Skip to main content

Federal Courts

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #348 - Monday, 2 July 2007

STUDENTS CAN'T SPEAK FREELY? ************PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE************ DrugSense FOCUS Alert #348 - Monday, 2 July 2007 On Monday, June 25, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down their ruling on the case known informally known as "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." High school student Joseph Frederick was subjected to school suspension in 2002 for his display of a homemade banner while standing across the street from school property, albeit during normal school hours. While initial court rulings held in favor of the Juneau, Alaska school district, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed in favor of Frederick. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that since the school officials might interpret Frederick's message as some form of "promoting illegal drug use", disciplining the student with school sanctioned penalties is appropriate. MAP has already archived over a hundred news clippings on this ruling from across North America. These, and additional clippings during the days ahead, may be found at: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Bong+Hits+4+Jesus (Bong Hits 4 Jesus) Please consider writing and sending a Letter to the Editor directed to the newspaper closest to your hometown. We invite additional consideration of sending appropriate letters to other newspapers which have covered this story. If you elect to write to more than one newspaper, we strongly suggest at least some modification of your message so that each newspaper receives a unique letter. Additionally, MAP has archived a large number of Opinion pieces - most being critical of the ruling - from newspaper editorial boards and columnists, including nationally known writers George Will and Debra Saunders. Most of these opinion items saw print within the past one to three days. They make excellent targets for readers to voice their own feelings about the ruling from the Supreme Court. Letters of 200 words or less have the best chance of print unless otherwise noted in MAP headers. Thanks for your effort and support. It's not what others do it's what YOU do ********************************************************************** Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center: http://www.mapinc.org/resource/ Or contact MAP's Media Activism Facilitator for personal tips on how to write LTEs that get printed. [email protected] ********************************************************************** PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent letter list ( [email protected] ) if you are subscribed, or by E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] if you are not subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others can learn from your efforts. Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( [email protected] ) will help you to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing efforts. To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form ********************************************************************** Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource === . DrugSense provides many services at no charge, but they are not free to produce. Your contributions make DrugSense and its Media Awareness Project (MAP) happen. Please donate today. Our secure Web server at http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm accepts credit cards. Or, mail your check or money order to: . DrugSense 14252 Culver Drive #328 Irvine, CA 92604-0326. (800) 266 5759 DrugSense is a 501c(3) non-profit organization dedicated to raising awareness about the expensive, ineffective, and destructive "War on Drugs." Donations are tax deductible to the extent provided by law.

DPA Press Release: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Decision Weakens Free Speech; Schools Can Censor "Pro-Drug Use Speech" But Criticism of Drug War is Protected

For Immediate Release: June 25, 2007 For more info: Tony Newman, T: (646) 335-5384 “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” Decision Weakens Free Speech; Schools Can Censor “Pro-Drug Use Speech” But Criticism of Drug War is Protected Advocates Concerned about “Drug War Exception” to the First Amendment and Who Will Determine What is Inappropriate Speech The Supreme Court issued a mixed opinion in the case of Morse v. Frederick, allowing censorship of student speech that promotes illegal drug use while affirming the core principle that political speech questioning the wisdom of the war on drugs is constitutionally protected. The case focused on Joseph Frederick, who was suspended in 2002 from a high school in Alaska after displaying a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner during a class trip to see the Olympic torch parade pass by. Justice Alito in his concurring opinion, joined by Justice Kennedy, makes clear that he only joins the majority in so far as it protects speech “that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as ‘the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use.” “We take mild comfort that the decision clearly protects speech challenging the war on drugs. Never before has the Supreme Court stated so clearly that speech attacking the wisdom of the war on drugs is protected wherever it may occur,” said Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “But who is going to decide what is appropriate speech? Students are on the front lines of the war on drugs, and we are deeply concerned that free speech will now be administered by those who may wish to suppress open discussion on a range of topics such as the effectiveness of the D.A.R.E. program, school drug testing policies, or random locker searches,” said Abrahamson. “Our Constitutionally protected rights to free speech shouldn’t have an arbitrary drug war exception.” As Justice Stevens recognized in his dissent: “Even in high school, a rule that permits only one point of view to be expressed is less likely to produce correct answers than the open discussion of countervailing views.” The First Amendment should not be curtailed by a “nonsense banner” containing “an oblique reference to drugs,” lamented Stevens, who was joined by Ginsburg and Souter.

Press Release: Home of the Free???

For Immediate Release: May 16, 2007 Contact: E.C. Danuel D. Quaintance, Church of Cognizance at (928) 485-2952 I ask for nothing more than open minds to examine the possible consequences of putting scriptural interpretations of a recognized religion to a test, in order to decide if that religion qualifies for First Amendment protections. It is not uncommon amongst followers of various faiths to interpret their common faith in different ways. The Supreme Court stated, in Thomas v. Review Board, “Intrafaith differences of that kind are not uncommon among followers of a particular creed, and the judicial process is singularly ill equipped to resolve such differences in relation to the Religion Clauses,” then went on to instruct that “Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretations.” This human freedom to interpret the scriptures as we see them was something most Americans take for granted. This freedom is not something small churches can take for granted any longer. The attack against a small church, and religious interpretations in general, has begun in a U.S. District court in New Mexico. New Mexico follows prior decisions of the 10th Cir. Courts. The 10th Circuit upheld the use of a test in the District of New Mexico, which originated in deciding if the beliefs of a newly established, one-man, religion qualified to receive First Amendment protection. The test has become known as the Meyers Matrix. The use of the Meyers Matrix test was never challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States. Now the Meyers test has been inappropriately used to test if a religious group of a recognized religion deserves protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA. Testimony of cultural anthropologist Dr. Deborah Pruitt, PhD, who specializes in many non-mainstream religions, revealed the Meyers test is highly skewed against a great number of recognized religions. Government, in an attempt to avoid the requirement of showing “a compelling government interest” for burdening the free “Exercise of Religion”, has chosen a new and innovative path of getting around that requirement. First government attorneys declared the religion was “a Bastardized form” of the religion. Then went on to declare, what synonymously amounts to claiming because the leader of a Christian church was no Christ, the church did not deserve the constitutional protection a religion enjoys. This wasn’t enough insult to freedom of religion, government turned to a Priest of another sect of the religion, as an expert witness, in an attempt to prove another religious group incorrectly interprets the teachings, practices, and modes of worship of their common faith. This move showed a total disrespect for prior decisions of the Supreme Court, like the one quoted above. In the end it didn’t matter that government attempted to test one sect against another. Government’s hoped results from such an attempt backfired. The testimony of government’s expert witness from the common faith ended up showing the small group might actually more correctly interpret many elements of their common faith. With the prior method failing it was up to the, recently appointed, Federal Judge to put the hammer down. U.S. District Judge Judith Herrera had her own methods of depriving religious freedoms. She decided to count the elements that were not met in the Meyers test, and then call that which was met “dicta,” which allowed her to not count that part of the test when arriving at a deciding average of whether or not the beliefs qualify for religious protections. By that move, and a determination that the “mantra” considered the “moral and ethical compass,” of this recognized religion, provided no moral or ethical guidance, the judge ruled that not enough factors of the Meyer Matrix were met to qualify for religious protections under RFRA or the First Amendment. End of story, the beginning of the end of a once highly honored protection amongst Americans. The only hope now is through contacting your representatives and asking them to investigate and put a halt to this disregard for cherished human rights. For more information visit http://danmary.org

ASA's Medical Marijuana in the News: Week of 3/23

FEDERAL: Raich Medical Marijuana Ruling Draws Criticism CONNECTICUT: Medical Marijuana Bill Supported MINNESOTA: State Medical Marijuana Measure Moves Forward RHODE ISLAND: Medical Marijuana Law Needs Action

Drug Policy Forum of Kansas Update

Wakarusa Music Festival: Volunteers Needed KS Legislature: Meth Offender Registry Update ACLU Forum on Wakarusa Law Enforcement Past Issues Medical Marijuana: Two Federal Court Rulings Medical Marijuana: New Mexico Passes Legislation

Ed Rosenthal Trial Update

[Courtesy of Ed Rosenthal] Dear Friends, This is an update on my case. On March 2nd the judge held a hearing in which he rejected almost all of our motions. He threw out selective prosecution, improper conduct, lying to the Grand Jury, and prosecutorial delay.
Subscribe to Federal Courts