Bong Hits for Jesus
Spring_2007_Research_Group_Pages
Topic Question
[Replace this text with a focused topic question which your thesis/conclusion will answer or address. If you have more than one, list them here. Try to identify a topic question which everyone in the group can write about. Your topic question must address issues about which there is reasonable disagreement.]
Potential Arguments, Structures, and Sources
[Replace this text with a brief identification of at least three potential arguments relevant to your topic question. Identify the claim argued for, the reasoning and evidence. Cite from sources posted on your wiki page.]
Research for Bong Hits for Jesus (Morse v. Frederick)
Welcome to the main page for your research collaboration. This is the place where you should post collaborative research. You might want to look at this quick list of formatting options for wikis. It's very easy: [Quick Reference for Formatting Wiki text].
Alfino 09:58, 22 March 2007 (PDT)
[Links Page for this case] Alfino 21:53, 12 April 2007 (PDT)
Press attention on the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case heard by the US Supreme Court last week focused almost exclusively on free-speech issues for high school students while they are in school or involved in school activities. And, while the justices may well issue a narrow ruling one way or the other, the possibility exists that their decision will reverberate into the online world; in particular, it may help establish guidelines for school officials who have or have been tempted to clamp down on what their students say and post on social-networking sites, such as MySpace.
'Bong hits' case may reverberate online
Paul McNamara. Network World. Framingham: Mar 26, 2007.Vol.24, Iss. 12; pg. 46, 1 pgs [[1]]
-Kate and Katie
This article gives a good overview of the case. Explains the arugment of the principle-- that she suspended Joesph Fredrick because his banner promoted drug use, and the argument of Fredrick--that he was exercising his 1st amendment right of free speech.
Justices hear case of teen's banner
STUDENT CLAIMED RIGHT TO DISPLAY `BONG' SIGN AT EVENT
By David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times
Article Launched: 03/20/2007 01:42:30 AM PDT
[[2]]
-Kate and Katie
Seattle Times
In 2002, 18-year-old senior Joseph Frederick stood across the street from his high school and unfurled a 14-foot banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Frederick invoked his First Amendment right to free speech. An unamused principal, unable to maintain a cool head, ripped up the banner and suspended him, in part for using the word bong, interpreted as defiance of the Juneau, Alaska, school's anti- drug message.
Also names several cases related to this one.
[[http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1243066181&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=10553&RQT=309&VName=PQD ]]
In defense of students' free speech rights
In its 1969 Tinker vs. Des Moines decision upholding the right of students to express themselves -- so long as the speech doesn't pose a threat of "substantial disruption" -- the high court overturned the suspensions of some Iowa students who had worn black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Monday's oral arguments concerned a less high-minded expression of opinion: a banner waved by a Juneau, Alaska, student that said: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."
[[http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1238108541&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=10553&RQT=309&VName=PQD ]]
Basic summary of the case
[[http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1239201571&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=10553&RQT=309&VName=PQD ]]
YOUTUBE VIDEOS about the case! Watch a couple of them... they give a lot of good insights and visuals that the articles don't have.
[[3]]]
From the Wall Street Journal- talks about the point of view of the Supreme Court justices. [[4]]
Commentary on the case, kind of funny... gives actual lines from the Supreme Court hearing.
[[http://http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1238225371&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=10553&RQT=309&VName=PQD
]]
This gives author maintains that Joseph's actions in displaying the banner are protected under the first ammendement. A ruling against him, he says, would be comproable to a ruling against religious groups trying to freely express thier views. Interesting comparison...
