Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Does the First Amendment Protect Your Right to Free Expression Even If You Don't Know What You're Expressing?

1

One of the school's arguments in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case was that First Amendment protections are not as stringent for nonsensical speech. I don't recall the Court's rationale in that case, but I suspect it had more to do with relaxed protections of speech in the school setting than it did with "nonsensical" speech. In this case, it seems evident that the bikers do have a cohesive message in their slogan, even if individually they are unable to verbally express it; It is not nonsensical speech.

Posted by California | September 14, 2007 10:44 AM
2

Well, what is non-sensical speech? Who decides that?

That really concerns me. Can't you say that 'No blood for oil' or 'Trim the Bush' or some such protestor sign is, in a way, non-sensical? What if the administration asserts that it would be non-sensical to withdraw from Iraq? Would everyone who touted withdrawal no longer be protected.

(Not bitchin' atcha, #1, just surprised at so subjective a ruling.)

Posted by Ziggity | September 14, 2007 10:53 AM
3

I'm with ya #2. The argument in the "Bong Hits" case was that the student did not attempt to convey any message; he just wanted to get on TV. The statement "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," they argued, did not actually mean anything.

Regarding your examples, there are latent political meanings to those phrases. As a result, they are subject to greater First Amendment protections. No matter what speech is argued to be nonsensical, the executive branch does not make the decision. That is the purview of the judiciary.

Posted by California | September 14, 2007 11:02 AM
4

Got it after re-reading your comment - it's still a curious ruling. I'm interested to see how it will be applied and tested in the future.

Posted by Ziggity | September 14, 2007 11:05 AM
5

The main issue in the Bong HiTS 4 Jesus case was school administrators' ability - and responsibility - to regulate the promotion of drug use on a public school campus (or just outside of).

The new Supreme Court is awesome.

Because the speech was non-sensical, it did not enjoy the protections of political speech. Of course, this is high school and the courts have an awesome record of encouraging youngsters to speak freely, as exemplified by Kuhlmeir and Fraser.

Posted by Horsewash | September 14, 2007 11:11 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).