One of the great things about movies is that they give a platform sometimes to telling great and important real life stories dealing with real life issues that deserve to be brought to our attention. This IS NOT one of those situations.
Apparently MTV and Paramount are looking at developing a movie based on the real life incident a couple of years ago where a kid at a school event (watching the Olympic torch go through their town) waited for the TV cameras to be on them and then opened up a giant banner reading “BONG HITS 4 JESUS”.
The banner got taken away from them by the principal, and the kid in question got suspended for 10 days for “promoting illegal Drug Use at a school function”. And rightly so.
The kid appealed to the superintendent… and lost. He then appealed to the board… and lost. He then appealed to the court… and lost. he then appealed to the appellate court… and WON. But then that got appealed to the Supreme Court… and he lost. Again, rightly so.
You see, this kid tried to make this whole thing a free speech issue and made himself out to be some holy crusader for free speech. But in reality he was just a smart ass kid who decided to be a smart ass and try to draw attention to himself. He got busted… and decided to try to draw more attention to himself by making a case out of it… and thankfully he lost.
Make no mistake, this who thing wasn’t about free speech. It was about a dumb ass kid being a smart ass at an official School Function, waved around a banner in front of TV cameras promoting illegal drug use, and he got suspended for it. GOOD. It’s mildly amusing that Paramount and MTV want to try to make a hero out of this half wit kid.
There are stories that deserve to be told. This isn’t one of them.
(You can read more about the original story here)
(Source: Cinematical)
…
If it involves being “subversive” in the most boring way possible while also insulting religion and promoting drug use, you can be sure MTV will be all over it.
Seriously, what the was the good thing MTV did? They haven’t been relevant in ten years plus.
If it involves being “subversive” in the post boring way possible while also insulting religion and promoting drug use, you can be sure MTV will be all over it.
Seriously, what the was the good thing MTV did? They haven’t been relevant in ten years plus.
i think im in the wrong place…..freedom of speech? lol
Puff puff pass – now over to you Henrick – eeaarr
I don’t see a movie here, MTV. Not unless it is not only ‘based on a true story’, but also manipulates the facts, makes the adults who make the rules and guideline a bunch of out of touch dummies, a potshot at the religious right (even if some of the RR was on the kid’s side) loads of new music from the latest whiny voiced top 40 singles and make the kid a role model. In fact, he puts the beat down on 12 justices in the end. Clarence Thomas, too. Yes- 12- including the one dissenting vote in facor of the kid.
Oh, that’s the game plan?
Man, I didn’t mean to give the ending…and the script hasn’t even been written yet :( sorry.
*********
back to reality.
It has zero to do with freedom of expression. the kid got suspended for about a week for thumbing his nose at school rules and guidelines. He was not thrown in jail, he didn’t get a swat paddle in the rear, he was not fined. He was not expelled.
I don’t call that a harsh punishment. In fact, I’ll take it a step father: right or wrong, they had thier day in court. They were heard. For the most part, they lost, but they did get many people (and the 9th court) to see thier views. They lost in the end, but while the suspension wasn’t extreme, they had a day in court.
I can understand where some of the conservative RR groups would be on the kid’s side. After all, despite the impression that the RR is not offended that one would take a hit of grass for The Lord, the idea is that limiting a student’s speech could cross over (eventually) to religious statements. Indeed, while unconstitutional (it is not in the constitution), the separation of church and state
prohibits public schools from the teaching of the theory of intellegent design along the theory of evolution, and sometimes can prevent students from talking about religion/prayer at school events (such as a grad cermony).
But the irony of such support also comes back to bite the Right (of which I relate to strongly) in the rear end. Recently, a law student at the Christian College Regent was put to task for posting on Facebook a freeze frame image of Regent President Pat Robertson (700 Club) scratching his head innocently with the middle finger. It seems he violated the school rules too. He also is standing for Freedom Of Expression. He even wrote a brief, which was rejected by Regent…his case is pending. Now you folks want “harsh”? Just hit that link, and you’ll see what harsh is.
Still…when one knowingly violates a campus policy, which is for the respect of others, the saftey of others, and guidelines which do not opress anyone, one who violates policy must expect an action and/or response be taken at point of discovery.
Let’s put it in this context.
Instead of Joseph Frederick making a banner that said ‘Bong Hits For Jesus’ would people felt any different if the banner read ‘Six .45 Magnum hits For Jesus’ or ‘Porno For Jesus’? You bet. Better yet, would someone think differently if his banner simply read ‘Alaska Kicks Ass: God Bless The USA’?
In any case…read the case of Joseph Frederick. Something about it bugs me. The banner was raised…where the Principal can clearly see it. That’s thumbing your nose at authority, a challenge to those who are attempting to teach young people for varied futures.
I consider neither Joseph Frederick nor the Regent law student heroes of Free Speech no more than Larry Flynt.
Rafa I think we need to hook up, take some hits and check out some of those boob pics you’re always advertising on nowlive!
All I know is that when I get home I’m going to take a hit from my bong.
Funny thing is, the kid’s parents actually supported him (I’m assuming he needed lawyers).
“He just chose to use marijuana. Which I see no problem with. If he had chose something else, fine. It may or may not have been as funny, but who cares?”
The point I made was that it wasn’t just about being funny. It was more than being funny. I was clearly saying, that if it was only for the humor, he could have chosen a different phrase. So the argument that he did it “just for laughs” is inaccurate and disproved. Who cares would be the people who need to uphold the rules. He could have chosen another topic not against rules, and then those people who care (which I have just stated are the ones who need to uphold the rules) would not need to be involved.
Bottom line is, the act of displaying the sign was not against the rule that the school took issues with. If he held up a sign that said “Go Tigers” or whatever their school mascot may have been, I doubt he would have been suspended for 10 days. He chose a subject that is against the rules, when it would have been just as simple for him to perform the same action without breaking the rules. He did so knowingly and he got what was deserved. He earned that suspension with his own choices.
Also, I understand that you think the 10 day suspension was a little too much, but as far as punishment selection, you and I are not in a position to make that decision. Neither of us are familiar with this students past history of behavior in class. Perhaps he is a well behaved student, or perhaps he has served recurring detentions. Punishment decision always takes into account the past behavior, and we are simply ill-equipped to decide if this was really too harsh or not strong enough.
“Roofies for my Penis” -Now thats funny and personal.
Well, I went to a college that I know would care, and likewise, I have a job now that would care, so I am familiar with real life examples of where that kind of record would be detrimental. Maybe you haven’t yet come across any of the examples I have, but let me just assure you that they are out there. But maybe he won’t be going for anything in the business fields anyway. What jobs are out there nowadays that don’t care about the promotion or use of illegal substances? Maybe he wants to be part of one of those when he is finished school.
Sure, it COULD have been about anything. Absolutely.
He just chose to use marijuana. Which I see no problem with. If he had chose something else, fine. It may or may not have been as funny, but who cares?
I don’t see the joy in being drunk but there’s a lot of good stories that come out it.
I personally wouldn’t be worried about that being on my records, but if you would be, more power to ya.
nbakid2000:
I’ve never found drug humor funny. Not even the legal types like drinking. It’s not some kind of right wing thing for me, I just don’t care for things that take away someone’s decision making abilities. Especially since its more often used as an escape or excuse. Well, this just opens up a big off-topic discussion that we don’t need to go down. But either way, I don’t find drug humor funny, and while you may not have appreciated the suggestions I gave, I’m sure someone much wittier than I could come up with another phrase for a banner that you would approve of that isn’t drug use. The point of the examples wasn’t to be funny, but to say that the banner didn’t have to be about drugs if it was just for the humor.
Hey nbakid2000:
“But suspension to me is NOT something I would personally want on my records.”
I wouldn’t want “promotes bong hits for Jesus” on my records either, considering how most colleges would look on that, but he was perfectly willing to organize that on TV. The damage to his record was done before the punishment was given.
I KNOW that the law doesn’t see it that way. If it were up to me it’d change.
Unfortunately for me, I’m going to become a lawyer and lose all sense of “common-sense” and look at things from a purely legal point of view (as John apparently has).
Man, I’d make such a cool cop…
I said that too, that he should have expected them to react the way that they did. I simply don’t agree with how they reacted.
I think the drug humor was funnier than anything you mentioned there calviin. Drug humor is funny.
Hey nbakid2000:
“To me, INTENT takes a higher standing than just a law. And I don’t mean, “Sorry officer, I KNOW I was racing, I didn’t mean to hurt anyone!” I’m talking VICTIMLESS CRIMES. Like this one.”
Unfortunately for your viewpoint, the law that the rule rule with is not lower than intent. You may feel that intent is higher than the law, but the courts who rule on the law rule on just that, the law. Not the intent.
I think you’re missing what’s interesting about this story. Sure, he’s an obnoxious kid who pulled a prank for laughs. That’s not revelation. What’s awesome about this story is that he got the U.S. supreme court old fogies seriously debating bong hits.
Hey nbakid2000:
I don’t think the kids goal was only to be funny. It’s clearly stated that promoting illegal drug use is against the rules. Additionally, it’s really common sense. If the kid was just trying to show the sign for humor, there are plenty of other subjects to use for humor besides drugs. Sign could have said “Free Kittens for Jesus”, “Carpet Munching for Jesus” or “Free Buddha for Jesus” and many other options I think that could be just as humorous or even funnier. Choosing a topic that is well known to be against the rules was a conscious decision and he received the penalty for that choice. That’s the was rules and laws work. Cause and effect. If you do this, you will be punished. The rule was there. If the school doesn’t enforce the rules they set forth, they will be passively encouraging classmates to break additional rules and test the boundaries. I think they did exactly as they should have and the kid received a punishment that he should have expected.
Sorry, to me suspension is pretty bad…I realize to others it’s days off school, so the kid probably enjoyed it. Especially when he knew he was going to sue them over it.
But suspension to me is NOT something I would personally want on my records.
Like I said, I’m torn. I realize the kid got what was coming to him. He shouldn’t have expected any less, especially with “zero-tolerance” running rampant in the public schools these days.
I still don’t agree with what came to him.
HOWEVER, back on the ORIGINAL POINT OF DISCUSSION (because you and I will NEVER see eye-to-eye on this one), I do think it’s a stupid thing to make a movie based on what John previously said.
This kid did something stupid.
He got caught and punished.
What did he expect?
I still don’t agree with the punishment, or any punishment at all, but really…it’s a STUPID MOVIE IDEA.
Suspension is HARSH?!?!?!
He got days off school. he didn’t go to prision, he wasn’t fined, he wasn’t expeled. Holy shit son… I got suspended for less than that.
There is nothing wrong with them suspending him ESPECIALLY when he knowing broke the rules. There are consequences to the choices we make, and he obviously had to learn that.
BTW, when I said “it doesn’t matter if it’s legal or not” I was mostly referring to you saying “Well alcohol in the context I used it in is legal!”
To me, INTENT takes a higher standing than just a law. And I don’t mean, “Sorry officer, I KNOW I was racing, I didn’t mean to hurt anyone!” I’m talking VICTIMLESS CRIMES. Like this one.
And NBA kid,
this isn’t about moral boundries. It’s simple. I don’t care if this was about drug use, or rules about no water guns in school, or rules about no green pants.
If there is a rule
And You know the rule
And you knowingly choose to break the rule
THEN YOU’VE GOT NO BASIS TO CRY ABOUT IT WHEN YOU GET PUNISHED FOR IT.
This kid cried and cried and cried all the way to the supreme court about it.
I am NOT saying that it wasn’t illegal. I am NOT saying the kid shouldn’t have gotten disciplined. I think his punishment was WAAAAYYYY too harsh, and while I think the rule should have been overlooked completely and his sign taken away, I would be satisfied if he had had detention once or twice. But SUSPENSION?!!?!?!
Again NBAkid, his INTENTIONS are 100% irrelevant.
There is a rule
he knew there was a rule
he knowingly broke the rule
he got punished (very very mildly) for breaking the rule
he’s got nothing to cry about
Kicking a guy in the balls without consent is ILLEGAL and HURTS OTHER PEOPLE. This sign did NOT HURT ANYONE. THAT’S THE DIFFERENCE.
What do you think his intention was with the sign (other than to break the rule, I admit that). Was it to start people smoking pot? Or was he simply doing a juvenile thing and trying to get some laughs?
Hey nbakid,
You said:
“John, it doesn’t matter if it’s legal or not”
Yes, as a matter of face NBAkid is does matter. It’s the only thing that matters in this issue.
The kid BROKE A RULE and got the appropriate punishemnt for breaking it. That’s all that matters. You can argue that it shouldn’t be a rule, and that’s fine… that’s a good discussion to have… but that’s irrelevant here.
There was a rule
He knew it was a rule
He broke the rule
He got appropriately punished for breaking it
End of story.
I have a question John: If he had promoted something OTHER than drug use, something still illegal…would you have cared? Does the moral boundary stop with the law?
Hey nbakid,
“he just did it for laughs” Sooooo… that excuses it? Look, there is a rule. He broke it… and just saying “oh, but I did it for laughs” doesn’t change that he broke it.
HE KNEW he was breaking… and did it anyway. So he gets suspended. That’s exactly what should have happened.
Seeing a guy kick another guy in the balls in the street would make me howl. But it being funny doesn’t make it of, or change the fact that it’s illegal to do it.
the criteria is very simple:
1) Is there a rule against what he did? (ANSWER: YES)
2) Was the kid aware this was wrong? (ANSWER: YES)
3) Did the kid knowingly go ahead and do it anyway? (ANSWER: YES)
It’s cut and dry.
John, it doesn’t matter if it’s legal or not – it’s what’s more dangerous.
You *are* in fact promoting something LEGAL. I accept that. But it is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more dangerous than “promoting illegal drug use” when that drug is MARIJUANA. That drug is actually LEGAL NOW in California.
Just because something is legal doesn’t make it automatically right, and just because something isn’t legal doesn’t make it wrong.
I don’t think you should make it “ok” for people to make drug signs at school functions, but there’s OBVIOUSLY a line there that the kid didn’t cross. OBVIOUSLY it was meant for laughs, and just that, and if you can’t see that, then you have to get a better sense of humor.
You can’t tell me that most people who saw that didn’t a) roll their eyes b) sigh and talk about kids these days or c) laugh. The school over-reacted and I applaud the kid for taking it as far as he did.
Hey Nbakid,
As I said, your comparison to me TALKING about drink isn’t valid here. I NEVER talked about or promoted drink in any situation that was either restricted or illegal. This kid did. THAT’S the issue.
The issue of “Should promoting drug use at a school event be banned” is a totally different issue. Drug use is illegal. Alcohol is not.
Me talking about drinking on my show is not banned or restricted. Promoting drug use at a school event is.
That was taking a stand for lightening up. If I make a comment that someone FREAKS OUT ABOUT (as the school did) then, yes, I am going to defend myself till my dying day regarding that matter (if it was a harmless joke, as that kid did).
“People need to reallllly lighten up.”
You mean like the folks on the kid’s side who took this all the way up to the freaking SUPREME COURT?
Vic
OK, you may have never actually been drunk or physically said you were drunk, but when you say, “oh, we went through 16 beers in one hour! THAT WAS A FUN TIME!” and then laugh about hanging out with people who were drunk (as you have, someone correct me if I’m wrong), you’re in-directly promoting it, or at least giving people the impression that you are bragging about how great being drunk is.
Hey Nbakid,
I had to turn the “edit comments” feature off. It was really system intensive and was costing me a fortune to run.
Why can I not edit posts? I thought you had that fixed John.
*Not to mention the amount of alcoholics out there who started to abuse alcohol because they had that first drink and wanted to have a good time (which YOU ARE PROMOTING) who did not know they were alcoholics at the time.
It’s always better NOT to start than to start and take a chance.
Hey nbakid,
I see what you’re saying… but your comarison isn’t valid in this situation. I never talked about getting drunk (actually, and I’m not kidding… I’ve never been drunk in my life) in any situation where it was restricted or illegal to do so.
If you want to debate if making drug signs and displaying them at a school event SHOULD be a rule… that’s cool and we can certainly have that discussion…. but…
it is a rule. The kid knew it was a rule. He kept his sign hidden until he could be a smart ass to draw attention to himself. he knew it, he got caught, and he got suspended.
The school did the right thing in suspending him. And once again let me restate this… THEY DIDN”T EXPEL HIM. They didn’t charge him. They didn’t fine him. They just suspended him (which was the right thing to do).
EDIT: I WILL say you have always been adamant against drinking and driving, so let’s leave that out of the argument I have against you. The fact that you still promote getting drunk when people die from alcohol so much more than marijuana remains. Not to mention the amount of alcoholics out there who started because they had that first drink and wanted to have a good time (which you’re promoting).
I can see where they get the “it was at a school-sponsered event” argument from, but still. Come on.
John, do you honestly believe that unrolling a sign on TV that says “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” will really encourage people and lead them to drugs? That’s like the argument “seeing people smoke in movies leads kids to cigarettes!”
What about promoting getting drunk as YOU HAVE? You brag about getting drunk in-studio with the guys from Crank and out partying at the movie festivals with alcohol, and more people die from drinking/drinking while driving/alcohol poisoning than pot. What type of message does THAT send? That getting drunk is fun and a good time? FACT: Smoking pot is a LOT safer than getting smashed.
So, here’s the interesting thing, though. The kid wasn’t on school grounds when he displayed the sign. It could (and should, I think) definitely be argued that the school’s authority ceases once you leave the property, especially if you’re over 18 (as I believe this kid was).
Juvenile joke or not, you can’t dismiss this so easily, because freedom of speech doesn’t exclude the immature and ridiculous. This kid absolutely had a right to do what he did.
I think I see where you’re coming from John (you definitely lose some points for lumping this in with grabbing a girl’s breast in the hall by saying it’s all against the rules, though). I do agree that it’s a dumb idea for a movie (it would be a much more compelling and relevant story if the kid was saying something remotely worthwhile), but I also honestly think the Supreme Court got this one wrong.
Hey nbakid,
What sort of message does it send if a kid purposefully and knowingly breaks school rules (and I don’t buy the argument that promoting drugs doesn’t hurt anyone) and the school does nothing?
Lighten up??? The dude didn’t get lynched. He didn’t get fined $10,000, he didn’t get sent to prison. He got suspended from school for a few days. He broke a rule, he got suspended.
The people who supported him and tried to pretend this was a free speech issue are the ones who need to lighten up.
As far as I’m concerned, the school has nothing better to do so they go after this kid for a stupid, harmless, FUNNY stunt.
This is in my eyes is just more political correctness being shoved down our throats.
BTW, I am NOT in favor of smoking pot, I think it’s stupid and refuse to be a part of it. However, being a libertarian, if people want to do it, then go ahead, don’t let me stop you.
I understand where you’re coming from on the “it’s against school policy” viewpoint, but as I said…WHO CARES. It was a stupid, juvenile attempt at humor.
People need to reallllly lighten up.
Hey Henrik,
Grabbing tit or promoting Drug use at a school event. The point is he broke a school rule… and KNEW he was doing it.
You can argue about what should or should not be a rule (that’s a debate certainly worth having), but as it is, he KNEW FULL WELL he was breaking the rules, did it anyway, and got suspended.
Promoting drugs at school is not a “basic right”.
He broke the rule, he got suspended. Everything happened the way it should.
John, you can’t even compare sexual harassment to putting up a juvenile, comedic sign.
This hurts NO ONE like sexual harassment does. It is a victimless crime.
Grabbing a tit is something highly personal. This is not personal in any way.
I can see this guy doing this to be funny and all of a sudden being overwhelmed with assholes trying to lynch him. I’d cling onto my basic rights as well in that instance. No matter how right or wrong I was.
I guess the real atrocity is the fact that what he did is somehow against the rules.
I have no problem with what the kid did, I thought it was hilarious and something I would do.
What’s REALLY funny though, he said it was just for laughs and didn’t mean anything, then he got busted for pot.
So Henrik,
According to you, it’s ok to violate a school rule as long as later you can say “it was just a joke”? So go ahead and grab that girls tits in the hallway, and when they want to expell you for sexual assault you can just say: “This is more about somebody making an obvious joke to get laughs, and some stuck up retards who are insecure in their view of the world trying to vent their frustrations on a poor joker.”
The kid knew full well he wasn’t allowed to do it, that’s why he kept the banner hidden until the TV cameras were on him. He got busted. He got suspended. Rightfully so. The little idiot didn’t get sent to jail or anything.
This is more about somebody making an obvious joke to get laughs, and some stuck up retards who are insecure in their view of the world trying to vent their frustrations on a poor joker.
Sure, making a joke is calling for attention in some way. That doesn’t mean that anybody who makes a joke is an asshole who has to pay if he offends somebody.