home

Bong Hits For Jesus: Who Has The Movie Rights?

The case of the Juneau, Alaska high school student who was suspended from school for holding up a banner "Bong Hits for Jesus" when the Olympic torch was run through the town can only be described as idiotic. I understand why Frederick is fighting the suspension and why the ACLU is fighting the case. The idiots here are the Juneau high school principal, school board and of course, the DC based idiots - Kenneth Starr, who is representing the school board and the Supreme Court justices who voted to grant cert to this case.

Why is the case so stupid? Well, while there may be, in theory, some important First Amendment principles in play - the famous admonition "students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate" has been bandied about a great deal; . . . the problem is Frederick was OUTSIDE the school house gate. He was NOT in school, not on school grounds, not on a school activity. HE was doing nothing related to school at all! How did this case get to the Supreme Court?

Apparently, one of Frederick's motivations in all this was "to get under the skin of his disciplinarian principal, Deborah Morse, with whom he had a running feud." He certainly knew his enemy. He got her goat. And apparently being an idiot, she gave him what he wanted. Not only TV time, but he was the coolest guy in school. And she is the modern day Dean Wormer.

So let's cast this movie. Who's the principal? Who's Ken Starr? And of course, who is the star, Joseph Frederick, who deserves it for so well sizing up his adversary and achieving his aims. He had a lot of help from a lot of idiots on the way - up to and including four Justices of the Supreme Court who voted to grant cert. Congratulations to all for exposing yourselves. Joseph Frederick has pinned a tail (and a tale) on the lot of them.

< Justice and Death in Indiana | The Out of Iraq Blogger Caucus Or "Idiot Liberals" of the World Unite! >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Why? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:57:13 AM EST
    How did this case get to the Supreme Court?

    Because nothing gets the square's knickers in a bunch like flaunting marijuana use.  

    And the scary part is the high court might rule against the kid because he chose "bong hits for jesus" instead of "cluster bombs for jesus". Some commentary I caught on the news was saying since the sign advocated the use of illegal drugs, the school might win on those grounds, and that would be bad news for the 1st.

    HAHAHA (none / 0) (#6)
    by peacrevol on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 04:01:10 PM EST
    The square knickers? hahahahahaha

    Not as a reply necessarily to what Kdog said, but how does a high school in Alaska have enough money to pay Ken Star to represent them? He's not going to court for them because he thinks they're ethically/morally right or whatever.

    Parent

    Starr (none / 0) (#9)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 04:42:07 PM EST
    Judge Starr, or Dean Starr, or whatever-title-you-care-to-use Starr took the case pro bono.

    Parent
    Not exactly (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:32:49 PM EST
    starr's wrongwing firm is paying him and several associates for their time while they fight the case. Not to mention Bush et al are fighting for this assault on free speech. The free speech was made by a teen while not on school time, while not on school property.

    So please don't spread the meme that starr went all the way to Alaska to defend a poor downtrodden principal for a principle.

    BTW, starr's 'firm' is Kirkland & Ellis, packed full of neocons and bushies who are just using this case to further their continued assault on the Constitution.

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#26)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:07:27 AM EST
    Sailor, the term "pro bono" means they're doin' this case for free. The link you provide explains that.

    Parent
    Starr and the associates (none / 0) (#33)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:57:28 AM EST
    are not doing it for free. The firm may be 'pro bono', to further their rightwing neocon agenda, but starr and the boys are getting paid.

    Parent
    no kidding! (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:58:13 AM EST
    when i first read about this, i was simply amazed. and yet, not. clearly, this principal has far exceeded her authority, certainly her mental capacity. why the school system continued to push this, instead of just quietly reinstating him, is a mystery.

    how much, in taxpayer dollars, has this cost, do you suppose. and, when the school system ultimately loses, how much more is the civil suit for damages going to cost them?

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by rdandrea on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 12:51:10 PM EST
    The principal, Nancy Grace.  She can be all preachy behind her false eyelashes.  Nobody does it better. Ken Starr?  Fred Thompson.  A TV lawyer is a TV lawyer.  The kid?  "Screech" from Saved By The Bell.  He's still in character, and besides, he needs the payday.

    Nancy Grace (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:10:23 PM EST
    Ex cellent.

    For Starr I like Paul Giamatti, doing his Pig Vomit turn.

    Parent

    That's pretty good. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:27:53 PM EST
    I hadn't given this much thought (because I hate the game "What actor would play so-and-so"), but I think you're on to something with Giamatti for Starr. Starr is soft spoken and deliberate in his speech and writing, a quality we've seen Giamatti portray well on screen (at least as far as speech, anyways). They've both got the ability to speak in a methodical fashion without giving the impression that they're just dim-witted.

    Parent
    Ken Starr's agenda (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Pete Guither on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 04:33:32 PM EST
    He's made it very clear, and the U.S. Government has joined him on this:  they want nothing less than the ability for schools to set agendas and stifle any speech that doesn't fall in line with that agenda.  The justices clearly won't go that far - Justice Alito was horrified:
    Well, that's a very -- I find that a very, a very disturbing argument, because schools have and they can defined their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all sorts of political speech and speech expressing fundamental values of the students, under the banner of, of -- of getting rid of speech that's inconsistent with educational missions.

    More information available here.

    I'm not much on paying attention (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 04:58:17 PM EST
    to high school students. It is exceedingly rare when anyone of them has anything to say of importance.

    This is not a rare instance.

    yer right (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jen M on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 05:28:02 PM EST
    it wasn't worth paying attention to at all.

    So why is it at the supreme court? Why Ken Starr?

    Why so much attention?

    Parent

    As Big Tent Democrat says frequently, (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 05:38:30 PM EST
    As Big Tent Democrat says frequently,

    "As usual, I speak only for myself."

    ;-)

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Jen M on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 05:44:08 PM EST
    that kid is going to live forever in local HS legend

    Parent
    Jen M (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:24:33 AM EST
    Or at least until the 10th class reunion, which ever comes first...

    My favorite Al Bundy quote:

    "I scored four touchdowns against Pope Highschool!"

    ;-)

    Parent

    yeah, getting a free speech case ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:00:02 AM EST
    ... all the way to the supreme court is just like being a faded high school athlete.


    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#31)
    by peacrevol on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:16:11 AM EST
    It has to do with pot and our society is so scared of pot that any time it's mentioned publicly, they have to nip it in the "bud".

    Parent
    What is this all about? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 06:15:32 PM EST
    Okay, because we've all been wondering what the hell is going on with this case, I decided to glance at the Ninth Circuit decision and the briefs before the Supreme Court.

    The Ninth Circuit decision can be found here (PDF). The briefs I could find are the petitioner-school board here (PDF) and the respondent-student here.

    The first thing that becomes clear is that there is no agreement on the facts of the case. This disagreement is at the heart of the dispute and, I believe one of the reasons this case has made it so far. The other reason is that the Ninth Circuit decision has some important implications for the doctrine of qualified immunity.

    The Ninth Circuit opinion refers to the event (which was the passing of the Olympic Torch) as "partially supervised by the school". Respondent claims that the event was not a school event at all. Petitioner claims that the event was a "school activity." Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit got the case on appeal from the summary judgement of the district court, so the facts were never really nailed down.

    The Supreme Court (which is reviewing the Ninth Circuit's decision) will be stuck with this:

    One amicus...argues that we should analyze this not as a student speech case, but simply as speech on a public sidewalk. Were this factually such a case, the law would be easy indeed, but the facts established by the submissions on summary judgment make this a student speech case. Even though Frederick never got to school that morning, that was only because he got stuck in his driveway because of the snow. School had started and the students were released to watch the Olympic torch pass. And even though supervision of most students was minimal or nonexistent, the school could have supervised them more if it chose to, as it did with the gym class and perhaps the pep band and cheerleaders. Frederick was a student, and school was in session.

    There are three main precedents that the Court will have to deal with. First, under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, high school students' First Amendment rights are only restricted if the student speech "substantially interferes with the work of the school or impinges on the rights of other students." Here, petitioner argues that the pro-drug message is substantial interference. Respondent argues that there was no disruption or interference caused by the sign, which wasn't even chosen for its pro-drug message. Petitioner also draws attention to the fact that the students involved specifically chose an inflamatory sign for display exactly when the nationally broadcasting TV crew came by.

    More to come, but I have class now.

    Briefs (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Pete Guither on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:02:31 AM EST
    Gabriel,  I have all the briefs for the case here

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 07:22:54 PM EST
    HE never went to school and was NOT supervised by the school.

    This is all  BS.

    No school relationship at all.

    Parent

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 07:34:58 PM EST
    BTD, you have accurately described the factual problem. Apparently, the Ninth Circuit believes that the mere fact that a school has minimal or even nonexistent supervision is enough to make an event a "school activity."

    Also, I've discovered how Ken Starr got on the case. Pepperdine Law professor Doug Kmiec represented the school district in front of the Ninth Circuit. When they decided to appeal, he must have asked his boss, Dean Starr, to get involved.

    Parent

    The Jesus"offends me. Not Christian (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by mckimj on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:33:59 PM EST


    dada (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:40:23 PM EST
    'Bong Hits for Jesus' is clearly a nonsense phrase.

    Telling that Bush thinks it means something and thar the religious right is agin' him.

    Truly dada

    i read the school board brief (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:03:45 AM EST
    frankly, i see a huge, gaping hole in their position: they agree that the student was absent from school that day. the reason is irrelevant, for purposes of the issue at hand. the fact is, according to school policies country wide, you cannot participate in a school sponsored activity, if you're absent from school on the day of the activity.

    this means that, though the student placed himself in the area where the officially sanctioned other students were located, he himself couldn't possibly be part of it.

    i posit that, for the school to argue otherwise, negates their own stated rules and regulations. you can't have it both ways, only when it's for the convenience of the school. what they should have done was punish him for his unexcused absence, not unfurling the banner.

    is it absolutely required that you be an idiot to be a high school principal in the U.S., or only a secondary consideration in employment?

    i'd have to agree with BTD's position on this.

    OH and (none / 0) (#7)
    by peacrevol on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 04:11:22 PM EST
    What makes the Juneau HS people think they're talking about a controlled substance? Has anyone ever heard of a beer bong? Maybe it was their 21 year old Tejano buddy Jesus' (pronounced Hay-Soose) turn to hit the beer bong. The box they think in is really small and I dont think I like trying to fit in there with them.

    I never heard of someone... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 05:46:10 PM EST
    taking a beer-bong hit, peacrevol.  A bong hit can only mean one thing.

    I'm getting very nervous there will be a "reefer-speech" exemption to the 1st amendment when all is said and done.

    On the merits, you'd think there is no way the kid could lose the case, but whenever reefer is involved, our government loses all sense of reason.  Supreme Court included.


    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#30)
    by peacrevol on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:11:18 AM EST
    In college we used to always say we were about to "hit up the beer bong". That is until it got a nickname. Then we called the beer bong Davis. This dude named Davis said he could bong six beers. He puked, as was the obvious solution. So then, we called the beer bong "Davis". Then we always said we were going to hit up Davis, or kick Davis' a$$, or take Davis out. We never heard from the person named Davis again. I dont know if he dropped out of college or if he was just too embarrassed to come around any more. Of course it wasnt that big of a deal, but we didnt really like that guy anyway, so we made it a big deal. You know, the idiocy of the humor of drunk college students. But anyway, long story short, we used to "hit" the beer bong much earlier in the night and then sometimes hit the hooka or ice bong later.

    But you're right about our courts always getting their panties in a wad about pot. They'll probably come up with some ridiculous finding that you cant mention pot within 1,000 feet of a place where there might possibly be anyone under the age of 25 or some stupid crap like that.

    Parent

    I stand corrected..... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:30:05 AM EST
    In my circles, you did a beer-bong or took a bong hit, we never said "hit the beer bong".

    I always passed on the beer-bongs anyway....I like to sip my beer.  Never passed on a bong hit though:)

    Parent

    Please pay attention (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 05:40:39 PM EST
    Please note that I did not write one little word about his rights.

    Or his abilities, or lack thereof,  to say something of importance.

    You have "attention" to get? (1.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:38:09 AM EST
    Who knew??

    But just because you are my oldest and worst friend.... I will explain..

    My comment was directed at the school system, and the BS of even bothering with this.

    I expanded it with my comment about "speak for myself" in response to Jen M..

    And further expanded it when I noted in 10 years his actions, if left alone, would be meaningless.

    Do you problems with all complex things???

    Perhaps you need more "attention."

    Ta Ta

    Parent

    H.S students (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:00:50 PM EST
    aren't worth paying attention to unless its to utilize them to fight chickenhawks dirty little wars.

    I know them! (none / 0) (#36)
    by Joyce on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 02:21:50 AM EST
    Great! I heard they were going to make a moive about Joe and Frank (the Dad who got fired), this is so cool! I had no idea the two people we often have cheap beer and BBQ with are so famous in the US, well ofcourse, i knewthe story already, from Joe and Frank! I must say that these guys are really cool!