March 21, 2007

Bong Hits 4 Jesus
posted by es el Queso 17 years ago
  • In Jesus' defense, he had been hitting .294 over the past ten games. It is just that Bong had been red-hot versus lefties.
  • Yeah, I had this long and insightful comment all ready to go, but that's out the window now.
  • I fuck up way too many threads. Someone needs to banninate me.
  • well, i woulda preferred a poem from bees, but what can i do?
  • Bong hits 4 Pat Robertson.
  • Bernokle is a very hard name to haiku when I stoned. Heh.
  • There once was a man named Bernockle Who always went straight for the chockle The something goes here, And something more here, And wrap it all up with "debacle."
  • It is just that Bong had been red-hot versus lefties. I really want to have a beer with you.
  • "bernockle" and "debacle" really do rhyme nicely... *goes off in search of munchies*
  • Going to ruin the mood with serious discussion... I generally come down pretty firmly on the side of a very liberal interpretation of free speech, but I heard a discussion of this case the other night and there were some very salient points to the other side of the argument. First of all, while I have generally been appalled by the intolerant actions of various high school principles making the news the last few years, I do feel that they should have the ability to impose parental type limits on student behaviour, including disruptive and offensive speech, while on school facilities. The lawyers argued pretty persuasively that you can't dis-allow the Principle's ability to limit 'Bong hits for Jesus' without dis-allowing their ability to limit any speech. The other question to be decided in the case, which isn't making many news articles, is whether the Principle can be personally sued for doing their job, even if you don't happen to agree with their actions. Do you really want your school Principle to become that gunshy? Second-guessing and shying away from any decision that might get them financially ruined by a psychotic student or belligerent parent? Sounds a lot like an account I read not too long ago from a new teacher working at an inner city school where they weren't even allowed to break up fights because a couple of students had successfully sued the school board for mega-bucks. The teachers were just supposed to stand by and watch youngsters get violently assaulted, as happened frequently. You can imagine how poorly education was happening in that school.
  • Bong didn't hit..or did he.
  • Part of the problem with this case is that he wasn't on school property though it was a school sanctioned event.
  • The lawyers argued pretty persuasively that you can't dis-allow the Principle's ability to limit 'Bong hits for Jesus' without dis-allowing their ability to limit any speech. That's a false dichotomy, but even if it were true, the latter is definitely better than having no protections on speech. Do you really want your school Principle to become that gunshy? If by gunshy, you mean accountable, then yes. And he's not being sued for doing his job. He's being sued for overstepping his job, abusing his authority. Your question is like asking "do you really want cops become that gunshy?" when the topic is about a cop who abused his authority by pulling over attractive women and giving them the choice between a ticket or a date. Sounds a lot like an account I read not too long ago from a new teacher working at an inner city school where they weren't even allowed to break up fights because a couple of students had successfully sued the school board for mega-bucks. Link please. You can imagine how poorly education was happening in that school. ... Part of the problem with this case is that he wasn't on school property though it was a school sanctioned event. Not being on school property wouldn't matter, because of in loco parentis. But since he never showed up for school that morning, in loco parentis wouldn't apply (though I can see how the principle's attorneys could try to apply it).
  • You can imagine how poorly education was happening in that school Well, that just about says it all.
  • I had a T-shirt in high school that said: SHUTUP STUPID BITCH across the front of it in gigantic, bold, capital letters. I'd wear it to school all the time. My teachers and the office workers would comment on the shirt, telling me they liked it or wish they had that shirt. I had the principal ask me once, when I was walking past her, if I was "talking to her," referring to my shirt. I told her "What? No, it's just a cool shirt that everybody likes." and was on my way. Her handling of the "situation" was perfect. First, she didn't make it into a situation. Secondly, she created a test to see if the shirt was disruptive. She basically asked if I was trying to start shit with the shirt. If I was, then it was disruptive. But since I was using the shirt as a conversation starter (ironically), I was just being friendly. Later on, I went to a high school that would suspend a student for 5 days if they brought anything with calligraphy writing on it to school. I got into a lot of trouble at that school.
  • Don't think I'll be rushing out to add a copy of that shirt to my personal collection, Mr K, though it would obviously be great for dates and such. It seems to me that this case really hangs on a lot of details like what the school rules were, rather than on a constitutional principle. A principal may have the right to enforce a dress code and ban the expression of drug-related or religiously offensive sentiments at school, but whether that power was appropriately exercised here seems to me a contingent matter rather than one of principle. The fact that "Bong hits for Jesus" wasn't really a serious expression of any opinion sort of takes the edge off the ideological aspect somewhat further, IMO.
  • Honestly, the U.S. justice system must have plenty of free time on its hands if this sort of crap makes it to the Supreme Court. I would assign extra homework if I was in charge. Was this kid on the voter's register at the time of the offense? If he doesn't have the right to vote, does he have the right to free speech? children = seen children != heard Though I believe in free speech in principle, this is a facetious use of the protection: the kid was acting the maggot; it was funny but he should just take his punishment from the school principal and move on. In principle, I support the school principal's initial five-day suspension of the kid. I disagree with the school principal's doubling of the duration due to the kid's refusal to divulge the names of the other principals involved in the prank; the kid took a principled stand against ratting out his collaborators.
  • Monkeyfilter: acting the maggot
  • Sounds a lot like an account I read not too long ago from a new teacher working at an inner city school where they weren't even allowed to break up fights because a couple of students had successfully sued the school board for mega-bucks. Link please. No link, but I can tell you from experience that this was the policy in my school district in Florida. If a fight needed to be broken up (which happened frequently; I worked at a high school in an underserved neighborhood), you were supposed to find a security guard to do it.
  • Part of the problem with this case is that he wasn't on school property though it was a school sanctioned event. Man that's like the critical piece of information that wasn't in the article and now I'm still mad about it. *note to self: find sfgate article person and kick them* If it was a school-sanctioned event then the principal wins. Case closed *bang* And, on further review, bernockle ftFPw
  • That's a false dichotomy, but even if it were true, the latter is definitely better than having no protections on speech The argument was that if 'Bong hits' were allowed, the court was unlikely to provide much guidance as to what speech could be limited, leading to a confusing state of ambiguity that interfered with the goals of education in schools. And he's not being sued for doing his job. He's being sued for overstepping his job, abusing his authority. My question was not whether the Principle could/should be sued for abusing their authority, but whether it should be possible to sue them personally, as opposed to suing them as a school official acting in their employed position. To my mind the responsibility lies with the school board as employer of a Principle in question. Either they failed to give the Principle proper guidance as to school board policies, or the Principle was enforcing policies the Principle did not choose, or the school board hired and failed to police an incompetent Principle. Suing them personally can easily lead to personal financial ruin even in cases of exemplary Principle conduct, thus encouraging hesitance to act. And keep in mind that the actions the Principle is being sued for are tied directly to their job, not their person. The cop giving you a ticket has no personal authority to do sue. It lies solely with the official capacity that their body happens to occupy. Link please Sorry, can't remember. It was a few years ago in an article showing what a disaster No Child Left Behind was becoming, by incentivizing behaviour by schools that was often incompatible with effective learning. In short, lackluster school officials found it much easier to focus their limited energies on gaming the NCLB testing system, rather than actually teaching students. I had a T-shirt in high school that said: And I applaud your Principle for her handling of that situation, especially in respect to not limiting speech that was not interfering with the school environment, even though some might find it offensive. However, say the school was experiencing a problem with widespread misogyny amongst the student body. In such a case I would want the Principle to have the authority to limit the wearing of such a statement on school property or at school organized events. Man that's like the critical piece of information that wasn't in the article and now I'm still mad about it My feelings exactly. I was worried about exactly that circumstance and scanned a number of articles looking for clarification, only reluctantly concluding that the event must have occurred in a school environment, since no one made a mention of it. Idiots. However, the fact that it was a school sanctioned event is not good enough to limit a student's right to speech. School organized event is one thing. That's a class trip, meaning you're still in class. Teacher and Principle authority applies. School sanctioned event is almost meaningless. That encompasses anything the Principle/Teacher gave permission to leave school to attend. Key phrase being 'leaving school', to attend an event outside of school authority, thus the need to sanction the event. Once there, you're on your own. All normal freedoms apply, as do all normal risks. The school isn't responsible, nor can they govern your behaviour.
  • Hmm, good point re:school sanctioned.
  • Mr. Knickerbocker- I hadn't even thought about it that way good point. Though some articles I read called it a field trip but I think that is just lazy reporting. Also Nal- good point on school sanctioned
  • No link, but I can tell you from experience that this was the policy in my school district in Florida. I think most schools have the policy. I just wanted a link that had students suing and winning millions of dollars because of a school not having that policy. Though I believe in free speech in principle, this is a facetious use of the protection Because you only have the right to free speech if you really, really mean it? The right only applies if you are saying something serious, and you don't have the right to say something silly? The kid put up the banner, not to promote the cause of bong hits for Jesus, but to get something silly broadcast on international television. It also served to make the town/school/principal look bad. He is being punished not for disruptive speech, but for embarrassing the town/school/principal. The only thing disruptive was the school's decision to have the kids leave class to go watch the Olympics. There's not really anything the kid could do or say there that would disrupt education. And keep in mind that the actions the Principle is being sued for are tied directly to their job, not their person. The cop giving you a ticket has no personal authority to do sue. It lies solely with the official capacity that their body happens to occupy. I can't tell exactly what you're trying to say. It sounds like you don't think a principal/cop/whatever should ever be punished in anyway for abusing their authority, since you end up punishing them "personally". They aren't "personally" responsible for their actions, just "officially". School organized event is one thing. That's a class trip, meaning you're still in class. There's plenty of field trip's that aren't "organized" by the school. That can't really claim the school organized the Olympics. The school let the kids go on a field trip to the Olympics, in the same way that the school lets kids go on a field trip to the museum. They were still under supervision of the school. Like I said above, it's in loco parentis. The school is responsible for, and has authority over, kids until they return home from school. (It's this kind of authority that let's them bust up after school, off campus fights). But the student in question didn't go to school that day. He just showed up for the Olympic torch ceremony. By not showing up for class, he never fell under the school's authority that day. Though it kinda seems like the field trip was to go home, and watch the torch pass in front of your house. If that's the case, the school relinquished authority over every single one of the kids. In loco parentis expires the moment the kid walks through their own front door.
  • It sounds like you don't think a principal/cop/whatever should ever be punished in anyway for abusing their authority, since you end up punishing them "personally" No, they should be disciplined by their employer, or the employer should be sued. If the Principle's actions were in violation of school board policy, then discipline or fire the Principle. If the board fails to do so, or the Principle was enforcing school board policies, sue the school board. If the Principle's actions where so egregious as to be criminal, then file criminal charges. This does not seem an appropriate case for a personal suit in the civil courts. It seems like the sort of case that gives law suits a bad rep. That can't really claim the school organized the Olympics. The school let the kids go on a field trip to the Olympics, in the same way that the school lets kids go on a field trip to the museum I don't know what 'school sanctioned' events are like in your neck of the woods, but the words have completely different meaning in my experience. 'School organized' meant that the students are on a specifically planned outing while under supervision of school officials the entire time. The typical class trip. 'School sanctioned' meant that the school merely gave the students permission to leave school on their own in order to attend a specific event. It could be permission to stay home and watch the moon landing, or go to a local parade. It certainly did not mean that school officials would be supervising students, even if some limited number of school officials might be in attendance. Or might not. Thus in loco parentis did not apply. Some working parents specifically complained about this to my school board, demanding that the school provide the option for students to remain in a supervised classroom setting, because some parents did not want their kids out and about unsupervised during the day. (These were the same poor kids who were expected to be home a very specific number of minutes after school let out. Woe to them if the bus was late.)
  • It certainly did not mean that school officials would be supervising students Well, they were supervising the students in this particular case, so this would qualify as "school organized", under your definition. but the words have completely different meaning in my experience. Same with the term "class trip". Every time you've used it, it would be called a "field trip" in my neck of the woods. Class trips were once a year, overnight, possibly a week, kind of events.
  • I don't mean to be a pissant, but it's "principal." The principal is your pal (or so the theory goes). Continue.
  • I'm glad someone said it.
  • Yeah, I was a bit embarassed by that gaff.
  • I was trying to illustrate the Capt.'s point above. But it was perhaps too subtle, forcing the Capt. to be a pissant.
  • And, on further review, bernockle ftFPw I have no idea what this means.
  • More.
  • I'm sure you meant honour student. Interestingly, the World Health Organization commissioned a similar study comparing the health effects of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana a few years ago. The researchers came to the same conclusion, that pot is the least harmful of the three. The WHO told them they didn't like that conclusion and decided not to publish or release their report.
  • Awesome link, H-Dogg. Hope for the future may be justified after all.
  • Lost in all this political debate is whether Jesus indeed appreciates bong hits ripped in His name, and if so whether this is another example of government suppression of the truth.