Score another point for Plutocracy
Jun. 26th, 2007 12:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caffeineDoing it's pro-business best, the recently stacked Supremes opted to end-around campaign finance reform and squash younger, less affluent protesters in the same day.
From the wire:
Time:
On the same day that the Supreme Court imposed a new limit on students' free speech in the Bong Hits 4 Jesus decision, the Justices ruled the opposite way in another first amendment case, protecting the rights of corporations and unions to shell out money for political ads shortly before an election.
So, phony ads before the election are banned. Great! Which ones are phony? Which ones are legit? Who decides? When do they decide? What are the penalties?
Meanwhile, a homemade banner saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is grounds for suspension (and suspension of 1st Amendment Rights) when held by a teenager. School sanctioned event? Perhaps it is justification. However, the student was not on school property. So, if it was an excused event, then the school has no right to complain, since it is not on school property. He might have been truant if he was supposed to be on premise. The claim was it was pro-drug. The student claims it was just whimsical. Poor choice for the student. Yet, promoting Drug/Marijuana legalization is not illegal. The main charge that the case works on is that it was disruptive to school activities. How is it disruptive if school was excused and he was not on the property? Just because the school does not tolerate pro-illegal drug use speech, does that really trump the 1st Amendment? Yes, schools can have limits - that is the disruptive part - but I think this was pushed too far. As fat as promoting drug use, again, pushing pretty hard to make that stick. I don't see it recommending drug use to anyone, and you are not going to convince me that even if it was an endorsement that it would be a compelling argument.
So corporations can bend bend bend the truth and everything else with as much money as they want, pending some 'oversight' but a student cannot put up a banner for an hour. Apparently, he did not have enough money. If he had purchased commercial air time and recommended marijuana legalization with that banner in the background, it would be OK.
From the wire:
Time:
On the same day that the Supreme Court imposed a new limit on students' free speech in the Bong Hits 4 Jesus decision, the Justices ruled the opposite way in another first amendment case, protecting the rights of corporations and unions to shell out money for political ads shortly before an election.
So, phony ads before the election are banned. Great! Which ones are phony? Which ones are legit? Who decides? When do they decide? What are the penalties?
Meanwhile, a homemade banner saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is grounds for suspension (and suspension of 1st Amendment Rights) when held by a teenager. School sanctioned event? Perhaps it is justification. However, the student was not on school property. So, if it was an excused event, then the school has no right to complain, since it is not on school property. He might have been truant if he was supposed to be on premise. The claim was it was pro-drug. The student claims it was just whimsical. Poor choice for the student. Yet, promoting Drug/Marijuana legalization is not illegal. The main charge that the case works on is that it was disruptive to school activities. How is it disruptive if school was excused and he was not on the property? Just because the school does not tolerate pro-illegal drug use speech, does that really trump the 1st Amendment? Yes, schools can have limits - that is the disruptive part - but I think this was pushed too far. As fat as promoting drug use, again, pushing pretty hard to make that stick. I don't see it recommending drug use to anyone, and you are not going to convince me that even if it was an endorsement that it would be a compelling argument.
So corporations can bend bend bend the truth and everything else with as much money as they want, pending some 'oversight' but a student cannot put up a banner for an hour. Apparently, he did not have enough money. If he had purchased commercial air time and recommended marijuana legalization with that banner in the background, it would be OK.
