Kids Are Americans Too by Bill O'Reilly Read Free Book Online Page B

Robertson entity).
    Â 
    What? Did Jesus really do bong hits back in the old days, pastor?
    Â 
    No. But think a little about this. The left believes that you have the right to state in school (or to argue in the school newspaper) that marijuana is a good thing. The right does not believe that (typically). But some conservatives were afraid that if Joseph Frederick wasn’t permitted to preach in favor of getting stoned, a fundamentalist Christian kid couldn’t speak out againstabortion, premarital sex, evolutionary thought, or gay marriage, either.
    Â 
    So some people on the right supported Joseph even though they deplored what he did?
    Â 
    You got it. You may not yet have learned the old expression “Politics makes strange bedfellows,” but you just saw an example of what that expression refers to.
    Â 
    How can you be allowed to say “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” and also “It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” in the same breath?
    Â 
    Welcome, once again, to the puzzle of rights in this country.
    Â 
    So, as you’ve guessed, neither side was completely happy with the court’s decision. And the judges weren’t happy, either. I’m not going into all of the details, which could (hint) make quite a term paper, but here’s a quick rundown.
    Â 
    On the anti-Joseph team, Supreme Court top judge John G. Roberts Jr. argued that the principal had the right to suspend the kid because “failing to act would send a powerful message to the students” that, in effect, the school wasn’t really serious about fighting drug use. (He did note that the message on the banner was “cryptic” and “gibberish,” though.) Three more judges agreed with his decision, without comment, but the fifth, Justice Clarence Thomas, was moved to add that “in light of the history of public education,” students (and that means you) have no right of freedom of speech in school under the First Amendment. None. Nada.
    Â 
    Then there was Justice Stephen G. Breyer. He didn’t think that the principal should have to pay damages (1/2 vote for the principal), but he argued that the Supreme Court should have stayed away from the discussion of the First Amendment (1/2 vote for young Frederick). Might confuse things, he opined. Apparently, Judge Breyer wanted the controversy to be seen as an “authority” issue, not a “free speech” issue. It is easier to define what a school principal can legally do than to define what an American kid can legally say.
    Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the opinion for the four (or 3 1/2) dissenting judges, was pretty funny. He argued that the majority was just making up a special free speech exception for any mention of drugs. With tongue firmly in cheek, he asked whether or not the decision would have been different if the offending banner had read, “Wine Sips 4 Jesus.” That, he wrote, could be read as both pro-wine and pro-Christianity. (If you haven’t heard about the Christian rite of communion, look it up.) But Stevens certainly understood the subversive message Joseph put out there; he just didn’t think it was that big a deal.
----
    So where are we?
    Hard to say. All I can tell you with certainty is this: There will be more court cases, leading to more decisions that will perhaps cause even more controversy (or not)…There will be attempts in Congress to define the issues of the decision with new legislation…And the world, including me, will opine!
    Most important, you—along with your friends and parents and teachers—will have to figure out how this decision affects your daily life. So, in case you ever thought Washington, D.C., was far away, think again. The Supremes are in your face, for better or worse. Even when you’re trying to decide what to say or write in school, they’re looking over your shoulder. You have a lot to think about…
    Oh, one other