Bong Hits For Jesus
By Nicole Belle Monday Jun 25, 2007 8:34pm
Oh that slippery slope of civil liberties lost just got a little steeper.
The phrase doesn't make any sense, and it wasn't supposed to. 18 year old high school senior Joseph Frederick unfurled the 14 foot banner on a public sidewalk across the street from the high school during a non-school event. High school administrator Deborah Morse confiscated the banner and suspended Frederick for "advocating drug use" evidently in view of other high school students.
As was the other decisions that came down yesterday, the Court was divided 5-4 with the conservative gang of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy in the majority. What's more interesting is the opinions of the minority and they attest to a court that doesn't even agree with what they are entrusted:
"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Chief Justice John Roberts said. But the school principal who suspended him "thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one," Roberts said in the majority opinion.[..]
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the ruling "does serious violence to the First Amendment."[..]
Former independent counsel Ken Starr, whose law firm represented the school principal, called it a narrow ruling that "should not be read more broadly."[..]
Justice Stephen Breyer said the court should not have decided the First Amendment issue, but should have simply held that Frederick's claim for monetary damages because school officials have qualified immunity in carrying out their duties.
You know that there's a problem when a Justice openly asks, "Why are we even hearing this case?"
Login or Register to post comments.
Corporations - "fictional persons" - have many rights and limited liabilities. But a student - an ACTUAL person - can't say something if his elders disapprove of the content.
The SCOTUS should STFU.
I find it hilarious that a kid made a BONG HITS FOR JESUS banner and winds up in a supreme court. Its like a bad comedy movie premise. I love it.
No offence to the kid, but I heard Jesus was more of a joint man.
It would be interesting to see what would happen should students attend class wearing shirts that read, "Zoloft for Jesus," "Oxycontin for Jesu" or "Viagra for Jesus."
Would they get suspended too?
The case alone should be a shining example of what damage the Supreme Court can do and is capable of if another Republican is allowed to hijack the next presidential election. The Federalists Society is certainly making its voice be heard in the Supreme Court. Roberts probably has another 40 years on the court, this country cannot afford any more right wing nut jobs being appointed to it.
I hate to agree with Ken Starr but the optimist in me can and wants to think this is currently a very narrow ruling. The problem, however, is that it can serve as a stepping stone for deciisons that more significantly erode 1st Amendment rights.
and yet they still allow the perfidious traitor Cheney to continue to occupy OUR White House, even though he declares he isn't a part of the government.
Conservatism!!!! Laugh????? I thought I would die!
It is my understanding that this WAS a school sponsored event, and as a LIBERAL middle school teacher I think this was an inappropriate banner, and does imply drug use. I mean come on - what else could "bong hits" mean?
Kida have more rights than adults in this day and age - it is time to start changing that around a little bit.
bong hits 4 jesus...hilarious!!
I guess "What's the frequency, Mary Jane" really would have gotten him in trouble...
Would the case have been different if the sign read "Anilingus for Allah"?
I agree with the courts finding that the school had a right to punish a student for essentially advocating drug usage during a school sponsored event. I also agree with Ken Starr that this ruling should be interpreted narrowly, given the specific circumstances.
WTF is wrong with me?!
But I do agree with Breyer that the Supreme Court probably shouldn't have ruled on the issue. It's not a significant ruling, certainly not compared to Tinker v Des Moines (1969), and I hope the neo-cons on the Court don't use it as a precedent to overrule Tinker v Des Moines.
One only read Kafka's "The Trial" to understand everything one needs to know about the Roberts court. Corporations may use the publicly owned multi-billion dollar broadcast spectrum to broadcast lies and propaganda at will, while private citizens can be curtailed by unelected officials from expressing their opinions if they do not conform to elite consensus. It is transparently obvious that access to the airwaves is not free. It is very expensive and must run through the ideological filters of its right leaning economic elite owners.
I agree with Jon. And yet I go further. They are punks, and smart-asses. It is an idiotic thing to do and does indeed glorify drug use to other kids. They are right now smugly giggling about it. I'd be ashamed if it was my son involved. Whoever pushed the argument up (probably the parents) need their asses kicked hard.
“The message on Frederick’s banner is cryptic,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. But the school principal who suspended him “thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one,” Roberts said in the majority opinion.[..]
So, it's not what Fredericks wrote, but how it could be interpreted, is what makes it illegal.
Can you say, THOUGHT POLICE.
What illegal drug was Fredericks alledgedly promoting????
Or was he just trying to save space?
It is evident from the picture of the sign and how the words "Hits 4" is written (even shortining "for" to "4"), that there was very limited space on the sign.
Clearly,
"Tobacco Water-Pipe Hits 4 Jesus"
would not have fit.
We have 5% of the world's population and consume 66% of the world's illicit drugs, since it's the only way to cope with the Bush administration.
Take a look at the Breyer dissent on Morse V. Frederick. Amazing and well worth a look.
In my judgment, the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students. This nonsense banner does neither, and the Court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding—indeed, lauding—a school’s decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed.
Can we call them Nazi's or Fascists now? It's freedom of speech, as long as you don't say too much...
“The message on Frederick’s banner is cryptic,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. But the school principal who suspended him “thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one,” Roberts said in the majority opinion.[..]
If they wanted to punish him for disturbing the peace, fine, but for this?
So what if they were promoting the use of marijuana? You can say and think whatever you want, so long as you do not act on it and so long as you do not disturb the peace and so long as you are not on someone's property who prohibits it.
Geez, and the right talks about "activist judges"...
By the way, this new comment system is:
1. Ugly
2. Awkward
3. Very slow
4. Always gives an error message
Jon @ 7:
In 2002, 18-year-old Joseph Frederick was suspended from the high school where he was a senior after he displayed a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" [sic] across the street from the school in Juneau, Alaska, during the Winter Olympics Torch Relay. It was not a school sponsored event!!!
I'll bet this is a republiKKKan.
Bobby Poulsen Says:
I agree with Jon. And yet I go further. They are punks, and smart-asses. It is an idiotic thing to do and does indeed glorify drug use to other kids. They are right now smugly giggling about it. I’d be ashamed if it was my son involved. Whoever pushed the argument up (probably the parents) need their asses kicked hard.
Total bullshit decision from a no-cred court
He probably deserved to be suspended... Promoting drug use is wrong.
What concerns me the most is that the school administrator confiscated the banner...
They weren't at a school sponsored event and not on school property and she took his personal property?
Anyone else see a problem with that?
I'll bet he voted for bush and is a republican.
Bobby Poulsen Says:
I agree with Jon. And yet I go further. They are punks, and smart-asses. It is an idiotic thing to do and does indeed glorify drug use to other kids. They are right now smugly giggling about it. I’d be ashamed if it was my son involved. Whoever pushed the argument up (probably the parents) need their asses kicked hard.
Kid should have put up a sign that said FUCK ME, JESUS!
.
bong hits for cheney's long life of quiet solitute in gitmo
Bummer, I'll bet that the Virginia Tech massacre would't have happened if what's his name was taking BONG HITS 4 JESUS and getting loaded instead of loading a gun, so it's bong hits for me and Jesus is welcome! I think that the Supreme Court is high on the bad drugs that Frist sold them but what do I know? Call your Doctor and ask if pot is right for you, just don't put yourself on the medical marijuana list because you're next.
It was not a school sponsored event!!! And not on school property. You people are ok with giving away our rights? Wake the F*CK UP!!!
What a bunch of TOOLS you are. What comes next, are we going to haul teenagers up before the Supreme Court for telling dirty jokes? If you humorless tight-ass sons of bitches are what pass for LIBERAL these days, then we truly ARE fucked. Advocating drug use? Some teenage kids put up a smartass banner. Yes they probably DID giggle about it, smugly even. Who gives a flying fuck? The only people advocating drug use are dull witless sourpusses like yourselves, who make me want to fire up a joint just for spite. GET LIVES
Judging from some of the remarks of these "Judges", it appears the USA is about to turn onto a rocky road, and i don't mean the ice cream.
Corporate Greed @ 27:
I think you're right. A few bong hits would've chilled that fuckwad right out.
I hope that Sandra Day O'Connor is happy. This is her doing, first by subverting the Constitution and not stopping chimpy from getting in the WH in the first place, and then by deciding (conveniently, after 4 years) to retire. Had she any conscience, she would have simply said that the Constitution has provisions for dealing with the scenario in 2000, and/or then taken the Chief Justice position when chimpy tried after Rehnquist died. We're stuck with Roberts and the conservative f*@ks who will, systematically, destroy the country as we know it. For instance, standing up for the corporations, and smacking down the individual.
What is it about freedom that scares conservatives? They just can't seem to handle the idea that free people are free to do stupid things, like hold up nonsensical signs at public events.
God help us all.
How about a banner reading "school-led prayer for Jesus"? School-led prayer is illegal. So since Roberts set the precedent, I guess you can have them punished too for supporting something illegal. Great decision, Roberts!
Wingnuts apparently have no cognitive ability to extrapolate the repercussions of an action. The are missing the "consequences" calculator in their gray matter.
thought police.
stay inside the of the lines. do not color outside of the lines.
there will be serious consequences if the color chart is not adhered to.
give complete attention to what we have given you. your curiosity will only be
appreciated within the context of what you are here to learn.
now repeat after me "a good worker is an attentive worker, the corporation
will look after me, and i will look after the corporation", and again.
i say we all get bong hits for jesus bumper stickers and t-shirts.
J² @ 32:
You hit the nail on the head. Just like the Weimar Republic, all it took was weak kneed "moderate" corporatists to unleash a Fascist tyranny on the world.
Itinerant @ 29:
Hey just because they CLAIM to be liberal-doesn't make them progressive or civil rights oriented. In fact, claiming to be liberal and then putting forth a polite yet specious argument advocating the removal of civil or human or constitutional rights is the mark of a concern troll.
Best left alone.
Miss kitty, I could not resist... the angel over my shoulder always says to leave the tools alone in the toolshed, but the devil tends to make a convincing argument for fighting fire with fire. :)
Jon @ 7:
Well, a lawyer might argue that it could mean physically hitting someone, in this case Jesus, with a bong type apparutus. It is indeed vague.
Personally, I think it's hillarious, allthough "Kanebosm for Jesus" would have been more accurate and possibly more arguable in court.
"Hey just because they CLAIM to be liberal-doesn’t make them progressive or civil rights oriented. In fact, claiming to be liberal and then putting forth a polite yet specious argument advocating the removal of civil or human or constitutional rights is the mark of a concern troll.
Best left alone."
Unfortunately Miss Kitty, there are two entirely different kinds of people who call themselves Liberal. There are the intrusive authoritarian nanny-state types who are obsessed with seatbelts, gun control and anti-smoking who could care less about the working class and the poor, and then the rest of us who advocate civil liberties, social responsibility, democracy, free-speech and the public commmons.
Stupid Kids.
Court of progressive justice indeed. Whats that mean, keep pushing it, regardless of the outcome?
So, are you all ready to concede that this country is completely FUCKED now?
And, you folks who use the latest buzz word "concern troll"....give the rest of us a break. You are so trendy its sickening.
odd .. i simply thought they wanted someone to hit a gong, or ring a bell ...
I mean seriously, they even said how many they wanted ... 4 ...
Liberal AND Proud @ 42:
Well, at least DUMBFUCKED.
Bobby Poulsen @ 43:
How about this: Nanny-State Liberal. Who needs, or wants you?
Bobby Poulsen @ 43:
Uh ok. Come up with some other word-as descriptive-for it. And blow me with all of your 'you folks this' and 'you folks that.' You are so jealous of our trendiness, it's sickening.
Jon @ 7:
And you are a teacher? Holly molly, no wonder the kids are ignorant!
Jon @ 7:
I'll grant you the last sentence. And I'll grant you that the banner was "inappropriate" (as in will offend people, which is legally meaningless), but the legal judgement was in the "I don't know how the hell I got onto this Supreme Court bench" category.
TRENDY CONCERN TROLL BONGHITS 4 JESUS!
Oh miss kitty, you make me barf. Jealous of your trendiness....Nay, you make me laugh! You don't get the point. The point is these are little butthole kids who refused to just ....."let it go" or compromise and live to fight another day over something really worth fighting for. But noooooooooo! They had to push it all the way up to a conservative supreme court with who's money?
Its a sickening turn of events. Did not have to happen. A waste of taxpayer money.
Nanny-State Liberal = Arbitrary authoritarian in Liberal clothing. Do not trust them. They are mere tools of the economic elite.
BP I'd say you are a concern troll. Only you aren't that good.
Even children who say things you may not like, have the right to free speech. Gimme a break!
Snowball, how old are your children?
Even children who say things you may not like, have the right to free speech. Gimme a break!
I'd fight for a bong hit any day! In fact, it might not be a bad idea to require everyone to experience an altered state of conscienceness for every citizen at least once. Maybe then, we woudn't have to deal with uptight ignorant assholes all the time.
Bobby Poulsen @ 51:
(The then-principal Deborah Morse ran across the street and seized The banner.)
What gives her the power to confiscate personal property, off school grounds, not sponsored by the school, and not during regular school hours?
My child is well into his twenties and doing just fine. Thank you very much!
However... There's no stopping these kids from putting the phrase all over some T-shirts and making it a permanent part of 00's Pop Culture...
Wait...Hopefully they already did it! : bonghitsforjesus.com
I'm buying one.
lafin gas @ 28:
Don't know about that lg. If the information presented in court is accurate (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=...) it was a school sponsored event (like a field trip). And the whole thing sounds like a pissing contest that got out of hand. If Fredrick and others were holding up a sign that said "Free Tibet" I would see it more of a free speech issue. But "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"?
Sounds more like a prank that failed. Along with a school administration more concern in asserting it's dominance over the kids than protecting their fragile little minds. (Which, from the docket document, sounds like the didn't have at the time. Probably because of the bad idea of having a bunch of high schoolers stand outside and wait for an event, in January, in friggin' Alaska!)
The principal asked the sign be dropped. But Fredrick has to show he's tough by claiming first amendment rights. So the school suspends the kid. But adds more days because he didn't name others involved. That made no sense since the issue was not the sign but Fredrick refusal to the principal to take the sign down. Again sounds more like the principal wanting to assert control over the kid. Fredrick ups the ante on this lousy deal by appealing the decision. Then his dad gets fired from his job over the appeal (totally wrong). It's like watching two drunks fight. A lot of bluster and no real winner.
All in all this is a pretty piss poor event to use to rally about free speech rights.
It's just too bad that these kids weren't fighting it out over a sign that said: "Fuck Bush!"
lafin gas @ 57:
Now you are talking more about seizing personal property, which is where the argument should have started, and ended.
Thing Fish @ 60:
OK it was "sanctioned" but not sponsored by the school, it was an Olympic torch relay, and so they get to be police now?
God knows that Jesus loved his bong hits. Praise Jesus! And Dick Cheney, too! Bong hits for Dick Cheney!!!
The whole drug use angle which anchors the Supreme Court decision and the justification offered by the school principal is completely disingenuous. Think about the petty authoritarians you have known in life and consider whether the principal would still have punished the student had his banner read "Air Freshener 4 Jesus!" (admittedly not nearly as pithy or funny, but still gets the joke across about the Olympic torch). Of course she would have come down hard on the kid. And the legal basis of the Supreme Court opinion would be nullified in that case. And therefore it's just about giving the petty authoritarians the authority to judge the content of students' speech. An embarassment of a ruling.
lafin gas @ 63:
I think one point from the ruling was teachers have more flexibility than police. From the docket: Teachers are neither lawyers nor police officers; and the law should not demand that they fully understand the intricacies of our First Amendment jurisprudence. I think that's a valid argument (even though it means I'm in some agreement with Breyer). Just my opinion, but a school, as an institution, has additional authority over students on top of what's proscribed by law.
Fredrick was just being provocative for the sake of provocation. If this was a free speech issue then he should have been able to explain what his point of his message. Rather than just saying it was something he saw on a snowboard. By not being able to do that he just makes a mockery out of the first amendment.
It would be ironic if these "anti-bong hit" judges enter the afterlife only to discover Jesus is pro ganga.
Not only would it be ironic, it would also be halarious.
f*ck us and the constitution of the USA
Butt Plugs For Bush!!!!!
Now available in assorted colors and textures at a Bal-Wart near you.
It actually was on school time as they were let out to watch the torch go by. In my school we do not allow any t-shirts/pins/signs that promote drugs and/or alcohol or are sexual in nature.
We also do not allow it on school trips, at school functions (such as dances or sporting events), or any event during school hours.
If you view this ruling as the end of free speech - get a goddamn clue.
carefulwiththatAXEeugene @ 35:
This is a great idea.
A little steeper? I would say ALOT steeper. What the SCOTUS did was tell everyone in the country. "dont bother criticizing drug laws or religion".
and if the sign should have read "Iraqi Freedom for Jesus", I guess that would have been Ok with BushCo and pals ;)
the roberts decision scares the bejeesuz out of me
had the decision flatly stated that a school has the right to discipline or censor anything at any school related event, that would be one thing
that isnt what he said....he said that the young man was advocating lawlessness...and that could be censored
but if one can discern that "bong hits for jesus" advocates lawlessness, that person should not be on the highest court in the land.
To those who think this case is some really horrible decision, come on, read the Hazelton School District v. Kuhlmeier case from 1988, that's far more bleak for student speech rights than this is. In Morse, a majority of the court (including two conservatives, Alito & Kennedy) rejected the principal's arguments for very broad school authority a la Hazelton that would have gutted student speech rights. The fact that the Supremes refused that is a positive step.
Read this case for the boring proposition that students who provoke for the sake of provocation will get slapped. Ho hum.
icebox,
we all know that hs students have very little in free speech rights
but this decision was not based on the 86 case
roberts went out of his way to say that the principal could easily have discerned that the student was advocating lawlessness....and that is an absurd argument...and if that shows the intellectual capacity of the roberts cour....we are all in deep doodoo
I knew their is hope for this generation when I saw
a group of high schools kids wearing sweat shirts that said:
FUCK FAMILY VALUES
. . . They were not fooled by the gop (Greedy Old Perverts) BuuuuuuuuuuuuuullShit.
bong hits = jesus
jesus / bong hits + lsd = manson
jesus + bong hits, gin and cocaine = gw bush
jesus + jesus - bong hits = 2 jesuses with negative bong hits
Bobby Poulsen @ 51:
I'm amazed you can't see the irony in your comments. The public school administrators are being paid with the very same taxpayer money. As employees of the United States government, they shouldn't enforce standards inconsistent with United States laws (e.g. the First Amendment) outside school grounds. This isn't some privatized school, where they can drop a kid for looking at somebody cross-eyed on his own time.
You're sickened by the turn of events? So am I. As a U.S. taxpayer, I don't want MY money to be used to confiscate harmless, silly banners that are off school property, nor do I want it used to withhold education from a student who clearly needs it.
I want my money back, Alaska school district.
Exactly how LAME is it to punish kids for exercising their freedom of speech. Say what you want about the message. It seems to me the children are unable to deal with this in a reasonable manner. By children, I mean the establishment leading up to and including the SCOTUS. The administrator was probably called him a pinhead as well. These people are profoundly stupid. Why do they have power over our children?
moonsha @ 4:
As has been pointed out, both the Supremes who favored ruling against Fredericks and Starr himself are members of the extremely powerful Federalist Society, which despite its' supposed agenda of supporting traditional 'conservative' causes (such as defending individual rights in the face of encroachment upon them by governments) is in fact a NeoConservative tool which does all it can to diminish those individual rights to the benefit of government. The FS has its' own ideological agenda, and is using venues such as the courts to achieve that agenda...in exactly the same way as they have dragged "Libruhls" over the coals for doing.
This is just another example of the ongoing culture war between the coal-up-their-arse-makes-diamonds Statists (who believe that you only have value in service to their idea of what constitutes the 'greatest good for the greatest number') and those who believe that you are sovereign over your own body.
Assassin @ 82:
So, by your standards of free speech they could have held a sign up that said, "Big vibratinng Dildo up our principal's ass, and in our teachers's mouth", and nothing could be done about it? You need a reality check here. All they did was take a kids stupid sign away. The kid's should have just said....awwwww! Why can't you see that?
dood, you know it's bad when a kid in a fight over first amendment rights now resides in china...
this all about controlling the message. slippery slope for all indeed. thought control is on order.
Can there be any shred of remaining doubt that the Supreme Court, as ruled by its current majority is a thoroughly subverted, clownish laughing stock? I have no respect for them as judges, alleged scholars or as individuals; I've lost all respect for the institution and I wish nothing but dire, lingering ill and extensive misfortune for its majority. It is going to be the task of a future court to go back and reverse many of this court's rulings, explicitly refuting its reasoning and decisions as being grounded in indefensible error, dishonest thinking, unprincipled rationalizations and willful betrayals of the Constitution.
I think Justice Breyer was right. They shouldn't have decided the constitutional issue if the case could be decided on lesser grounds. Whatever happened to judicial restraint? Are the new guys just that anxious to start instituting fascism?
“Why are we even hearing this case?"
It has something to do with a vehicle to further right wing aspirations. A small vehicle, but a useful one to cite to in the future when a more substantial one comes along. A gateway case, if you will.
Rusty Shakleford says:
methinks yes.
I think Jesus would be cool with that banner.
Afterall he had long hair, a beard and wore sandals.
Groovy man!
Yeah, with Alito's concurrence, this is a narrow ruling, but I don't get why they took it at all (other than an obsessive desire to keep an eye on the 9th circuit and that the oral arguments were good fun). I'm not a huge fan of dodging issues by dismissing on qualified immunity, but that would have been the way out.
The sign could have just as easily said "Blow Jobs for Jesus", the intent seems obviously to have been to embarass the school on local TV. They did, and got suspended. And there's an argument to be made for giving administrators some control in their daily battle with 500 hormone filled high school students, but how do you make a rule that says "free speech stops when it casts the state [the principle in this case] in a bad light"? So they came up instead with this fiction that the message was about drugs. Breyer's right, they should have dumped it.
If all the justices who were Catholic recused themselves for conflict of interest (a different view of Jesus) they wouldn't have a majority left to make a decision.
On the other hand, the 9th Circuit wrote in March,
Public employers are permitted to curtail employee speech as long as their
“‘legitimate administrative interests’ outweigh the employee’s interest in freedom
of speech.” Pool, 297 F.3d at 906
Sadly, this was about the City of Oakland banning terms like "natural family" and "family values" from it's email system because it creates a hostile atmosphere for gay employees. *Sigh*. So, are we for free speech, or for bong hits? I think the 9th cir. is about to get spanked by the S. Ct. again just in time for the election and this will be the next nonsense issue used to keep minds in Alabama off the war. Thanks Oakland.
Heh... the only time I've actually seen Jesus was after trying that little stunt. :)
The Supreme Court was always the goal for the Cons, if you ask me. All the money and oil is just a bonus. It was a probably a deal between the ReligiCons and money-loving Cons. In exchange for stacking the USSC with Cons, the ReligiCons would give the money-lovers the power to plunder our national coffers.
God, I hate them with all of my being!!
Jeebus @ 96:
Ugh. Truer words were never spoken. Frightening stuff that.
A couple what-ifs here:
1. What if an 18 year old "kid" (adult) from another school stood across the road with that sign? Would the supreme court still think the principal was justified in confiscating the sign?
2. What if the "kid" (Joseph Frederick) lived across the street and was holding the sign up on his own front lawn? Would the supreme court still think the principal was justified in confiscating the sign?
Since this guy is 18 and technically an adult, what right does the principal have to confiscate anything of his that is not on school property?
This is definitely a slippery slope.
The Dems approved of Roberts & Alito, too, don't forget...
Better Bong Hits than Bung Hits.
Assassin @ 102:
How about an adult that calls himself assassin? Your tax money was wasted? How so ASS?
moonsha @ 4:
You said it. The next Supreme Court appointees = Enough in and of itself to make me hold my nose and vote for the democrat, any democrat for president or any other office -- whatever it takes to toss the repugnacons out on their fascist theocratic asses! This place gets scarier every damn day. and i think the dems are almost as corrupt and greedy BTW, but nowhere near as committed to overturning every civil right the repugs are out to obliterate...like I said, hold nose, pull lever (or punch card as the case may be).
Fuck the republicans and all the lemmings who voted for them and keep voting for them. How's that for free speech?
Handmaid's Tale anyone?
The kids should put up a new sign:
BONG HITS 4 ROBERTS COURT
and see what the principal & courts say about that...
[Goodbye, Ass. You won't be missed]
I did the same thing as these kids when I was 18, which was 42 years ago. These students holding their banner are really no different that us holding copies of our "underground" newspaper. It was dumb, insolent, juvenile-offensive, and kinda funny.The old folks used to call that something like "a senior class prank," meaning that such things were around before we were. Our principal took it as a joke. But had we been thrown against a savage dog like Kenneth Starr, I hope we let the world know. So good for you kids, and vayan con dios.
What, you leaving? Don't let the door hit you in the Ass on your way out.
Login or Register to post comments.