I used to teach education law at my university. This case was among many that we highlighted for discussion. A key that is critical, in my opinion, is that the event was school sponsored. That incapsulates what happened as being under the school’s purview. We used the case to illustrate to future teachers the freedoms and limits of free speech just as the author describes. We encouraged teachers to use moments like this as opportunities for discussion and growth. Imagine the discussion or debate that might have taken place if the school had also sponsored discussions about the topic? What everyone needs to understand is the constitution is an ever evolving document that is seen from the eyes of the current day and influences. That’s why an appeal process exists. Sadly, the weak links in the process are the political composition of the courts (especially the Supreme Court) and the ability of the SC to simply refuse to hear a case.
Is it just me that thought of hitting a large gong/tam tam creating a bong for Jesus? (I realize that wasn’t this student’s intent but isn’t it open for interpretation?) Seriously, I wonder if that could have been (or was and we just don’t know based on this article) used as a defense? I was never a drug user so my naïveté runs high, as far as drugs go, so don’t criticize me for my curiosity. ❤️
Merriam-Webster’s definition is “the deep resonant sound especially of a bell” and then “a simple water pipe consisting of a bottle or vertical tube partially filled with a liquid (such as water or liqueur) and a smaller offset tube ending in a bowl.”
Such a great question! I think it's reasonable to believe that this was a drug reference, but you certainly would need to check with the intent of the author.
Given that the student admitted that his intention was to test the limits of his freedom of speech, the argument for the gong interpretation probably doesn't stand— but if he wanted to reason simply that he didn't deserve the suspension because it wasn't a drug reference, then I think he definitely could have pointed to this alternate definition, despite how others might have interpreted it.
Also, this is a good call-out that adults, or people "in the know," might assume certain things about children's understanding and intent. Seemingly not true for this case — but it's totally possible that a child could see messaging like "bong hits" and being ignorant to drugs they might associate this message with the gong or sound bath interpretation (otherwise, it just simply wouldn't make sense to them).
Again, not the case here, but a good reminder that our grown-up eyes/ears/experiences layered over children's actions can sometimes corrupt an innocent situation.
He is not really a hero. I knew him a few years after the case. He did not do it to stretch the limits of what free speech entails. He did it because he was a stoned teen. That’s pretty much it.
I used to teach education law at my university. This case was among many that we highlighted for discussion. A key that is critical, in my opinion, is that the event was school sponsored. That incapsulates what happened as being under the school’s purview. We used the case to illustrate to future teachers the freedoms and limits of free speech just as the author describes. We encouraged teachers to use moments like this as opportunities for discussion and growth. Imagine the discussion or debate that might have taken place if the school had also sponsored discussions about the topic? What everyone needs to understand is the constitution is an ever evolving document that is seen from the eyes of the current day and influences. That’s why an appeal process exists. Sadly, the weak links in the process are the political composition of the courts (especially the Supreme Court) and the ability of the SC to simply refuse to hear a case.
Is it just me that thought of hitting a large gong/tam tam creating a bong for Jesus? (I realize that wasn’t this student’s intent but isn’t it open for interpretation?) Seriously, I wonder if that could have been (or was and we just don’t know based on this article) used as a defense? I was never a drug user so my naïveté runs high, as far as drugs go, so don’t criticize me for my curiosity. ❤️
Merriam-Webster’s definition is “the deep resonant sound especially of a bell” and then “a simple water pipe consisting of a bottle or vertical tube partially filled with a liquid (such as water or liqueur) and a smaller offset tube ending in a bowl.”
Such a great question! I think it's reasonable to believe that this was a drug reference, but you certainly would need to check with the intent of the author.
Given that the student admitted that his intention was to test the limits of his freedom of speech, the argument for the gong interpretation probably doesn't stand— but if he wanted to reason simply that he didn't deserve the suspension because it wasn't a drug reference, then I think he definitely could have pointed to this alternate definition, despite how others might have interpreted it.
Also, this is a good call-out that adults, or people "in the know," might assume certain things about children's understanding and intent. Seemingly not true for this case — but it's totally possible that a child could see messaging like "bong hits" and being ignorant to drugs they might associate this message with the gong or sound bath interpretation (otherwise, it just simply wouldn't make sense to them).
Again, not the case here, but a good reminder that our grown-up eyes/ears/experiences layered over children's actions can sometimes corrupt an innocent situation.
Good point.
I love that you made the banner the title of this post.
I didn’t know about this! Frederick is a hero. SCOTUS decision seems iffy …
He is not really a hero. I knew him a few years after the case. He did not do it to stretch the limits of what free speech entails. He did it because he was a stoned teen. That’s pretty much it.
From reading the article, it seemed as though he became an unwitting proponent of free speech — even if that speech is silly and stoner-produced!
That seems like a stretch to me.
That's funny.
Why is he a hero? Because he challenged the institution?
Testing free speech— though he did not succeed
Sadly, that was not his original intent…his story changed during the process likely on the advise of attorneys.