Ken Starr vs the ACLU

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

From a political site:

Back in 2002, a kid up in Alaska decided to put up a banner at his school. The banner said BONG HITS 4 JESUS.

Young dadaist Joseph Frederick said he just wanted to put some crazy stuff on a banner “as an absurdist way to assert his free-speech rights.” Just so happened the Olympic Torch runner was passing the school that day. So the principal tore down the Jesus banner, and now Ken Starr will argue on behalf of the principal and the Bush Administration.

On the other side, the ACLU and conservative Christian groups (!) will argue for the rights of 14 year olds to put up BONG HITS 4 JESUS banners.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

Since when do kids have a right to put up banners saying whatever they want on school property not subject to adult or school leadership supervision?

hytem · 03-19-2007, 06:46 PM

I just saw a discussion of this tonite on the Lehrer Report.

The banner was not on school property--it was across the street.
And it wasn't disruptive of school activities--according to the reports.

Unless they can connect it to drugs (they are trying, but that's a stretch), it looks like first amendment. But I think the Court will weasel out of it without a ruling.

CRH911S · 03-19-2007, 07:32 PM

Wasn't on school property and attendance to view the torch thing was optional.

CRH911S · 03-19-2007, 07:34 PM

Alaska's a funny place. It's the only place that I am aware of that more conservatives are on welfare than any other political persuation.

RallyJon · 03-19-2007, 08:08 PM

Kudos to the editor who replaced "slovenly punk with poor eye contact" with "young Dadaist". Well played.

bigchillcar · bigchillcar's Garage

what's a dadaist? a slovenly punk with poor eye contact..?

RallyJon · 03-20-2007, 09:59 AM

LOL--no, a WW1 era social anarchist movement that is best remembered for its art. In this context, the term is (IMO) mistakenly used to give intellectual weight to the kid.

bigchillcar · bigchillcar's Garage

thanks, jon...i think. i already feel stupider..

Superman · 03-20-2007, 11:07 AM

Is this the same Ken Starr who had the pleasure and comfort of prosecuting the President? Like shooting fish in a barrel?

First he takes on a job he can't lose.....and now he's got one he can't win. Then again, winning is not what this is about, now is it? I mean, winning legal cases. It's more about winning elections.

rhjames · rhjames's Garage

And all of this worry about what some stupid teenager did?

Why?

I does nothing to promote education, it does promote another go-round of the conserv's versus the lib's fight over free speech and just puts more $$$ in the lawyers' hands (as if they need more $$$.....)

Totally stupid-----

regards---rhjames

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

Sinnce Starr and the ACLU are doing this pro bono and no one involved is running for office, I don't know how this is about money or elections.

RallyJon · 03-20-2007, 11:57 AM

Quote:

I don't know how this is about money or elections

I'm all for supressing the free speech of dumbass teenagers, but I hate Ken Starr and the religious right, so I'm probably not one to comment, but...

This is about elections the same way a high profile abortion case that everyone knows is going to lose is about elections. It convinces a certain group of single-issue voters (AKA: The Party Faithful) that you're fighting the good fight. The lefties get all teary eyed about the ACLU and our precious freedoms, and the anti-flag burning types get to think that they're a bit safer in their trailers, and the way-righties don't know what to think but don't want anyone telling them that Jesus can't take an immaculate bong hit if He really wants one. Everyones happy and gives more money to their side in the end no matter who wins this round of the good fight.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by RallyJon
I'm all for supressing the free speech of dumbass teenagers, but I hate Ken Starr and the religious right, so I'm probably not one to comment, but...

This is about elections the same way a high profile abortion case that everyone knows is going to lose is about elections. It convinces a certain group of single-issue voters (AKA: The Party Faithful) that you're fighting the good fight. The lefties get all teary eyed about the ACLU and our precious freedoms, and the anti-flag burning types get to think that they're a bit safer in their trailers, and the way-righties don't know what to think but don't want anyone telling them that Jesus can't take an immaculate bong hit if He really wants one. Everyones happy and gives more money to their side in the end no matter who wins this round of the good fight.

Not too many blatantly false stereotypes in that one. I was gonna write a check to the RNC this week, but the ground rent on my double wide is past due and my Dixie flag is kinda faded and wind battered.

RallyJon · 03-20-2007, 12:46 PM

For a while I was an ACLU member and a registered Republican. Sometimes the mailbox would catch fire when the latest ACLU Plea for Hand Wringing got too close to the Personal Note from George Bush.

scottmandue · 03-20-2007, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rhjames

I does nothing to promote education, regards
---rhjames

bigchillcar · bigchillcar's Garage

lol...scott.

ronin · 03-20-2007, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
Is this the same Ken Starr who had the pleasure and comfort of prosecuting the President? Like shooting fish in a barrel?

First he takes on a job he can't lose.....

wow, we agree again. that's twice in three years! you buy the beers this time

Basquiat · 03-20-2007, 05:49 PM

This should be interesting to watch. Everytime I hear some right wing facist talk about the commie ACLU, I think about what and who the ACLU really represent in court.
These are neither liberals nor conservatives. They are simply attorneys who believe in the COnstitution. They almost never agree with the specific cause of their clients. However, they do belive that the client deserves representation. By trying issues such as these the Constitution is constantly tested. My 0.02 is that testing the Constitution is inherently good for our country. Feel free to disagree. I can respect that.

hytem · 03-20-2007, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
Is this the same Ken Starr who had the pleasure and comfort of prosecuting the President? Like shooting fish in a barrel?

First he takes on a job he can't lose.....and now he's got one he can't win. Then again, winning is not what this is about, now is it? I mean, winning legal cases. It's more about winning elections.

Yeah, the guy who spent a ton of taxpayers' money trying to find something in Whitewater--and, of course, found nothing. And then Clinton bailed him out--with a little help from his enemies.