There USED TO BE a time in America
where there was an unwritten, implied freedom guaranteed by the Constitution; in
fact there are many of these "implied" rights – those freedoms not explicitly
guaranteed by the document that the Founding Fathers risked their lives to
write, and countless hundreds of thousands after them gave their lives to
uphold. The "implied" rights I am speaking of here deal with everything having
to do with "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".
Being an asshole, I
believe – is ONE of those rights... as long as your being an asshole – or
acting like one – doesn't pose a
clear and present danger to the Life
and Liberty of another citizen. Happiness is subjective, and whether or not
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus"
makes you happy or pisses you off to no end, Joseph Frederick has the implied
Constitutional right to say it, print it, post it, blog it, and tattoo it on his
ass if he has a mind to. Obviously, this is not the opinion of the courts –
which is a damn shame.
This case is a classic example of the New-Orwellian mind game being played on
the American people. The courts knew that if the issue was argued on the basis
of freedom of religion; on the basis that
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus"
was offensive to those of
us who love the Lord Jesus Christ and were offended by the boy's
irreverence, that the boy's case would prevail.... but NO. The Masters of
in this country had a strategy; and that
strategy was to change the
issue... change the
issue to something everyone could agree with, or at least sympathize with.
the issue went from the question
"does Joseph Frederick
have the right to say something offensive to Christians?"
to "does Joseph
Frederick have the right to advocate drug use?".
in its purest form.
Chief Justice John Roberts in a 5-4 ruling wrote:
"Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating
drug use". The principal of the school Deborah Morse, said the banner
was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event.
Frederick said that this was a nonsensical message that would proclaim his right to say anything at all.
"Students in public schools don't have the same rights as adults, but neither do
they leave their Constitutional protections at the schoolhouse gate.", as the
court said in a landmark freedom of speech ruling from Vietnam era. You find the
same language in a prison Law Library in similar cases involving prisoners (just
substitute the word "student" with "prisoner", and "schoolhouse" with "prison").
all saw how much "freedom of speech" rights the four students at Kent State
University had didn't we?. Some of my readers here are too young to remember,
and you don't learn the TRUE history of this country in school these days – and
that's ONE of the reasons I wrote the book
"Land of Childhood's
Fears". Get yourself a copy and read it.
If the courts in this country want to ban freedom of speech when it advocates
drug use, why doesn't it make all those TV ads for
and all that other crap they sell, illegal? Why don't they stop giving these
kids drugs like
for fictitious "disorders"
like ADD/ADHD that are nothing but reactions to chemicals and preservatives
in food? (get free
literature on ADD/ADHD from CCHR). You might argue that Viagra, Ritalin,
Prozac, Adderall, etc. are "legal"; but so was cocaine "back in the days"
when it was the active ingredient in Coca Cola.
Why don't the courts stop hacking at the branches and start cutting the roots of
the drug trade – namely, the CIA drug trafficking, which has been a non-stop
operation ever since the Vietnam days? (Now that the Taliban is gone, and
Osama has bin Forgotten, Afghanistan's poppy
crop is booming.
So please Justice John Roberts and company – stop blowing smoke up my ass. When
I fart I look like a coal locomotive coming down the track. You might get away
with your "bait and switch" legal maneuvering to get around the REAL issue....
but you don't fool ME!