Thursday, June 28, 2007

The First Amendment Must Be Destroyed!

Today is Thursday, 28 June 2007.

As a goof, a high school student, during school time but off school grounds, during a parade, displays a banner: “Bong hits 4 Jesus”.

For this heinous crime, he is disciplined by his principal for promoting drug use.

He sues, the case goes to the Supreme Court, and he loses.

My thanks to Noah Bokat-Lindell, a high school student of Montclair, New Jersey, founder and administrator of, in a letter of this date in The New York Times, for the following quotation.

“In writing his judicial opinion on the case, Justice Clarence Thomas said, “In light of the history of American public education, it cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment “freedom of speech” encompasses a student’s right to speak in public schools.””

O ye strict constructionists of little faith!

Nowhere in the First Amendment can I find the words: “This right not valid in public schools.”

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

One can only suppose Thomas (one must deny him the honorific “Mr. Justice”, as by his very being he disgraces the office and robe) assumes that any other government entity than Congress, including school boards, boards of sanitation, taxi commissions, etc. are allowed to abridge freedom of speech.

The “argument” of Thomas tramples on several decades of Supreme Court precedent, overthrows the Constitution, and is a prime example of neo-conservative neo-Stalinist thought at its "finest".

During the times of the Roman Republic, Cato the Elder ended every speech, regardless of subject, with "Carthago delenda est" ("Carthage must be destroyed").

Thomas says: The First Amendment delenda est.

Full disclosure: In high school, your author was a key instigator of political action to preserve freedom of speech in his high school system.


Anonymous Jamison said...

Wha wha wha.

Mr. Justice Thomas deserves his title. He earned it whether you think so or not.

Additionally, there were four others that voted with him. Why are you picking on him?

And goody, goody for you. Aren't you great. Aren't you special. You advocated free speach in high school. Give the man a prize.

8:05 AM  
Anonymous Della S. said...

My dear jamison,

You may think Clarence Thomas "earned" his title, but that is simply a matter of opinion. Some of us who watched his confirmation hearing may differ with your opinion. I may still refer to him as Justice Thomas, but that does not mean I think he is deserving of the position.

As for why HH "picked on" J. Thomas--could it be because he wrote the opinion that was being quoted?

The relevance of HH's high school activities should be obvious; this case involved a high school protest.

You should be happy that some people in this country still advocate free speech, so both of us are free to express our opinions.

8:23 AM  
Anonymous Jamison said...

Mr. Justice Thomas' confirmation hearing was part of the American system. For good or ill, the results have long-range impact on the country. If you don't like the system, move to another country.

No, HH did pick on Mr. Justice Thomas. Is not the majority opinion a reflection of the majority voters' opinion?

I belive HH is simply bragging about what he did years ago. What has he done lately?

8:53 AM  
Blogger HH said...

Perhaps Jamison doesn't understand the term "Full Disclosure". When a journalist writes on a subject with which they have involvement, they are obligated to disclose that to readers. It's called journalist ethics, not bragging.

As to the Thomas confirmation hearings, we now know that he sexually harassed many more women than Anita Hill. Part of the corruption of the American system is that much evidence wasn't allowed into the hearings.

"Picking on"? Is the Supreme Court junior high school? If Thomas didn't want to receive criticism for his anti-American opinions, he should never have worked so hard to become the house slave at the Big House.

As far as moving to another country: wise up. "Nations" are merely a figment of archaic vindictive imagination. There is, and has always been, only humanity and the greater sisterhood of the planet and the cosmos.

9:45 AM  
Anonymous Jamison said...

You were involved with high school-related free speach issues HOW MANY years ago?

If nations are "merely a figment of archaic vindictive imagination" then declining to pay taxes to the "imaginary" USA will not land you in jail. I am sure the plant and the cosmos will vouch for you.

10:21 AM  
Anonymous RtR said...

I am waiting for the day when some individual who is so desirous of limiting the freedoms of "bad people" will narrow his/her perception of reality into a singularity and at that "point," beomce an empty hole.

It may have already happened. In any event, it sounds like a promising premise for a Philip K. Dick story.

9:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home