[Publib] Supreme Court & church meeting in library

[Robert L. Balliot]

Greetings,

I was more troubled by the so called 'Bong Hits for
Jesus' ruling.  

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf

My issue with this ruling comes down to what exactly
does 'Bong Hits for Jesus' mean?  If that message can
be interpreted as somehow promoting drug use, then it
seems that it allows far too much discretion on interpreting
and condemning language.  Does this mean that someone
was promoting drug use for Jesus?  How exactly do
you go about influencing Jesus to use drugs?  How 
would you determine if he was?  If someone had,
it was not illegal two thousand years ago.

It seems more like a nonsensical attack on nonsense to
me.  If you can condemn nonsense in this way, I think
it opens the way to ban many books on fantasy or
even discussions of their content.  Would required
reading of Alice in Wonderland or The Raven or
the Electric Kool-aid Acid Test or any of Vonnegut's
books be interpreted as promoting drug use?

*************************************************
Robert L. Balliot
1-401-421-5763
Skype: RBalliot
Bristol, Rhode Island
http://oceanstatelibrarian.com/contact.htm
*************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Sharon Foster [mailto:fostersm1 at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 5:07 PM
To: rballiot at oceanstatelibrarian.com
Cc: Mary Soucie; Diedre Conkling; PUBLIB
Subject: Re: [Publib] Supreme Court & church meeting in library

Just based on a quick reading of the summary, this case was decided on
the relatively narrow basis of standing, or lack thereof, and not on
the broader issue of the merits of the case itself. Not that I have
any doubts where the majority stands on the broader issue. I'm sure
Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia would love to close all the public
schools tomorrow. But they can't.