My older son, who is now a teacher, listened to my rant about the Bong Hits for Jesus case and responded: "Actually, adolescents are, or frequently can be, asses. This is not a case of political protest. This kid is not a black student sitting in at a whites only lunch counter. This is not a protest against a war, or even a protest against making a benign drug illegal. It's just a kid trying to get his face on TV.
"We had a kid in my physics class who would raise his hand and ask the teacher, 'Do you believe in free will?' And he'd continue to raise his hand with stuff like that until the teacher finally said, 'Shut up. This is a class where I'm trying to teach quantum mechanics, not metaphysics.' This kid eventually filed his teeth, went out into the desert and did mescaline with Native Americans. He was a pain and he would have, if you let him, made it impossible for anyone in that class to learn anything."
This resonates with, but does not exonerate, Justice Thomas's opinion.
What it does do is it makes me realize this Bong Hits case may not be the best example of what makes the Supreme Court so problematic.
My basic point, that you can predict how each of these justices will vote by knowing their prejudices, that you can see these learned scholars work their way back to the position they knew they were going to take by listening to a 3 sentence synopsis of the case, is, I believe, still true.
On the other hand, my first son, who got me to read more patiently each of the opinions, did teach me something. And that something is this: When you actually read the individual arguments, it is remarkable to see the unexpected sensitivities, at least in some of the justices. Alito, in particular, surprised me by agonizing over the issue of suppressing dissenting speech.
And these remarks could guide behavior, if teachers or principals ever read them.
I do understand now something which had eluded me: If this student had frankly taken a position about a school policy, a government policy, against outlawing marijuana, for the environment, against the war in Afghanistan, then the court may well have voted for him, (although not Thomas) or at least the conservative justices would have had to really show their authoritarian colors, but the facts of this case make this kid simply a clown, and the Constitution does not protect the clown.
On, the other hand, I was reminded of the very first scene of The Wire. Detective McNulty is sitting on a porch with a local Black kid and they are looking at the body of Snotboggie, who is lying in a pool of his own blood, dead. He has been shot because he scooped up the pile of cash at a crap game and tried to run away with it. Turns out, Snotboggie did that every time he played. He'd let the pile of cash build up, and once it was big enough, he'd scoop it up and run. Usually, the other players caught him and beat him senseless, but this time, somebody shot him in the head.
"I got to ask you," McNulty says. "If Snotboggie always stole the pot, why'd you even let him play?"
"Huh?"
"Well, you say, he always ended the game by running off with the money. So, if you knew he was going to do that, why'd you even let him in the game, in the first place?
"Got to," the kid on the stoop says. "This America, man."
In a sense, that was my reaction to the Bong Hits For Jesus thing. You have to let him do the stupid thing. Then you can punish him. But you don't shoot him in the head.
You let that banner wave, then you call him in to your office and you question him about what he was protesting about, and if he's just a clown, you suspend him. Or you can suspend him for being late for his office appointment.
But you don't say you cannot even voice an opinion.
In this case, the question is whether or not he even voiced an opinion.
There are better examples of the Supreme Court kiling the First Amendment: When Eugene Debbs was convicted for violating the Espionage Act of 1917, which forbade public expressions of opinion against the First World War and the Draft to support it, that's when Oliver Wendel Holmes said there are limits to free speech, and gave the example of "You can't shout Fire in a Crowded Theater." But the analogy was misleading. Debbs had stood outside that theater and shouted there were no fire exits, don't go in. He was saving lives, not putting them at risk.
I suppose the better case to examine would be the United case in which a corporation is defined as a person, imbued with the same inalienable rights. There, free speech is protected by a Supreme Court determined to keep the rich and powerful firmly in control of the government and the national discourse, but that's just my impression. I haven't read through the opinions yet.
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment