No more bong hits for Jebus


The Supreme Court just saved Jesus from peer pressure to try drugs. Today the Court ruled 5 to 4 against a student displaying a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner at an off-grounds school event.

I suppose we can call this the “free-expression hits 4 Jesus” case.

The school principal thought the banner promoted drug use and, as a consequence, she confiscated the banner and suspended the student. The student, Joseph Frederick, simply thought the slogan was funny—and that it would attract the attention of TV crews covering the journey of the Olympic torch.

The majority opinion (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito) held that:

[t]he First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers.

“Danger” refers to the harm of illegal drug use—in this case, the harm of drug use by a vulnerable Jesus.

This goes to show that conservatives really are humor impaired. Further studies will be needed to determine if this humor impairment syndrome (HIS) has some genetic underpinnings, is caused by environmental toxins, or whether it reflects a deficient childhood nutritional environment—you know, like being nursed by hyenas to avoid exposing the child to its mother’s breasts. I’m betting on the hyena scenario.

Justices Stevens’ dissenting opinion held that:

…the school’s anti-drug policy “cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs.”

The majority, apparently, equates promoting drug use for Jesus—a man who was executed in the First World War on Terror some 2,000 years ago, isn’t a citizen of the U.S., would take bong hits in the privacy of his own kingdom which, in any case, is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.—might have the pernicious effect of inducing HIS-afflicted conservative students to take up drug use. (In other words, Jesus is just a gateway target.)

The same reasoning might prohibit “Bong Hits 4 Hitler,” since it could still provide pernicious inspiration for some HIS-positive conservatives.

Perhaps a safer slogan is “Bong Hits 4 Brontosaurus?” Oh…wait…among science-impaired HIS-positive conservatives, this is tantamount to promoting drug experimentation with family pets.


  1. 1


    Thank god Jesus never took bong hits. He might have gotten all soft and preached about tolerance and helping the poor.

  2. 2

    mspeck spews:

    Oops, I think you meant to say, “Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion held that:…”, not “Justices Stevens’ descending opinion held that:…” :O)

  3. 5

    michael spews:

    Hey wait a sec, wasn’t that kid across the street from the school? A bit of an overreach me thinks.

  4. 6

    RightEqualsStupid spews:

    This is a perfect example of how the right is for freedom of expression – except when they’re not!

  5. 7

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Rightwing political correctness run amok! Public schools will now have to establish “free speech zones.”

  6. 9

    headless lucy spews:

    The student was not on school property at the time of the incident.

    Kenneth Star is still a very moist asshole.

  7. 10

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    What’s really pernicious about this ruling is that it gives not only credence but legal authority to the principal’s SUBJECTIVE interpretion of the student’s banner.

    This, of course, was precisely the criticism of PC in the 80s … you could say something completely innocuous, but if a stranger took offense at it, you were in trouble.

    Let’s say a high school student with advanced vocabulary skills and sophistication in current events is talking in the school corridor with a friend about the Clean Air Act and is overheard by a teacher saying something about “prophylactic regulation” of “stack emissions” and the teacher collars the student and marches him to the principal’s office for discussing “condoms and sex” … but “prophylactic,” of course, is a perfectly good adjective that is used to denote lots of things besides rubbers. However, according to today’s Supreme Court ruling, it is the PERCEIVED MEANING of the ignorant and under-literate teachers that controls the legal result, not the INTENDED MEANING of the gifted student.

    This is sheer nonsense. Until now, Supreme Court has insisted on use of OBJECTIVE standards to determine the meaning of spoken or written language in cases involving speech. Today’s ruling abandons (or at least seriously weakens) that approach and says it’s now okay to punish people if some anal-retention pointy-headed stuffed shirt misunderstands what was said … and, it goes without saying, people like that ALWAYS misundertand what was said.

    Well, I have a message for the wingnut Supreme Court justices who voted for this piece-of-shit decision that even THEY won’t understand: YOU SUCK!!!

  8. 12

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Shows what you get when an ignorant and under-literate president appoints doctrinaire ideologues to the Supreme Court … you get an Extreme Court. These fools shouldn’t even be lawyers, much less Supreme Court justices.

  9. 14

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    So the question is, can any democratic system of government survive over the long term, or is a George W. Bush every 200 years inevitable?

  10. 16

    michael spews:

    LOL @ moist assholes!

    Yeah, I’m not real comfortable with the idea of someone not on school grounds getting busted by school folks for anything other than maybe leaving campus without permission.

  11. 17


    ain’t it nice that school districts in juneau can afford a highfalutin’ ace of aces of the right wing conspiracy like ken starr to represent them? no child left behind, oo-rah!

  12. 20

    Tree Frog Farmer spews:

    @19 WrongStuff℣ weighs in for the NeoFascistConservativeConvicticon Party.

  13. 21

    Right Stuff spews:

    Once again, reason wins out over the pantings and handringing of the extreme liberalsocialist left.

  14. 22

    headless lucy spews:

    re 21: “…handringing.”???

    That would be as noisome as “wringing” a taco bell.

  15. 23

    Libertarian spews:

    I think we can expect some more SCOTUS decisions going against individual rights to do things like the subject of this recent decision. GWB has planted that guy Roberts as the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. The guy is only around 50 or so, so there’s a good chance he could be the chief guy for thirty more years! Say what you will, but GWB pulled a coup de etat with THAT appointment!

    Well, look on the bright side – we’ll all have things to dicuss in the future as the Court whittles away at individual rights. That is, until they shut down blogs!

  16. 24

    proud leftist spews:

    right stuff @ 21
    “Once again, reason wins out over the pantings and handringing of the extreme liberalsocialist left.”

    So, is it your position that the only segment of our society that still supports the First Amendment is the “extreme liberalsocialist [sic] left”? Please explain to me how our society gains by this decision. Tell me how this decision advances liberty.

  17. 25

    Yer Killin Me spews:

    So let me get this straight. When a faithful follower of the Geroge W. Bush line like Wrong Stuff voices his opinion, it’s “reason,” but when a member of the loyal opposition like TreeFrogFarmer voices his opinion, it’s “panting and handringing” (sic). Have I got that right?

  18. 26

    busdrivermike spews:

    Is following the Constitution mandatory for these idiots? Obviously not.

    From the people who brought you mandatory drug testing, in direct violation of the bill of rights, they now bring you the end of freedom of speech.

    What fucking assholes.

  19. 27

    proud leftist spews:

    The Bushite mantra:
    Spread liberty abroad by suppressing it at home. Have I got that right, right stuff?

  20. 28

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @19 And you got 3 things wrong … Bush, Roberts, and Alito. Gonna be fun to hear you scream like a stuck pig when YOUR speech is criminalized.

  21. 29

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @21 Please explain the “reasoning” behind this decision, citing precedents.

  22. 30

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @23 “Say what you will, but GWB pulled a coup de etat with THAT appointment!”

    Did we ever say differently? But this can be fixed by electing a Democratic president who will appoint enough liberal justices to make Roberts part of a permanent minority on the Court. He may be good for 30 more years, but some of the others are getting feeble.

  23. 31

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @25 What do you expect from an illiterate trollfuck who can’t even spell “handwringing” correctly? You don’t really think he understands the Bill of Rights, do you? We have to lower our expectations when dealing with wingnuts.

  24. 32

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @26 Just remember, they can’t take away your freedom of speech; they can only throw you in jail for exercising it.

  25. 33

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Maybe a little civil disobedience and filling our jails with political prisoners is what this country needs to expose the totalitarian colors of the Republican Party, which is now run by a bunch of ex-Trotskyites. How ironic that the party who calls everyone else “commies” has turned out to be a bunch of fucking commies.

  26. 35

    Thomas H Jefferson spews:

    When my great ancestor retired, he took on the project for all white male kids in Virginia. In those days drugs were not the same issue, after all the white male kids were the gen II after the big revolution! Hell, old TJ did not even allow the UV to have president … the faculty and students governed the place until the 1900s.

    Still, somehow I can imagine the Great Troublemaker tolerating some white male kid at UVA who was promoting emancipation! Imagine what Old Red Hair would have done if a UVA kid went around with a tee short yelling for freedom for Sally?

    Funny thing about free speech, nobody wants it too close to home. Ever visit a hippy commune and try to talk in support of the war? Nahhhhh!!!!!!

  27. 36

    Yer Killin Me spews:


    I expect about what I saw, actually.

    As for expecting him, her, it or them to understand the Bill of Rights, thanks for the laugh.

  28. 37

    headless lucy spews:

    re 35: You ought to read Fawn Brodie’s biography of Jefferson and try to incorporate a few facts into the gibbering, inchoate, shivering-jelly of your ruined and destitute wingnut mind.

    Jefferson offered Sally Hemmings her freedom when they were in France together. She chose to stay with Jefferson. She and her son were freed upon Jefferson’s death.

    How many times have I heard wingnuts say you can’t ask Bush to reason like a modern man, but you expect it of Jefferson!

  29. 38

    proud leftist spews:

    Can you believe this nut posing as Jefferson? The addled asshole plainly has no understanding of what made the man great. Keep kicking him in his withered, useless balls, HL.

  30. 39

    Right Stuff spews:

    Sorry for the one letter misspell. HANDWRINGING

    As in what Rodent, TFF, Proud leftist, Lucy et all
    of you are currently doing. The freedom of speech is in tact. The decision was based on a narrow question.

    Resident Rodent @29. Here is the link to the decision with all the precendents. Knock yourself out.

    In a nutshell.

    A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrictstudent speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.

    Very reasonable

    Now, onto how ACORN, an ultra liberal group and favorite of Roger Rabbit, attempt to steal elections.
    Typical for Democrats who can’t win on ideas….


    Also, Sam Reed should just out and out delcare himself a Democrat. He won’t last another election.

  31. 40

    Right Stuff spews:


    Very nice examples of panting and handwringing….

    I’m sure you would all like your kids to be at school and have school sponsored events where students give speeches on the values of drug use..
    How ALCOHOL, LSD, MDMA, POT, SPEED, COCAINE, METH, HEROINE ETC. are all perfecly right to do and enjoy…They ought to allow time on each one to more fully understand and promote the experience…

  32. 41

    proud leftist spews:

    Right Stuff @ 39
    “The freedom of speech is in tact [sic].”
    Hey, man, I’ve defended you at times on this board as not being as ridiculous as the others of your ideological persuasion who post here. But, you’re flat wrong here. What you are defending is, I guess, school discipline, even though the kid was not on school grounds with his banner. No one can plausibly argue this decision is pro-First Amendment. Buddy, you need to explain how this decision promotes freedom of speech. This decision is nothing less than the product of John Roberts and Samuel (I don’t need no constituition to know what’s right) Alito. You have failed.

  33. 42

    RightEqualsStupid spews:

    Well the only way I can think to respond to this latest attack on freedom by the Publicans is to fight fire with fire. I have a right wing Jesus freak who somehow got my assistant to hire him. I am going to make this fucking kid’s life miserable and then I am going to fire him. And that will be my homage to retribution for the right trying to take away our freedom of expression.

  34. 43

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @39 “et all”? or et al.? (I don’t suppose you would know the difference …)

  35. 44

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @39 Good work, RS! Now all you have to do is figure out how to read a legal opinion.

  36. 45

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @39 Now let’s play a game called Law School. I’ll be the Law Professor, and you’ll be the Law Student. Are you ready? Here we go.

    ” principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.”

    Question 1: How do you define “school event”?
    Question 2: Whose definition of “reasonable” controls — the student’s, the principal’s, the court’s, or someone else’s?
    Question 3: Viewed by whom, and according to what criteria?
    Question 4: Who should establish the criteria, and what standards or precedents should be used in establishing the criteria?
    Question 5: What law applies in determining whether the drug use in question is illegal?

  37. 46

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    “Now, onto how ACORN, an ultra liberal group and favorite of Roger Rabbit, attempt to steal elections … http://seattletimes.nwsource.c om/html/localnews/2003760004_w ebvoterfraud23.html?syndicatio n=rss

    That’s an interesting story, although not for the reason you think:

    “Fraud alleged in 2004 Washington voter-registration drive

    “By Brad Shannon
    “The Olympian

    “OLYMPIA, Wash. — Prosecutors in King County are looking at possible criminal charges related to a voter-registration drive held in 2006, echoing the suspicions of impropriety raised during the razor-close gubernatorial election of 2004.

    “King County’s acting prosecutor, Dan Satterberg, is reviewing 1,829 questioned voter-registration forms turned in last year by people working for the national activist group ACORN …. A decision on whether to file criminal charges is expected in late July, Satterberg’s spokesman, Dan Donohoe, said Friday.

    “‘We’re dealing with possible criminal charges with regard to fraudulent registrations. No one voted from those registrations,’ Donohoe said. ‘The investigation is focusing on fewer than 10 individuals hired by ACORN.’ …

    “King County elections workers who handled 1,829 registrations submitted too late to qualify for the 2006 election found them suspicious. It became clear that a handful of people filled out many forms in similar handwriting, elections spokeswoman Bobbie Egan said. …

    “The BIAW has criticized the work of elections officials in King County, where most of the questioned voting took place in the 2004 gubernatorial race. … Association vice president Tom McCabe said Friday he urged Reed to go public and make a forceful call for a federal investigation and prosecution in the ACORN case, but Reed has not done so. McCabe also urged federal prosecution related to voting fraud in the 2004 election, and he separately sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Jeff Sullivan in March, urging him to act on the suspected fraudulent vote registrations.”

    What’s most interesting about this story is the Seattle Times’ sloppying copyediting. To wit: The headline refers to a 2004 voter registration drive, but the story makes clear the registration drive was held in 2006 — and that this story has absolutely nothing to do with the 2004 election.

    What’s probably going on here, and elsewhere, is that ACORN is paying street people to collect voter registrations on a per-registration basis. In other words, pretty much the same way Tim Eyman pays street people to collect initiative signatures. So guess what? Some of these street people are submitting fake registration cards to make more money, just as some of Eyman’s signature gatherers submit fake signatures to make more money. It seems this business model doesn’t work any better for ACORN than it does for Eyman. They should have known better than to adopt wingnut methods.

  38. 48

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    What’s mainly noteworthy about these questionable registrations is that KCRE workers spotted them, proving the system works.

  39. 49

    Puddybud Who Left The Reservation spews:

    Stupidman wrote: Well the only way I can think to respond to this latest attack on freedom by the Publicans is to fight fire with fire. I have a right wing Jesus freak who somehow got my assistant to hire him. I am going to make this fucking kid’s life miserable and then I am going to fire him. And that will be my homage to retribution for the right trying to take away our freedom of expression.

    Stupidman, don’t you realize God is already preparing another job for the person who honors Jesus as you wrote that worthless diatribe above? He may not get the job immediately but he will get something better. And… maybe God sent him there to show people how the other side of the spectrum operates. They see your worthless ASS everyday. That’s how God works!

  40. 50

    Yer Killin Me spews:


    You have no idea how God works. For one thing, He doesn’t reward faithful followers and give the shaft to the infidels (not in this life, anyway). Quick: where does the phrase “The rain falls on the just and the unjust” come from?

    We know this is the case because if God did strike down those who opposed Him, I can guarantee you that Pat Robertson, James Dobson, George W. Bush and hundreds of others, famous and obscure, would have died in freak electrical storms by now.

  41. 51

    Broadway Joe spews:

    Jesus deserves a bong hit or two, he’s the hardest working guy of the landcaping crew that works at my apartment complex.

  42. 52


    @37 headless Lucy

    Siggghhh .. not sure what you are reading but gran gran dad did not offer Sally her freedom .. he could not because she was already free … she was in France! She decided to accompany Ol Tom back to Virginia out of love. Give her some credit!

    As for being a Wingnut, is that what Ol Tom called the Tories? The Federlaists?? the Monarcists? Cours you do know that TJ founded tghe Republican party??? (not the one we have today though)

  43. 54

    Right Stuff spews:

    Proud leftist,
    My bad, should not have lumped you into the group of screamers…
    You have indeed been reasonable and we have agreed on some issues.

    I never once said that this decision promotes freedom of speech. What this decision does do, is recognize and support the fact that students are under the care and supervision of the school. And that the school has rules and policies regarding drug use/promotion, and that the school has the correct authority to limit the ability of a student, during a school sponsored function, to promote or advocate drugs….

    Seems reasonable.

    Schools are drug free, gun free zones.

  44. 55

    Right Stuff spews:

    I have never claimed to be a lawyer, nor an expert of the law. You are a lawyer.

    I’ve only ever claimed to be an average Joe with an opionion. I would rather read the phone book than to pour over legal briefs. Knock yourself out.
    @45- I won’t attempt to slice and dice opionions and legal definitions of great legal minds like Justice Roberts. Not educated in the law enough to speak to that. Again, knock yourself out.

    I find it interesting how loud the libs are screeching over this issue, and yet silence over the lifting of “limits” of free speech thru the ruling in FEC V Wisconsin Right to Life.

  45. 56

    GBS spews:

    I wonder if this case would have made it to the Supreme
    Court if some Christian kids wrote a banner reading: “Bong hits for Mohammad”?

    I seriously doubt it would have. In fact, I believe if it were Christian kids doing the same thing the conservatives would have come out in defense of the “1st amendment” rights. Particularly if some “Liberals” complained about it.

    But, alas, it was the infamous Bong Hits For Jesus that got the kool-aid guzzlers all up in arms.

    The assault on reason continues by the anti-American, propagandistic conservatives.

  46. 57

    GBS spews:

    @ 45:

    Why is a bong hit illegal?

    A bong is just a water pipe.

    Go to any head shop and see how fast you’ll be kicked out if you mention marijuana use for their pipes. Those pipes are only sold tobacco use only.

  47. 58

    GBS spews:

    Right Stuff at 21:

    Puh-lease, a conservative talking about “reason” as if you dumb shits have it, and further more, actually used it?

    This country is in the shitty position were are in ONLY because Republicans and conservatives lack any real sense of the word “reason.”

    Cheney can claim “Executive Privilege” back in the early days to shield him and is oil buddies for planning the war in Iraq, and yet say he doesn’t have to obey the President’s orders that all members of the executive branch comply with his orders to turn over information as it relates to the Iraq War and America’s security interest.

    Please, explain the “reasoned and principled” position that Cheney is taking. Because if you believe him then he is beyond the reach of checks and balances.

    Remember; use “reason” as it relates to the Constitution of the United States of America; at least the one we all know and love prior to January 20th, 2001.

    Good luck with your honesty claims.

  48. 59

    Right Stuff spews:

    What do your issues with the VP have anything to do with the supreme court decision and my opinion of it?

    btw have you heard of Marcus Lutrrell? or his book Lone Survivor?
    If you are what you say you are….whatever our idealogical differences…much respect to you for what you did for our country…I mean that. Thank you..