Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 Wronguy
Registered: 03/05/05
Posts: 4,450
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
|
 Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case 
#6326853 - 12/02/06 12:37 PM (6 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/16143966.htm
Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case
WASHINGTON - It was a high school prank that surely got laughs but quickly drew the ire of a Juneau, Alaska, principal.
Joseph Frederick's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner also inspired a constitutional argument, however, and the Supreme Court will decide whether the school's principal violated his rights when she suspended him for two weeks after he unfurled the message at a school-sponsored event.
It's a case that plunges the justices back into a familiar exercise in careful line-drawing, one that asks them to define the boundaries between student free speech and educational order.
The principal "was enforcing a school policy against displaying messages that promote illegal substances," lawyers for the Juneau school district wrote in their brief to the high court. The district's lead lawyer is Kenneth Starr, the former federal judge who investigated President Clinton during the Whitewater scandal.
"For that entirely appropriate action, she faces the potential for ruinous liability," the brief continued.
A federal appeals court in California ruled earlier this year that Frederick was entitled to go ahead with his suit, reversing a lower-court decision that had dismissed his complaint.
The National School Boards Association and several anti-drug advocates are backing the principal, Deborah Morse, and the Juneau school district. They want Frederick's suit dismissed.
"The question comes down to whether a school may, in the absence of concern about disruption of educational activities, punish and censor non-disruptive, off-campus speech by students during school-authorized activities because the speech promotes a social message contrary to the one favored by the school," wrote 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld.
"The answer under controlling, long-existing precedent is plainly `No.'"
The case began in early 2002, when students at Frederick's school were excused from class to watch the Olympic torch pass by on its way to Salt Lake City.
As the torch passed, Frederick and some friends revealed a large banner with "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" on it. The banner was caught by television cameras at the event.
Morse confronted Frederick, asking him to put down the banner. When he resisted, saying he had a First Amendment right to display the message, she confiscated it and later suspended him for defying her and for having the banner.
Frederick appealed the suspension through the school system, then sued when his efforts were turned away.
The 9th Circuit opinion said the school's actions violated Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, a landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision that permitted schools to censor student speech only if it interfered with school operations. That ruling prohibits schools from quashing messages that merely conflict with school policy.
But other rulings permit schools to censor student speech when it's obscene or lewd, or can reasonably be perceived as school-sponsored because it takes place at a school event. The appeals court found that Frederick's sign met neither of those criteria.
The 9th Circuit also found that because the law in this area was well established and widely understood, Morse didn't have the personal immunity that most government officials receive when they act in an official capacity. She could be sued personally, the court said.
The high court will have to sort out several issues to decide the case.
The justices may need to decide what Frederick's sign actually meant. Was it an endorsement of illegal drug use? Or was it a political message? Was it harmless?
The 9th Circuit concluded that the sign "may be funny, stupid or insulting" but wasn't offensive.
Starr, in his brief to the court, said the 9th Circuit got it wrong. The sign did carry a pro-drug message, and the lower court's acceptance of it "renders long-standing, commonplace policies against pro-drug messages unenforceable."
The high court also will have to determine how disruptive Frederick's banner was.
Was it tantamount to wearing a T-shirt with a pro-drug message to a pep rally? Or was the torch-watching event sufficiently unrelated to school activity that Frederick was free to display any message without it being associated with the school?
The court is expected to hear arguments in Frederick's case as early as February. A decision should come by the end of June.
|
 StroFun
Repeater
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 977
Loc: Mycotopia.net
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: Wronguy]
#6615814 - 02/27/07 08:49 AM (6 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Read SSDP's Supreme Court Brief (PDF)"
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=291512627&url_num=2&url=http://www.ssdp.org/ssdp-scotus-bh4j.pdf
Friends:
On Wednesday Students for Sensible Drug Policy officially took action to defend students' rights in a brief filed in the most important Supreme Court case ever to deal with student free speech about drugs and drug policy. SSDP filed an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) brief in the Supreme Court case of Morse v Frederick, better known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. Read the brief at http://www.ssdp.org/ssdp-scotus-bh4j.pdf
This case has made national news, sparking discussion about whether students have the right to express opinions contrary to school policy. High school student Joseph Frederick, 18 at the time, held up a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at a school-sanctioned, off-campus event (the viewing of an Olympic Torch parade). He sued his principal and school board after receiving a 10-day suspension. Losing the case in federal district court, Frederick won his appeal to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. When his school board appealed that ruling, the Supreme Court accepted the case.
While this case started out with a student being punished for displaying an absurd banner, the potential consequences of the Supreme Court's decision are far from a laughing matter. The school district, represented pro bono by Whitewater special prosecutor Ken Starr, is arguing for a blanket prohibition on any student speech about drugs. They argue that schools should be able to ban speech that is "inconsistent with the mission of the school to promote healthy lifestyles (including at every turn to combat substance abuse)." If the Supreme Court adopts this standard, principals could legally prevent students from forming SSDP chapters at their high schools!
This restrictive standard would also mean that students could be punished for openly debating their school's random drug testing policies, challenging the effectiveness of D.A.R.E., or speaking out against random locker searches. Whatever you think of the effectiveness of these programs, it is essential that students have the right to debate the merits of policies that directly impact their lives.
The school district also argues that schools should have the right to punish student speech that an administrator could "reasonably glean … exposes a positive sentiment" about drugs. Under this standard, students could be punished for supporting a decriminalization voter initiative, advocating for medical marijuana laws, or even talking about how marijuana has helped a relative suffering from cancer.
SSDP filed a brief because this case because we know that the ability of students to discuss drug policy issues is vitally important. However, filing a Supreme Court brief is expensive for a small non-profit such as ours. Our printing and filing fees for this brief will cost up to $1,500. We are willing to take this money out of our budget because of the importance of this case, but are asking our supporters to help offset the cost by making a generous contribution to SSDP today at http://www.ssdp.org/donate/
I hope you will take the time to read SSDP's amicus brief in this important Supreme Court case. Thank you for your enduring support.
Sincerely,
Kris Krane
Executive Director
SSDP"
|
chodamunky
Cheers!
Registered: 02/28/02
Posts: 2,030
Loc: sailing the seas of chees...
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: StroFun]
#6618794 - 02/28/07 01:29 AM (6 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I had to read this twice!
This restrictive standard would also mean that students could be punished for openly debating their school's random drug testing policies, challenging the effectiveness of D.A.R.E., or speaking out against random locker searches. Whatever you think of the effectiveness of these programs, it is essential that students have the right to debate the merits of policies that directly impact their lives.
The school district also argues that schools should have the right to punish student speech that an administrator could "reasonably glean … exposes a positive sentiment" about drugs. Under this standard, students could be punished for supporting a decriminalization voter initiative, advocating for medical marijuana laws, or even talking about how marijuana has helped a relative suffering from cancer.
School is not about education anymore... it's about brainwashing your children into becoming Yes Sayers to what the Authority deems appropriate, first in the schools, then to the government and in the work force. Disgusting, schools are becoming prisons... random drug tests, locker searches, cameras, metal detectors, bars in windows, on site police officer, fucking disgusting.
|
RoachMan
Comfortably Numb
 
Registered: 03/07/05
Posts: 2,083
Loc: Midwest
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: chodamunky]
#6619909 - 02/28/07 12:15 PM (6 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, of course we all know that the U.S. government is the biggest terrorist of all!
--------------------
"The mistake that I make is to try to come awake in a place you're just supposed to get shit faced or baked."
|
OneMoreRobot3021
punky jewster
Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 60,670
Loc: new york city
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: RoachMan]
#7090123 - 06/25/07 10:26 AM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PVSVGO0&show_article=1
Update:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.
More details forthcoming..
--------------------
Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake.
-Erik Davis
|
OneMoreRobot3021
punky jewster
Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 60,670
Loc: new york city
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: OneMoreRobot3021]
#7090269 - 06/25/07 11:42 AM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court ruled against a former high school student Monday in the "Bong Hit 4 Jesus" banner case -- a split decision that limits students' free speech rights.
Joseph Frederick was 18 when he unveiled the 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002.
Principal Deborah Morse confiscated it and suspended Frederick. He sued, taking his case all the way to the nation's highest court.
The justices ruled 6-3 that Frederick's free speech rights were not violated by his suspension over what the majority's written opinion called a "sophomoric" banner.
"It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority.
Roberts added that while the court has limited student free speech rights in the past, young people do not give up all their First Amendment rights when they enter a school.
Roberts was supported by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito. Breyer noted separately he would give Morse qualified immunity from the lawsuit, but did not sign onto the majority's broader free speech limits on students.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "This case began with a silly nonsensical banner, (and) ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message."
He was backed by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
At issue was the discretion schools should be allowed to limit messages that appear to advocate illegal drug use. "Bong," as noted in the appeal filed with the justices, "is a slang term for drug paraphernalia."
The incident occurred in January 2002 just outside school grounds when the Olympic torch relay was moving through the Alaska capital on its way to the Salt Lake City, Utah, Winter Games.
Though he was standing on a public sidewalk, the school argued Frederick was part of a school-sanctioned event, because students were let out of classes and accompanied by their teachers.
Morse ordered the senior to take down the sign, but he refused. That led to a 10-day suspension for violating a school policy on promoting illegal drug use.
Frederick filed suit, saying his First Amendment rights were infringed. A federal appeals court in San Francisco agreed, concluding the school could not show Frederick had disrupted the school's educational mission by showing a banner off campus.
Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr argued for the principal that a school "must be able to fashion its educational mission" without undue hindsight from the courts.
Morse, who attended arguments in March, told CNN at the time: "I was empowered to enforce the school board's written policies at that time aimed at keeping illegal substances out of the school environment."
As for Frederick, he is halfway across the globe, teaching English to students in China.
Now 24, he told reporters in March that he displayed the banner in a deliberate attempt to provoke a response from principal Morse, by whom he had been disciplined previously. But Frederick claimed his message of free speech is very important to him, even if the wording of the infamous banner itself was not.
"I find it absurdly funny," he said. "I was not promoting drugs. ... I assumed most people would take it as a joke."
--------------------
Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake.
-Erik Davis
|
OneMoreRobot3021
punky jewster
Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 60,670
Loc: new york city
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: OneMoreRobot3021]
#7090273 - 06/25/07 11:43 AM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Hark, the lone voices of reason:
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "This case began with a silly nonsensical banner, (and) ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message."
He was backed by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
--------------------
Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake.
-Erik Davis
|
dedjam
Electro Penguin
Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 2,139
Loc: Moralton, Statesota
Last seen: 2 years, 27 days
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: OneMoreRobot3021]
#7090352 - 06/25/07 12:19 PM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
This is a sad day to be an American...
Our Constitution and rights are truly meaningless when those in power dont want it to apply.
|
Derami
Stranger
Registered: 04/25/07
Posts: 47
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: dedjam]
#7090407 - 06/25/07 12:34 PM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Rolling out a 14-foot poster saying "bong hits 4 Jesus" was terribly stupid and ignorant, whatever free-speechers may say.
His only incentive for doing it was just to spite the principal because of earlier disciplinary action against him, and now any student can get fucked at the mere mention as to why marijuana should be legal.
And now this fucker is over in China not having to deal with the consequences of his actions or the idea that we now live in fear of a government that can oppress the thoughts or opinions of any given person. He probably shouldn't come back.
|
dedjam
Electro Penguin
Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 2,139
Loc: Moralton, Statesota
Last seen: 2 years, 27 days
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: Derami]
#7090478 - 06/25/07 01:05 PM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Derami said:
Rolling out a 14-foot poster saying "bong hits 4 Jesus" was terribly stupid and ignorant, whatever free-speechers may say.
Fuck off you anti-American piece of shit. I treasure my constitution and my right to free speach even if ignorant fucks like you dont.
The only thing terribly stupid and ignorant here is you
|
OneMoreRobot3021
punky jewster
Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 60,670
Loc: new york city
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: dedjam]
#7090586 - 06/25/07 01:53 PM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
No flaming, dude. Calm down.
--------------------
Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake.
-Erik Davis
|
Derami
Stranger
Registered: 04/25/07
Posts: 47
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: dedjam]
#7090628 - 06/25/07 02:05 PM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
woah hold on a second just calm down and read what I have to say.
I too think it blows that we can't talk about drugs without being reprimanded by school officials, and I think that the three dissenters in this SC ruling are the only people with any sense regarding how silly the whole situation is. However they are not the majority, the other six were, and they reflect the American attitude about drug-users: that they should not be promoting illegal substances and especially not be talking about drugs in a religious context. It sucks and, but that's just how it is. And I for one am not crazy about people holding up signs about bongs on school grounds. If I were still in school I might have laughed and shook my head at how pointless it was, but some honest hard-working students who can get through life without drugs don't have to put up with such retarded shit just because someone thought they were making a statement. That's why school policies are so paternalistic; they want to make the best learning environment for students.
I, as an American, support all free speech especially if it's for making changes in our country, such as drug law reform, but if it's going to make things worse for honest, hard-working and informed users like many people on this board then you need to rethink how far one can go with free speech. What did holding up "bong hits 4 Jesus" solve? Not a whole hell of a lot, he got suspended and our free speech rights are now that much more restricted regarding what we can say about drugs. Was he doing it for the sake of making a difference in drug laws or whatever? No he was just doing it to spite his principal. Now he's in China and could probably care less now about the impact he caused.
Quote:
"I find it absurdly funny," he said. "I was not promoting drugs. ... I assumed most people would take it as a joke."
Terrible assumption in a country where drugs/drug users still have a bad name. Another one is believing that all forms of free speech are acceptable.
Some types of free speech make a huge difference in America, while some amount to nothing and some just make this country suck even more, like what this person did.
Like it matters that you lowered my rating on this board. It's just a forum and has no impact on me asking questions or whatnot in other threads. However, this new precedence concerns each and everyone of us because it's our life/future and could be and indicator of where this country is headed.
Amazing to see how one person could fuck us over like this. If we want drug reform to work then some non-contributing elements need to be eliminated, such as the fucktard with the poster.
The negatives outweigh the positives right now and people could care less about coherent compelling arguments for legalizing drugs; All they see is the person down the street holding up "bong hits 4 Jesus"
|
DNKYD
Turtle!
Registered: 09/24/04
Posts: 12,209
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: Derami]
#7090695 - 06/25/07 02:23 PM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Derami said:
The negatives outweigh the positives right now and people could care less about coherent compelling arguments for legalizing drugs; All they see is the person down the street holding up "bong hits 4 Jesus"
This is because all major media outlets would rather do a soft prop piece on some high school punk holding up a cannabis related poster than an actual news piece on the devastating impacts of the War on Some Drugs.
|
Derami
Stranger
Registered: 04/25/07
Posts: 47
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: DNKYD]
#7090722 - 06/25/07 02:30 PM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yep. :-(
That's not gonna change any time soon either, sadly. Sensationalism gets the ratings.
|
DNKYD
Turtle!
Registered: 09/24/04
Posts: 12,209
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: Derami]
#7090749 - 06/25/07 02:37 PM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
So if you agree with my statement, how is it you can argue that the negative publicity surrounding the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" poster is the sole responsibility of the kid holding it? How is it that this kid, who was exercising his Constitutional right to freedom of expression, can be seen in your eyes to "fuck us over like this" when he was not one of the zealot justices handing down such a violative judgment?
|
fastfred
Old Hand
Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,703
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: DNKYD]
#7090770 - 06/25/07 02:47 PM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
In case you haven't followed this administration's appointments to the supreme court... We're headed down a long road of getting fucked in the ass by republican assholes. The next, at least, 20 years look pretty bleak.
|
Derami
Stranger
Registered: 04/25/07
Posts: 47
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: DNKYD]
#7090773 - 06/25/07 02:48 PM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Because his actions created a case that ended up all the way in the supreme court, creating precedence that further opresses what we say or do. Since the news reports on bullshit and ONLY bullshit like this, all it does is further cement people's impression about drug users: that we'd rather stand outside waving posters about bongs then making a real difference in this country.
|
DNKYD
Turtle!
Registered: 09/24/04
Posts: 12,209
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: Derami]
#7090781 - 06/25/07 02:51 PM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You have some twisted logic.
|
Derami
Stranger
Registered: 04/25/07
Posts: 47
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: DNKYD]
#7090801 - 06/25/07 03:04 PM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Boy gets in trouble ->boy gets disciplined by principal ->boy holds up "bong hits 4 Jesus" to spite principal ->boy creates case ending up in the supreme court held by republican zealots who would rather help the Right in return for their nominations, despite the fact that they are expected to remain politically neutral -> SC creates precedence further limiting free speech rights -> news reports on the ruling -> people watch biased coverage of the whole ordeal, whose opinions are guided by what they see on television, and develop negative image of drug users -> drug users get bad name on account of a superficial image created through ONE person -> drug reform becomes that much more difficult to obtain.
|
dedjam
Electro Penguin
Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 2,139
Loc: Moralton, Statesota
Last seen: 2 years, 27 days
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: OneMoreRobot3021]
#7090811 - 06/25/07 03:05 PM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OneMoreRobot3021 said:
No flaming, dude. Calm down.
First off, telling someone to "calm down" over the internet makes you just as bad...only you are comming off passive aggressive...so "calm down"
Second, fuck no, i take my freedoms seriously and if some faggot on the internet has a problem with that, im going to tell them what I think. Thats the beauty of FREEDOM OF SPEACH. Personal requestions to "calm down" can be made to my inbox instead of on the forum, esle you are just as bad as I.
|
OneMoreRobot3021
punky jewster
Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 60,670
Loc: new york city
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: dedjam]
#7090824 - 06/25/07 03:09 PM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
gopenguins said:
Quote:
OneMoreRobot3021 said:
No flaming, dude. Calm down.
First off, telling someone to "calm down" over the internet makes you just as bad...only you are comming off passive aggressive...so "calm down"
Second, fuck no, i take my freedoms seriously and if some faggot on the internet has a problem with that, im going to tell them what I think. Thats the beauty of FREEDOM OF SPEACH. Personal requestions to "calm down" can be made to my inbox instead of on the forum, esle you are just as bad as I.
Civil debate is impossible when you resort to "fuck you." That's why the rules exist on this website.
--------------------
Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake.
-Erik Davis
|
dedjam
Electro Penguin
Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 2,139
Loc: Moralton, Statesota
Last seen: 2 years, 27 days
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: OneMoreRobot3021]
#7090859 - 06/25/07 03:17 PM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OneMoreRobot3021 said:
Quote:
gopenguins said:
Quote:
OneMoreRobot3021 said:
No flaming, dude. Calm down.
First off, telling someone to "calm down" over the internet makes you just as bad...only you are comming off passive aggressive...so "calm down"
Second, fuck no, i take my freedoms seriously and if some faggot on the internet has a problem with that, im going to tell them what I think. Thats the beauty of FREEDOM OF SPEACH. Personal requestions to "calm down" can be made to my inbox instead of on the forum, esle you are just as bad as I.
Civil debate is impossible when you resort to "fuck you." That's why the rules exist on this website.
Intesting, this doesnt look like PAL?
Also, what do your posts have to do with the topic since this is a debate? Once again, why havent you taken this to PM's? Seems like you are part of the problem, not the answer.
|
Derami
Stranger
Registered: 04/25/07
Posts: 47
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
|
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear `Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case [Re: dedjam]
#7090882 - 06/25/07 03:22 PM (5 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Also, what do your posts have to do with the topic since this is a debate?
There is no debate. At least not from you.
I stated my opinion on the matter which might have not been in line with your beliefs. Tough. Despite flaming me (twice) I have yet to read anything directed at me from you that's debatable.
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Alan Rockefeller
2,724 topic views. 3 members, 30 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
