioned activity during school hours, and that, basically, the constitutional right to free speech doesn't apply to students in public schools.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.