[Publib] Supreme Court & church meeting in library

[t]

I in turn was just as troubled by the fact that the
supreme court gave jurisdiction to the school to
punish speech by students OUTSIDE of school hours and
NOT on school grounds.  

And even if "drugs" are illegal, it was not specified
what was being smoked in said bong; also, it is NOT
illegal to "promote drug use" per se...(and even if by
some stretch there is some sort of infraction, the
school does not have jurisdiction)


--- "Robert L. Balliot"
<rballiot at oceanstatelibrarian.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Publib mailing list
> Publib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/publib
>