Promoted by Steven D with minor edits to links (not content)
Today the U.S. Supreme Court made it crystal clear that it is the court for corporate power and wealth in opposition to free speech.
The New York Times’s article on SCOTUS decisions tells how one will allow corporations and unions to pour “issue ad” money into campaigns while the other denies high school students right to free speech. Onething about Republicans whether legislator, executive, or justice when you put stick your money up their nether end you get what you want to hear coming out of the other.
With absolutely no clue about the hypocrisy of these two decisions,
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that, when regulating what can be said in a campaign and when it may be said, “the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it.”
The other case was an actual case of political speech not moeny masquerading as speech. In Alaska a student held up a sign that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” accross the street from his school when the Olympic torch went by. He was punished by the school, a punishment SCOTUS upheld.
the court found that a high school principal and school board did not violate a student’s rights by punishing him for displaying the words “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” on a banner across the street from the school as the 2002 Olympic torch parade went by.
When the case was argued on March 19, Kenneth W. Starr argued — successfully, as it turned out — on behalf of the school authorities that, whatever rights students may have to express themselves, thumbing their noses at school officials’ anti-drug messages is not one of them.
If that isn’t in your face fuck-you fascism, well hell, I ran out of F’s. When the Supreme Court under the new Court-meister Roberts makes it so clear where it stands, one can only wonder why any Democrat voted for, let’s see, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, the fuck-you fascist four.
With this court I had better watch out. I can’t actually say they are the in your face, fuck-you, fascist four. But I can pay someone to say it on TV.
The decisions are hypocritical, but not unexpected. It is the content of the message (drug advocacy or satire, take your pick) and the messenger (a teenager) who were censored. He wasn’t even on school grounds, so I fail to see the government’s overriding necessity to suppress his speech. I think the dissent did as well.
Interestingly enough, the student was actually standing across the street from the school observing the festivities. Apparently, school jurisdiction over such activities extends far and wide.
The reasoning of the court was that it was a school-sponsored event, complete with teachers acting as chaperones, and therefore the school was still acting in loco parentis, both in regards to the plaintiff and to the other students. Had the plaintiff been on the other side of town, the decision of the court might have been different.
I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing. The plaintiff, by his own admission, was deliberately being provocative for the sake of being provocative, hence the nonsensical “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” message. It’s harder to argue in defense of that in what is essentially a school setting, than it would be if the message had been sincere, controversial or not. If he had unfurled an unpopular political banner instead of just going out of his way to tweak a principal he (perhaps with good reason) disliked, I would be more inclined to think his actions were deserving of First Amendment protections.
I’m sympathetic to the ACLU’s position here, mind you. If the state takes away the right to be a clown, it make it easier to take away the right to engage in substantive speech. But in this case, I think the republic will survive. It’s the stuff that’s happening to adults at political protests — arbitrary arrests, “free speech zones”, FBI surveillance, and the like — that strike at the very heart of liberty.
I am waiting with bated breath to see something like these go to the SCOTUS.
Any idea when we might expect something like these instances to be heard in a courtroom? There have certainly been enough instances such as shown here for someone to push one up the legal ladder as a case.
If anything of the sort is on the way to SCOTUS, I haven’t heard. In the case of surveillance by internal intelligence agencies, it’s really Congress’ job to rein them in, and the public’s job to insist on it.
I am surprised that “free speech zones” haven’t been thoroughly trashed by the courts yet. I think you could make a reasonable argument in favor of such zones where they are deemed necessary to prevent the disruption of an event (which itself would be protected under the right of free assembly) or for security reasons. Where the authorities step over the line, however, is when the zones are situated with the intent of concealing them from media coverage. That ought to be challenged in court and found unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, all of this is irrelevant as long as the press, as an institution, is passively uncritical of the government. We desperately need a revival of the muckrakers of the Progressive Era.
Regretfully, muckrakers in the mainstream media are harder to find than white rhinos in Peoria.
At this point in time the onus of muckraking falls on the blogosphere. And right now that is reaching a very small percentage of the populace. I’m afraid the mainstream media is going to get worse before it gets better.
And this is news to whom?
Frankly, seeing as Mr. BH4J said he wasn’t promoting drugs, I’m not sure WTF he was attempting to do other than get attention. The phrase doesn’t make sense if it’s not a WWJD message rolled into a 4/20 message. Is getting attention covered as free speech?
Seeing as most schools had a buffer zone of zero-tolerance drug policy, the kid was on thin ice, across the street or no. I thought it was a major cop-out on his part to disavow his message.
What the hell is the point of First Amendment Rights if you aren’t going to stand behind your message? He might as well have held a blank banner. Then he would have saved us all the drama.
On topic, however, what exactly DID they have to choose from? Patricia Owens? Get real. This is what happens when Republicans are elected, let’s start with that one, ok?
Actually, yes, getting attention in this way is protected free speech. Or it was until yesterday.
Management memo received last week reports, with regrets, that there has been a change in policy.
Speech is now free ONLY with a minumum purchase of one or more Congressmen (at regular price, no specials, discounts, or closeouts apply).
Otherwise, it costs.
The act of a child who can’t think of a better way to channel his energies than to parade a banner that he has no idea of its meaning is not what I call free speech.
He was not making a statement, he was not delivering a message, he was not communicating a position, he was simply craving attention. That’s not the sign of a mature mind seizing on an opportunity to capture a media moment in order to take advantage of his first amendment rights. That was the sign of a kid who had too much time on his hands.
Had he said we all need to light up a bone and think about WWJD, I might feel a little different. But he didn’t, he chose to cop out and say he was just goofing on us all.
Regardless of the content of the high school student’s speech, I was attempting to illuminate the hypocrisy of the fascist four plus one on the Court by on the same day publishing decisions about free speech. On the one hand, granting the mantle of speech to money and what it can buy, and on the other denying the right of free speech to someone. Besides, if speech had to be coherent to be protected under the First Amendment, are we going to leave it up to Bush, Cheney and Rove to decide what is coherent? That’s an oxymoron. Well, two morons and an oxy.
While I agree with you that the SCOTUS has got their collective heads up their posteriors, I think you are comparing apples and oranges, and the content of the student’s banner (since IMHO it didn’t constitute free speech because he disavowed its content) has everything to do with it.
But it goes to what I’ve been posting everywhere I can, this is what you get when you elect Republicans. What were the alternatives to either of Bush’s picks? Priscilla Owen? She makes both of them look like freaking liberals.
I think he pulled some of the fruitcakes out just to make his real picks palatable. The Democrats had to pick from bad and really bad, or be cast as obstructionist. Now I’m really scratching my head and wondering who’s picks they really are, Bush’s or Cheney’s.
That the importance of SCOTUS appointments is lost on the American public is of no matter, right? Let’s vote for the dry drunk you’d like to have a beer with, if you want to talk oxymoron. The sales pitch works every time, THAT’S what the problem is.