Marijuana.com

Plainsman1963

School will appeal drug-banner ruling
05-11-06 | ADN.Com

Despite some opposition from the public, the School Board intends to appeal a court decision it lost after punishing a student for displaying a banner off school grounds referring to Jesus smoking marijuana.


The board last week announced that former Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth Starr would help appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue is whether the school can discipline a now-former high school student who held banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" during the 2002 Winter Olympic Torch relay through Juneau.

An April decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said school officials violated Joseph Fredrick's free speech rights when they suspended him for 10 days. Frederick was a senior at the time of the incident. The court also noted that Fredrick's off-campus message did not disrupt school functions and was not part of an official school activity.

Board members said the decision has left school officials at a loss when trying to enforce policies against illegal drug use.

The board met in executive session Tuesday over the appeal, but heard from about six people before the private session started.

"The reason I came out today is because the School Board's refusal to acknowledge that students have free speech rights is disgraceful," said Paul Grant, a Juneau lawyer who was one of four people asking the board to drop the appeal process.

Grant said the School Board's message was disingenuous and politically motivated, and that the board needed to be called out on the matter.

"Aside from being anti-American and anti-First Amendment, it's not effective," he said. "If they want an effective anti-drug message, then they need to have an effective anti-drug message."

Two speakers encouraged the board to pursue a Supreme Court hearing to clarify administrators' rights. There is no guarantee that the nation's high court will hear the case.

Carl Rose, executive director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, said the ruling in Frederick's favor has left administrators across the country on a slippery slope.

He said administrators could be subject to termination for not enforcing district policy, or if they do enforce policy, they could be sued.

"It is unclear now what the authority of a principal is in the eyes of the courts," he said.

Board president Phyllis Carlson said in a prepared statement after the executive session that the board would continue to pursue the matter with the assistance of Starr and the law firm of Kirkland Ellis.

"The board believes it is important to take this action because we need clarification on when our administrators are at risk of liability for damages for enforcing our policies and the circumstances in which we can enforce our policies restricting pro-drug messages," Carlson's statement said.

__________________


"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe

Posting Guidelines

 

nornerator

Are you kidding me?

A kid holds up a Banner about Marijuana, not on school property, and the school wants to punish him for it, so they did, then he sued because thats obviously an infringement of first amendment rights, the school lost in court, and now they want to take it to the supreme court?

The kid has done nothing wrong, he didn't even do anything against the law. He held up a sign, off school campus promoting Marijuana use. Why do they feel the need to punish people for that?

I mean, thats almost the whole point to the first amendment, so that people could non-disruptively share their opinions about anything they want without fear of prosecution.

Its as asinine as trying to punish the school board for talking about taking the case to the supreme court.

That school clearly needs to be taken down and replaced with a school board and staff that atleast knows some basic parts of the United States constitution.

dedbr

a lot to do with the Jesus reference, don't you think?

And then to tie it in with the demon weed.... .....I bet their were grannies falling thru their slips and passing out over that one......


Somewhere in Ded Land.....

__________________
Sometimes you can cut your own throat with your tongue.....
So remember to check out our most wonderful Posting Guidelines!

hemphugger

Anointing oil to some, food to many, and healing of the spirit to all. Hawaii granted a church the right to grow and use the herb for use as a sacrament in the practice of their faith.

Where do they think it came from? Strong scent to guide you to it. Draws mositue and minerals from deep in the earth to enrich the soil in which it is grown, and every part of the plant can be used to enrich life. It is used for treatment and cures of many medical problems, the hulled seed are used for food, the plant fibers are used for making non-toxic insulation, extruded into lumber, shingles for roofs, used in concrete to make it lighter, resilient, and resist cracking, while making it stronger, and was used in the aqueducts.

Certainly there might be a difference of opinion as to whether it might be the tree referred to in the bible, as the tree of life, but many references to it in can be found in the bible.

It is unfortunate that a student suffered the punishment during his last year of school. How would such a flagrant abuse of the student's rights by the school he aattends encourage him to continue his education.

Maybe the school board's moto should be "Do as I say, not as I do". Yes the student has rights, and the school certainly explained his constitutional rights to him at some point, but then they punish him for exercising those rights.

The school board's anti-drug stance leading to the punishment in this case can be seen clearly as exceeding their jurisdictional authority past school boundaries. Could the school board believe their authority extends to the streets during a parade? If they are successful, will they next want to use spontaneous checks of a student's home to see how they live?

Alaska's constituionl right to privacy is unique. That includes the student's right to privacy. It is much greater that the school board believes.

Sec

Where did all this come from and more importantly, what does it have to do this news article?

I understand you are replying to dedbr on this one, correct?

I totally agree with you here.

I am unfamiliar with Alaska's Constitutional right to privacy or if it differs that much with what the US Constitution has to say on the matter. What I cannot get is what the right to privacy has to do with this article. I believe it is the right of free speech that has been violated here.

__________________
guidelines.
Search

 

billybe

I don't understand how the school could even get involved in this. It was off-campus. It wasn't like the school staff saw him smoking he just held up a banner. I bet that it also has to do with it being with jesus which is also against his rights to free religion. Aren't church and state seperate?

reggie_the_dog

"I am unfamiliar with Alaska's Constitutional right to privacy or if it differs that much with what the US Constitution has to say on the matter. What I cannot get is what the right to privacy has to do with this article. I believe it is the right of free speech that has been violated here."

well, its the privacy part of the Alaska constitution that the judges looked at when they ruled that adults cannot be prohibited from growing, possessing, or using cannaibs in private. Its reasonable to argue that talking publically about an act that is legal privately should be covered by the same constitution.

Sec

Reasonable in your mind. I feel the two are very different.

TheNewGuy

Makes sense to me. If its legal in Alaska to possess several ounces of marijuana in your own home, shouldn't you be allowed to simply talk about it?

__________________
"Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~P.J. O'Rourke

Sec

Yes, I agree on both points. What I was talking about is that one is covered by the right to privacy and the other is covered by the right to free speech.

The right to privacy doesn't cover public speaking.