Too stupid to breathe: Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Dumbfuckistan)

The stupid is strong with this one.

Sometimes I wonder how U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Chumuckla ... that's right, Chumuckla) got elected to Congress in the first place. Then I remember who elected him ... what his district looks like. And suddenly I get it.

You see, one can keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool. But yesterday, Jeff Miller got up on the floor of the House of Representatives and removed all doubt with regard to himself. And believe it or not, his fellow whackjob Christianists in Congress, the "Prayer Caucus," actually put the speech up on YouTube so the whole world could enjoy the lunacy:

Pandering is one thing, but making a complete travesty of fact and logic in order to do so, well, that takes special talent ... a talent Jeff Miller obviously has in copious amounts. You don't suppose the fact that Frank Lay and Robert Freeman are going to trial today had anything to do with Miller's epic oratory yesterday, do you?

Anyway, I'm going to have to give you the transcript of the speech, so you can get the full effect (italicized emphasis in original; boldface emphasis is mine):

Mr. Speaker, there is trouble brewing in the small community of Pace, Fla., a community of less than 8,000 people just south of my hometown, and full of hard-working Americans, where I believe that a federal judge has gone well outside the bounds of the Constitution to declare that prayer offered among adults is illegal. That's right: the judicial branch is once again trying to act like the legislative branch, and in doing so is hindering the First Amendment rights of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not a lawyer -- this is not a courtroom -- but as a member of Congress, I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me, God. That's what I intend to do.

The facts of the case in Does v. School Board of Santa Rosa County are clear. The federal district court, without a hearing, issued an injunction preventing any school employee from promoting or facilitating prayer at any school-sponsored event. That action alone tramples upon the First Amendment rights of a specific group of people, denying them the equal protection that's provided under the very Constitution that we believe in.

The same federal district court has now gone on to prohibit all employees from engaging in prayer or religious activities. The same court now thinks that Pace High School principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman violated this injunction at a private event, with zero student participation. That the court would somehow consider this action to be criminal behavior [is un]conscionable. However, Frank Lay and Robert Freeman now face criminal contempt charges for praying before a meal that was to be shared. All of this despite the fact that the Supreme Court itself has found that the Free Speech Clause protects private religious speech. The Supreme Court has further gone to find that not all religious speech that occurs in public schools or at a school-sponsored event is attributable to the government.

As lawmakers, we cannot sit idly by and let this happen. As members of Congress, we must act to uphold the Constitution. And as Americans, we must fight to ensure that our rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech are not taken away.

America is a nation of principles. We can sit here all night and argue about whether we are a nation of Judeo-Christian principles or of secular principles. But the fact is that our Constitution protects all Americans, and a court has no place deciding that some Americans do not warrant those protections. The Founding Fathers would be appalled, and I certainly am as well. I yield back ...

Now, it's tempting to take apart Rep. Pander's Miller's speech point-by-point, but anyone with half a brain can do that. Still, for the benefit of the wingnuts who lack that half-brain, a few pertinent points:

• If you're not a lawyer, then don't argue the law, dumbass. You "believe" the court went beyond the bounds of the Constitution? Do you believe in Santa Claus, too? You'd be just as credible if you do.
  


• No one makes the judicial branch act more like a legislative branch than some of the wingnuts on the U.S. Supreme Court, like Justice Antonin Scalia, who are notorious judicial activists. Bush v. Gore, anyone?


• The Constitution doesn't exist to protect the rights of the majority, Rep. Miller, but of the minority. No one's rights are being "trampled" by being forbidden to conduct organized prayer at a school-sponsored event; rather, the rights of non-Christians to not be subjected to such prayer ought to be the paramount concern. You should have learned that in civics class, congressman. Aren't you smarter than a fifth grader?


• A private event, with no students present? According to the complaint originally filed, the congressman is just flat-out wrong here:
  
  

  During a school-day luncheon on Wednesday, January 28, 2009, at the Dedication of the new Field House at Pace High School, Defendant Principal Frank Lay asked Robert Earl Freeman, Pace High Athletic Director, to offer a prayer to bless the food. See Ex. 86-02 at 1-4 (“In a traditional manner [Mr. Lay] asked Athletic Director, Robert Freeman to bless the food for the adults in attendance. Respectfully he responded to [Mr. Lay’s] request.” Id. at 1. “Principal Frank Lay asked [Mr. Freeman] to give thanks for our lunch, which [Mr. Freeman] did.” Id. at 2. “[Mr. Lay] asked Robert Freeman to ask a blessing on the food. [Mr. Lay] shared that [he is], and [was] at the date of this incident, aware of the court injunction and aware that this type of action is not permissible under the injunction.” Id. at p. 3.).
  
  Upon Mr. Lay’s request, Mr. Freeman offered a prayer at the event. Pace High students and faculty and community members were present at the Dedication of the new Field House. In response to Mr. Lay asking Mr. Freeman to pray and Mr. Freeman praying at a school event on Jan. 28, 2009, Defendant Superintendent instructed Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman to “avoid this type of action as it not permitted or [sic] as per the attached injunction.” Ex. 86-02 at 3-4. Although the actions of Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman appear to be in violation of the court’s preliminary injunction, Defendant Superintendent nevertheless ends his “reprimand” by thanking them “for [their] leadership at Pace High School.” Id.

  Seems pretty clear to me that the event was not private and students were there, unless Rep. Miller astonishingly has access to evidence that shows otherwise. I can't imagine the plaintiffs would have included it in their complaint if it weren't true, since it's so easy to prove or disprove objectively. Besides, even if students were not present, the luncheon still would be a "school-sponsored event," not a private one as he alleges, and this obviously is not "private religious speech" as Rep. Miller suggests. Again, Jeff: not lawyer? Don't argue law.


• It should go without saying that courts decide all the time that some Americans don't warrant certain protections. Time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech are just one basic example of how courts and the law restrain constitutional rights. I shouldn't expect Jeff Miller to know this but, as a member of Congress, it sure would be nice if he did.
  


• Finally (for the purposes of this post), the Founding Fathers would be delighted, not appalled, that their wishes had been carried out. For starters, read Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, a significant source for the First Amendment, which spells out precisely why people should be free from having a particular set of religious beliefs imposed on them. Bottom line: this isn't a freedom-of-speech issue, and the only part of the First Amendment implicated here is the Establishment Clause, which the court is trying to uphold.

Sure, I'm a lawyer, but it took me all of five minutes to find most of this stuff on the Internet. You'd think a freakin' member of Congress could do it pretty easily, too. But, apparently that's not the case for my very own congresscritter, Jeff Miller, who clearly and painfully is too stupid to breathe.

UPDATE (9/17/09 11:17 am): I see someone from Reston, Va., near D.C., just stopped by to read this post, having found it on something called "ReputationConnect.com." You don't suppose Jeff is checking to see what people think of him, do you?

Ah, never mind ... I'm not even sure he knows how to pull stuff through the intertubes, because if he did, he could have debunked his whole speech in minutes, even before he delivered it.

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 4 — Pastors continue to grandstand over prayer in school

Earlier today, I promised you posts about two news items regarding the intersection of religion and free speech. The first was about Liberty University forcing its College Democrats chapter to disband because it purportedly does not fit within the university's mission. Locally, though, there's another controversy that, in a way, approaches a similar issue from a completely different angle.

As mentioned previously in Blast Off!'s exclusive series "Pace: the final frontier," the Santa Rosa County School Board entered into a consent decree -- essentially, the settlement of a lawsuit that was not for monetary damages -- in which they promised to discontinue the practice of organizing Christian activities or prayers, such as for Pace High School's baccalaureate service, in response to a lawsuit by the ACLU. But with Pace's graduation approaching, two local pastors have made it their own personal crusade ... and they're only making things worse for everyone.

Rev. Joey Rogers of Pace Assembly of God, who previously had stepped up to help organize a perfectly legal private baccalaureate in compliance with the consent decree, just can't leave well enough alone. In response to a decision by the school board that only the school's valedictorian and salutatorian can speak at graduation, he's planned a "Students' Rights Rally" Tuesday to protest the board's action.

“The School Board has decided no one other than the valedictorian or salutatorian can speak at graduation at all high schools,” said the Rev. Joey Rogers, pastor of Pace Assembly of God. “Pressure from the ACLU has brought them to this place.”

Some Pace High School student leaders were scheduled to speak at graduation on May 30, the Rev. Rogers said.

“I’m sure the word got out that they are very strong Christians and were going to speak,” he said. “So, the School Board took action and cleared the roster because they may say ‘God’ or ‘prayer’ or ‘Jesus’.”

I am so sick of this misstating of the law. No wonder students and others are so confused! Rev. Rogers, have you even read the consent decree? Well, I have, and now you can, too (PDF). It reads in part:

School Officials are permanently enjoined from promoting, advancing, endorsing, participating in, or causing Prayers during or in conjunction with School Events for any school within the School District:

(a) School Officials shall neither offer nor participate in a Prayer during or in conjunction with a School Event.

(b) School Officials shall prohibit non-student third-parties (including clergy or other religious leaders) from offering a Prayer, invocation, benediction, or other religious remarks during or in conjunction with a School Event.

(c) School Officials shall not include Prayer, whether or not it is noted in a printed program, during or in conjunction with a School Event. School Officials shall not authorize students, student groups, a student body (e.g., through an election), or third parties to include Prayer, whether or not it is noted in a printed program, during or in conjunction with a School Event.

(d) School Officials shall not encourage, solicit, or invite any person, either implicitly or explicitly, to deliver or offer a Prayer during or in conjunction with a School Event. School Officials shall not set aside a time for Prayer during or in conjunction with a School Event.

(e) If a School Official elects to review or may by policy review the content of a student's or any other person's planned address during or in conjunction with a School Event, then School Officials shall prohibit the person making the address from offering a Prayer.

[...]

(g) If School Officials select persons to make an address during or in conjunction with [a] School Event, they shall do so by a selection process that is neutral to religion and in compliance with a written policy.

(h) To the extent that School Officials permit a person during or in conjunction with School Events to give an address that a School Official can or does shape, review, or edit for content, substance, message, style, or theme, then School Officials shall instruct the person that the person's address must exclude Prayer.

(Ed. -- capitalized terms are defined elsewhere in the consent decree.)

Apparently, Santa Rosa County school officials determined that if they permitted students other than the valedictorian or salutatorian to speak, they just might offer prayers. Based on my reading of the consent decree, that is a reasonable -- if somewhat draconian -- response. Besides, who's to say that the valedictorian or salutatorian won't offer a prayer? I mean, obviously they'll be told not to do so ... but when has that ever stopped a headstrong teenager?

My biggest problem with Rev. Rogers' diatribe is that nowhere does the consent decree state that a student cannot "say 'God' or 'prayer' or 'Jesus.' " Indeed, there is language in it that specifically forbids school officials from "discourag[ing] students to engage in religious activity." If a teacher, for example, wants to pray privately or in a small group before eating his or her lunch, or if a student says a private prayer before taking a big exam, that's fine. Rev. Rogers and those like him are deliberately muddying the waters to make it seem that no prayer is permissible, when the reality is simply that no organized prayer is permissible ... which, I might add, was what the law allowed even before the consent decree, notwithstanding Pace High's failure to abide by the law.

Meanwhile, speaking of grandstanding, another local pastor who has graced this blog's pixels before, Rev. Matt Cotten, is stirring the pot as well. He spoke yesterday (although he wasn't quoted in the article) at a rally protesting the school board's graduation speaker decision.

"We were not going to promote Christianity at our graduation," said Mary Allen, Pace High's student body president. "The School Board is prohibiting us from speaking because they are afraid we are going to pray, and by doing so, they are taking away our First Amendment rights."

[...]

If a student did pray, officials would have to stop it, Green said. To avoid a disruption to graduation, they decided to allow only student speakers selected on a neutral basis like grade-point average.

[...]

But Milton High senior Christine Mayeaux feels her rights have been violated.

"Rather than protect my rights, the ACLU has taken them away from me," she said. "Now, I won't be able to speak for my classmates as they voted for me to do when they elected me student body president."

While I feel for the respective student body presidents, and perhaps the school board's policy went too far, the fact remains that the policy exists to ensure that the consent decree is followed. I personally would be fine with having the other students speak, with the knowledge that they might face legal sanctions if they attempted to offer a prayer, but if the school board wants to be overly cautious, that is their prerogative.

Above all, though, this is not a freedom of speech issue. I've said it before and I'll say it again: even constitutional rights are not absolute. Your right to free speech may be restricted, as in the classic example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It's also restricted when it may infringe on another right that is deemed to take precedence: in this case, the right of one or a handful of student speakers to say their piece as compared with the rights of all attendees, Christian and non-Christian alike, not to have Christianity (to be blunt) shoved in their faces.

The statements of activists like Rev. Rogers and Rev. Cotten inflame the controversy. A better course would be to explain, patiently and thoroughly, to their parishioners that the consent decree only forbids organized prayer, and that individual, private prayer remains, as it always has been, perfectly legal. But when there's a chance to demonize the ACLU and "liberal thinking," I guess some folks just can't resist a shot at media stardom.

UPDATE (4:25 pm 5/23/09): By the way, there's a legal and valid way for the pastors and their supporters to get their way on this. Just get a constitutional amendment passed. I promise not to argue with you anymore if you do it.

Taking God out of prayer?

As you may know, I'm usually one of the first to decry inappropriate or unconstitutional religious (read: Christian, generally) intrusions into public settings. But to the surprise of many -- or at least some (hi, Miss July! *waves*) -- I've finally found an example that just goes too far.

A chaplain for Hospice by the Sea in Boca Raton has resigned after being asked to excise specific references to "God" or the "Lord" from her public prayers.

Chaplains still speak freely of the Almighty in private sessions with patients or families but, the Rev. Mirta Signorelli said: "I can't do chaplain's work if I can't say 'God' — if I'm scripted."

Hospice CEO Paula Alderson said the ban on religious references applies only to the inspirational messages that chaplains deliver in staff meetings. The hospice remains fully comfortable with ministers, priests and rabbis offering religious counsel to the dying and grieving.

"I was sensitive to the fact that we don't impose religion on our staff, and that it is not appropriate in the context of a staff meeting to use certain phrases or 'God' or 'Holy Father,' because some of our staff don't believe at all," Alderson said.

I could almost understand this if it were a public, i.e., governmentally-affiliated, organization. But as a private group, the constitutional proscription on establishment of religion just doesn't apply.

According to the article, the chaplain "would have to watch her language, she said, when leading a prayer in the hospice chapel, when meeting patients in the public setting of a nursing home and in weekly patient conferences with doctors, nurses and social workers." Well, I agree that she shouldn't be leading prayers in weekly patient conferences; at the very least, she could pray with the patient privately before meeting with the other personnel. However, asking her to remove God from prayers in the chapel ... well, that's just ludicrous. Bottom line: this is an unnecessarily burdensome restriction on Rev. Signorelli's free speech, and there certainly are less burdensome alternatives.

I doubt we've seen the end of this story. While I'm all for Alderson's sentiment and her intentions probably are good, well, you know what they say about good intentions ...

More fun with Florida law: it's okay for sex offenders to have porn

I'm not really sure how I feel about this particular case or the ruling, but I do know that the comments on the article are laughable.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled today that convicted sex offenders on probation can possess pornographic materials, so long as the porn doesn't pertain to their "particular deviant behavior pattern."

The facts: Donald Kasischke ... pleaded guilty in 2001 to three counts each of lewd or lascivious battery and exhibition on a 15-year-old boy. He was sentenced to a year in prison followed by two years of community control and eight years of probation.

Officers searched Kasischke's home after his release and found pornographic photos and a videotape (the porn contained images of young men, but it could not be proven that they were underage). He was hauled back to jail, which the Third DCA ruled was appropriate.

But the Supreme Court justices read the wording of the law, which included the phrase about relevance to an offender's deviant behavior pattern, and decided Kasischke should be able to keep his porn. (Kasischke, 61, is still in prison, but he will come back to Miami for a new hearing based on Thursday's favorable ruling.)

I mean, I'm not exactly thrilled that a convicted sex offender legally can have pornography, but then again, I can't think of any reason why he or she should relinquish their possessions, even if the possessions in question are a little, um, squicky.

But check out the comments on the article ... especially the third one.

I now know why its called the "High" Court. The only question left is: Which illegal drug is used to achieve the "high" before court is in session...

Posted by: UKnoe | July 10, 2008 at 03:52 PM [kill]​[hide comment]

---

The FL Supr. Court is so out of whack with reality, that you do wonder if they are high on drugs.

Posted by: Ludwig | July 10, 2008 at 04:21 PM [kill]​[hide comment]

---

Is it possible that the Right of Free Speech applies only to the "approved" members of our society? As an evil neo-con I have a hard time with resricting Free Speech in any way. This is why I am hated. If these folks are so sick that they pose a continual danger to our families, there is any easy solution. It only cost .17cents per application. It is called a .357 Magnum.

Posted by: SwampRat | July 10, 2008 at 04:24 PM [kill]​[hide comment]

Typical neo-con. Kill 'em all -- never mind the consequences. Or, for that matter, the Constitution. What a bunch of sick fuckers.

Where in America is free speech illegal?

Why, in the U.S. military, naturally.

From fellow Floridian Bryan at Why Now? comes this timely reminder:

If you are wondering why the generals don’t say anything until after they retire:

Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

This is something that people have to keep in mind - you can’t bitch about the boss when you are an officer or you will be subject to a court martial. Remember, active duty officers, by military law, can only give you the good news, which makes their testimony rather worthless.

It's definitely worth remembering this whenever the wingnuts throw their shit around the cage about how it's only retired generals (who supposedly have an ax to grind) who criticize the Bush crime syndicate. That's because it's the law.

Don't worry ... if the fucking criminals have their way, free speech will be a thing of the past anyway ...

I don't practice Santeria

What do you do when religious freedom and animal cruelty intersect? South Florida is facing that dilemma head on, mixed in with a healthy dose of good old American xenophobia.

Noriel Batista has had little peace since a swarm of Coral Gables police officers burst onto his property, disrupting a Santeria ritual intended to initiate him into a special order of his religion's priesthood.

"It has ruined my life," said Batista, a Cuban-born pharmacy owner who bought the home on Casilla Street nine years ago.

Business at his Coral Way pharmacy has suffered, he says. Neighbors expressed outrage that animal sacrifices -- in this case, 11 goats and 44 fowl -- were taking place in the City Beautiful.

Shortly after the June incident made the news, Batista received a handwritten note, scrawled in the margins of a Miami Herald article: America has become a dumping ground for trash like you. Go back to Cuba and take your animal sacrifices with you.

The incident, which brought television cameras and patrol cars to the quiet, tree-lined neighborhood in early June, highlights the tension between adherents of a religion most notorious for its practice of animal sacrifice and neighbors in the increasingly affluent suburban areas where the religion is spreading and taking root.

This is an extremely difficult issue. On the one hand, it should go without saying that, in America -- yes, even Drunky McStagger's America -- everyone has the right to practice any religion they like, or not to practice any religion at all. On the other hand, well, Michael Vick. (In other words, it's difficult for me to justify animal sacrifice, even in the name of religion.)

The article continues:

Practitioners of Santeria, most notably Ernesto Pichardo, the South Florida priest who won a landmark Supreme Court decision sanctioning animal sacrifices, say the complaints -- and official reaction to those complaints -- come from a misunderstanding of his religion at best, outright bigotry at worst.

"When we hear about Santeria in Coral Gables, it's as if Santeria doesn't have a right to be in Coral Gables," said Pichardo, the head of the Church of Lukumí Babalú Ayé. His members were performing the disrupted June ritual to initiate Batista into the order of Balogún, entitling him to conduct animal offerings, a sacred precept of the religion that traces its roots to West Africa.

"But it's OK if it's in Little Havana, or it's all right if we do it in Hialeah," said Pichardo. "As long as it is marginalized, and only appears in the lower strata of society, then it's OK."

Pichardo has asked Coral Gables mayor Don Slesnick for an official apology and religious sensitivity training for the department's police force. Slesnick, who drew kudos from scores of residents for speaking out against the sacrifices, said he is respectful of santeros. "I have requested that the city attorney do an exhaustive investigation of the current status of the law," he said.

"We not only have to observe the constitutional right for religious freedom, but we have to also concern ourselves with the quality of life in our neighborhoods," he said. "There is the safety and health issue, sanitation issue dealing with dead animal carcasses."

Santero priest Jesús Suárez, who helped officiate the ceremony at Batista's home, said he tried to explain to officers that they were interrupting a religious event. It was only after several hours and a consultation with the Miami-Dade state attorney's office that police allowed Suárez and another priest to continue.

"They ordered us out of the house, desecrated a holy space, treated us like criminals," he said.

Neighbors said that while they respect Batista's right to practice his faith, they wish he would not be so public about it.

"I just think they should do those things away from neighborhoods, where there are no kids and nobody can see those things," said Ricardo Celiz, a sports anchor for Univisión's Spanish-language broadcast network, TeleFutura. His family, including two small children, lives four houses away.

"And definitely I don't want them to see any dead animals at that house," he said.

So it appears that essentially it boils down to a "not in my back yard" attitude. In much the same way that the Bush crime syndicate and their supporters provide "free speech zones" for protests, people want Santeria kept away from them, hidden from view, "out of sight, out of mind." I can't help but wonder how the Roberts Court would rule on Pichardo's animal sacrifice case ...

And so ultimately I find myself coming down on the side of freedom of religion. We're not entitled as Americans to dictate how or where one worships, any more than we can decide whether one worships or where one may exercise free speech.* I personally may find animal sacrifice abhorrent, but is it therefore my right to restrict the religious use thereof? In order to be true to my own values, I must answer that question with an emphatic no.

---

* Of course, there are other factors, like public safety, that properly affect our First Amendment rights. Such factors are beyond the scope of this post.

The Constitution takes another hit

The Roberts Court today managed to restrict the rights of Americans yet again today, as they announced their decision in Morse v. Frederick (PDF).

Joseph Frederick displayed a banner with the message "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" as the Olympic torch went through Juneau, Alaska, in 2002. Because it was a "school-sanctioned event," principal Deborah Morse suspended Frederick for his "pro-drug message," despite Frederick's protestations that the banner was meant simply as a nonsense phrase; he had seen it on a snowboard and thought it was funny.

As you might have expected, the Roberts Court handed down a 5-4 decision in favor of the principal in this important First Amendment case, despite the surprising opposition of "conservative groups that often are allied with the administration," which "are backing Frederick out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose homosexuality or abortion."

For those interested, here is the holding of the Court, as presented in the syllabus of the slip opinion (PDF):

Held: Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick. Pp. 5–15.

(a) Frederick’s argument that this is not a school speech case is rejected. The event in question occurred during normal school hours and was sanctioned by Morse as an approved social event at which the district’s student-conduct rules expressly applied. Teachers and administrators were among the students and were charged with supervising them. Frederick stood among other students across the street from the school and directed his banner toward the school, making it plainly visible to most students. Under these circumstances, Frederick cannot claim he was not at school. Pp. 5–6.

(b) The Court agrees with Morse that those who viewed the banner would interpret it as advocating or promoting illegal drug use, in violation of school policy. At least two interpretations of the banner’s words—that they constitute an imperative encouraging viewers to smoke marijuana or, alternatively, that they celebrate drug use—demonstrate that the sign promoted such use. This pro-drug interpretation gains further plausibility from the paucity of alternative meanings the banner might bear. Pp. 6–8.

(c) A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, the Court declared, in holding that a policy prohibiting high school students from wearing antiwar armbands violated the First Amendment, id., at 504, that student expression may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will “materially and substantially disruptthe work and discipline of the school,” id., at 513. The Court in Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, however, upheld the suspension of a student who delivered a high school assembly speech employing “an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor,” id., at 678. Analyzing the case under Tinker, the lower courts had found no disruption, and therefore no basis for discipline. 478 U.S., at 679–680. This Court reversed, holding that the school was “within its permissible authority in imposing sanctions . . . in response to [the student’s] offensively lewd and indecent speech.” Id., at 685. Two basic principles may be distilled from Fraser. First, it demonstrates that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” Id., at 682. Had Fraser delivered the same speech in a public forum outside the school context, he would have been protected. See, id., at 682–683. In school, however, his First Amendment rights were circumscribed “in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.” Tinker, supra, at 506. Second, Fraser established that Tinker’s mode of analysis is not absolute, since the Fraser Court did not conduct the “substantial disruption” analysis. Subsequently, the Court has held in the Fourth Amendment context that “while children assuredly do not ‘shed their constitutional rights. . . at the schoolhouse gate,’ ... the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school,” Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U. S. 646, 655–656, and has recognized that deterring drug use by schoolchildren is an “important—indeed, perhaps compelling” interest, id., at 661. Drug abuse by the Nation’s youth is a serious problem. For example, Congress has declared that part of a school’s job is educating students about the dangers of drug abuse, see, e.g., the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994, and petitioners and many other schools have adopted policies aimed at implementing this message. Student speech celebrating illegal drug use at a school event, in the presence of school administrators and teachers, poses a particular challenge for school officials working to protect those entrusted to their care. The “special characteristics of the school environment,” Tinker, 393 U. S., at 506, and the governmental interest in stopping student drug abuse allow schools to restrict student expression that they reasonably regard as promoting such abuse. Id., at 508, 509, distinguished. Pp. 8–15.

439 F. 3d 1114, reversed and remanded.

So fundie groups are worried that a decision for Morse (which is what we've got) "would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose homosexuality or abortion?" Sounds like it's time to make lemonade from lemons, eh?

UPDATE (12:48 pm 6/25/07): It gets worse. The Court, in another 5-4 decision today, also announced its opinion in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. (PDF), where a group of individuals challenged the Bush crime syndicate's concept of government funding of "faith-based initiatives." Justice Alito, writing for a plurality, stated essentially that a taxpayer's standing (i.e., legal permission to sue, in this case, the federal government) is limited to congressional expenditures pursuant to Art. I, sec. 8 of the Constitution.

Unbelievable, and sad.

Double standards, or It's OK [to exploit the military] If You're A Republican

"IOKIYAR." It's OK If You're A Republican.

We've heard it over and over again. But rarely have I seen it so blatantly applied as in this story of an anti-war protestor facing punishment for wearing his Marine uniform at a protest.

Marine Cpl. Adam Kokesh participated in the protest in March, clad in a uniform that had his name tag and other insignia removed. After he was identified in a photo caption in The Washington Post, a superior officer sent him a letter saying he might have violated a rule prohibiting troops from wearing uniforms without authorization.

After a hearing Monday before an administrative separation board at the Marine Corps Mobilization Command, the panel decided not to recommend a less-than-honorable discharge, choosing instead the general discharge.

The general discharge is described as a "nonpunitive discharge," which may be technically true, but by refusing Cpl. Kokesh an honorable discharge, the Marine Corps clearly is punishing him.

Here's the crux of the matter:

Kokesh is a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, which consists mainly of those who have left active duty but still have time remaining on their eight-year military obligations. His service is due to end June 18, but the Marine Corps is seeking to let him go two weeks early with a less-than-honorable discharge.

That could cut some of his health benefits and force him to repay about $10,800 he received to obtain his undergraduate degree on the GI Bill.

His attorneys said Kokesh was not subject to military rules during the protest because he was not on active duty. They said the protest was a theatrical performance, which meant wearing a uniform was a not a violation of military rules.

The military considered it a political event, at which personnel are not allowed to wear their uniforms without authorization.

The general discharge would not result in the loss of health benefits or the reimbursement of educational expenses. So the issue boils down to whether officers will accept the Board's recommendation of a general discharge or opt instead for the less-than-honorable discharge.

There can be little doubt that Cpl. Kokesh would have received an honorable discharge upon separation in two weeks, but for the protest. Therefore, even a general discharge is a punitive measure designed to sanction him for exercising his First Amendment rights.

Oh, and military personnel are not permitted to wear their uniforms at political events without authorization? Are you telling me they were "authorized" at all of these? (Don't even tell me these weren't "political" events.)






Well, you get the idea. Remember, kids: It's OK If You're A Republican ... to do just about anything.

Only in Florida

I've long contended that no state has more craziness than Florida. Whether it's tabloid queens OD'ing or diaper-clad astronauts attacking colleagues, we've got it over everyone else.

And here's more evidence:

Jennifer Smith tried to keep the peace at her hard-won state job by removing the Confederate-flag tag and a pair of stars-and-bars fuzzy dice from her SUV that she parks at the Department of Health every morning.

But when her bosses told her to get rid of a ribald warning to tailgaters, the rebel in her surfaced. If the state fired her over it, Smith said Monday, she would find a lawyer and make it a free-speech showdown.

The red-letter message in her rear window proclaims, "If you're riding my ass you'd better be pullin' my hair."

When the department realized Monday that Smith wasn't just whistling Dixie, its order to remove the sticker was gone with the wind.

"I stood up for my rights, and that's what matters to me," Smith said.

[...]

She went home to Woodville, thought about it a lot during the weekend and decided to stand like the old men, boys and soldiers at the nearby Natural Bridge battle site, who kept Tallahassee from being taken in the last weeks of the Civil War. Smith said she likes her coworkers but fears someone wanted to keep finding things to criticize.

The Confederate flag front license plate bore the touching message, "Jennifer loves Snuffy." "Which is my husband," Jennifer ungrammatically felt compelled to emphasize.

Like I said ... only in Florida.

UPDATE (7:13 pm 5/22/07): More "Only in Florida" ... this time it's a crimestoppers bulletin (PDF) for condom thieves.

Um, okay. Glad to see what the priorities are in Polk County.