Trying to talk intelligently about pot at school...

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

... can get you in trouble.

Free Speech Goes up in Smoke at School

EDUCATION: MOTHER DECRIES 'WITCH HUNT' AGAINST CLEAN-CUT SON

Free speech goes up in smoke at school

Saskatchewan student's marijuana research spurs lockdown and suspension

JOE FRIESEN

June 20, 2007

WINNIPEG -- It started months ago when Kieran King's high-school class heard a presentation about the dangers of drug use.

Kieran, a 15-year-old Grade 10 student in tiny Wawota, Sask., population 600, thought the presentation lacked credibility, so he did some research on the relative health risks of alcohol, tobacco and cannabis.

When he told some of his fellow students that cannabis seemed the least hazardous of the three, he set in motion a series of events that led to a school lockdown, a threat assessment involving the RCMP, a suspension and failing grades on his exams.

"It's all a bit overwhelming," his mother, Jo Anne Euler, said. "It's just totally bizarre."

She explained that her son is a compulsive researcher who tends to go on at length about what he reads on the Internet.

One student at Wawota Parkland School didn't want to hear Kieran's thoughts about marijuana, and complained to principal Susan Wilson.

The principal then called Kieran's mother because she was concerned he was advocating drug use, Ms. Euler said.

Ms. Euler told the principal her son is an A student who doesn't go out, doesn't smoke or drink, and isn't pushing drugs on other kids.

"She said 'Well, if he talks about it again, I will be calling the police,' " Ms. Euler said. "I told Kieran that and he said 'Mom, all I'm doing is sharing the facts.' "

Kieran felt his right to free speech was being trampled, so he enlisted the help of the Saskatchewan Marijuana Party.

Together they planned a school walkout for free speech, scheduled for 11 a.m. last Tuesday, where free chocolate chip hemp seed cookies would be handed out.

But just before 11 that day, the principal announced that the school was a closed campus and that no one was allowed outside.

When several students tried to leave anyway, teachers barred the doors and ordered them back to class, Ms. Euler said. Kieran and his younger brother Lucas defied and joined a ragtag group of five protesters standing across from the school holding placards.

The principal then ordered a lockdown to ensure the safety of students. The RCMP raced to the scene, only to find a small, peaceful protest.

Kieran's mother was again called to the school and told that both her sons had been suspended for three days. Later that day, the school conducted a threat assessment on Kieran with the help of the RCMP and school division counsellors, Ms. Euler said.

"In the letter I got about the threat assessment [the principal] had documented five or six times in the last year that Kieran had talked to some kid about marijuana - not one of those times was Kieran ever talked to or was I ever talked to. Were they documented before or was it a witch hunt after the fact where they said 'Let's try to remember all the times Kieran talked about marijuana?' "

Don Rempel, director of education in the South East Cornerstone School Division, said the principal acted appropriately.

"The school had received complaints that the student was promoting the use of marijuana as an alternative to alcohol or sharing information around marijuana use," Mr. Rempel said, adding that Kieran overreacted to the principal's simple request.

Kieran is now in Shanghai where he will spend the summer learning Mandarin and working as an English tutor. He had scheduled his exams early in order to accommodate his trip, but the suspension meant he couldn't attend school to write the exams. As a result, he got a mark of zero on each paper. His marks were high enough to pass, but instead of getting 85 or 90, he'll get 55 or 60, his mother said, which could hurt his chances of a university scholarship.

She is appealing to the school board to allow Kieran to write his exams in September.

Moderated discussion at the Globe here .

[Davey Boy 2.0]

shameful and embarrassing

[bradm]

Kieran felt his right to free speech was being trampled, so he enlisted the help of the Saskatchewan Marijuana Party.

I think it would have been better for them to have gone to an organization like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Aloha,

Brad

[Esau.]

Kieran felt his right to free speech was being trampled, so he enlisted the help of the Saskatchewan Marijuana Party.

I think it would have been better for them to have gone to an organization like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Aloha,

Brad

Agreed. I'm bet there would have been stronger action taken, opposed to five marijuana supporters with signs standing across the street.

[Davey Boy 2.0]

Agreed. I'm bet there would have been stronger action taken, opposed to five marijuana supporters with signs standing across the street[color:blue], smoking bombers.

[dancingbear]

although maybe they did not turn to the right place for help, it really does not seem he did anything wrong.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

It also seems odd that everybody jumps on this thinking that he's somehow defending, let alone promoting (this being hearsay) pot, rather than just laying out relative stats on it; maybe people really just don't want to hear that they've been poisoning themselves legally all this time and that the law really might be an ass after all.

I hope he keeps fighting this till something, anything, sensible happens.

[Esau.]

It also seems odd that everybody jumps on this thinking that he's somehow defending, let alone promoting (this being hearsay) pot, rather than just laying out relative stats on it; maybe people really just don't want to hear that they've been poisoning themselves legally all this time and that the law really might be an ass after all.

I hope he keeps fighting this till something, anything, sensible happens.

Not to be a jerk, but whose here is saying that?

[Kanada Kev]

The school administrators who are responsible for destroying this kids' school year should be fired. He did absolutely nothing illegal. He simply did some personal research and shared his findings. THAT'S education. By shutting him down and kicking him out, it simply exemplifies that those running the educational system there are very close-minded and anti-free thought.

For going above and beyond, this student should have received extra marks for their extra effort. Maybe some of the other students, who most likely just sit there passively every day and don't ask questions, will learn something from this. Maybe they'll begin to explore information and research for themselves. Maybe this will be an inspiration for expanding their minds a little.

The kid who got burned by all this is probably having the time of his life in Asia. He is going to be the one who really makes it in this world, IMHO.

Edited June 22, 2007 by Guest

[bONES]

It also seems odd that everybody jumps on this thinking that he's somehow defending' date=' let alone promoting (this being hearsay) pot, rather than just laying out relative stats on it; maybe people really just don't want to hear that they've been poisoning themselves legally all this time and that the law really might be an ass after all.

I hope he keeps fighting this till something, anything, sensible happens.

[/quote']

Not to be a jerk, but whose here is saying that?

I'm guessing he meant the people who posted in the forum (above link) and NOT the folks who post here.

like this ignorant comment...

Thumb Sucker from Toronto, Canada writes:

People who smoke drugs are typically less intelligent and lazier than those who don't, a generalization but a fair one IMO.

jackass

[Esau.]

Ahh, thanks Scott I just read the article. My apologys DEM.

Really though, by getting the marijuana party to back him up I can see (not that I agree) how they would think it was more about promotion of marijuana then if he had gone to Canadian Civil Liberties Association first.

[Davey Boy 2.0]

maybe Doritos will stump up and sponsor a lawsuit for him

mmmmmmmm Doritos

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

No worries, AM - I'd been thinking about this comment from the mother:

"In the letter I got about the threat assessment [the principal] had documented five or six times in the last year that Kieran had talked to some kid about marijuana - not one of those times was Kieran ever talked to or was I ever talked to. Were they documented before or was it a witch hunt after the fact where they said 'Let's try to remember all the times Kieran talked about marijuana?' "

The range of comments in the discussion in the link, though, really runs the spectrum from the insightful to the lunkheaded.

[Kanada Kev]

Really though, by getting the marijuana party to back him up I can see (not that I agree) how they would think it was more about promotion of marijuana then if he had gone to Canadian Civil Liberties Association first.

I think the best thing would have been involving BOTH organizations. While the Marijuana Party has an automatic stigma attached to them, they would have a TON of valid information to back up the student's claims. They would also have their own 'educational' materials as well. The Can Civ Lib Association would have been perfect for reinforcing those rights that the student has and that he didn't do anything that should be considered "wrong" or punishable.

I'd like to see the principal of that school, and the school board be investigated by the RCMP, etc.

Edited June 22, 2007 by Guest

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I'd like to see the principal of that school, and the school board be investigated by the RCMP, etc.

Maybe they'll just leave it to local law enforcement.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Ok, so maybe the level of discourse in this case wasn't quite so high, but this is still sad to see:

US Student Loses Free Speech Case

A former high school student has lost his case in what is the US Supreme Court's first major ruling on students' free speech rights in almost 20 years.

At issue was whether a school principal violated a student's right to free speech by suspending him for displaying a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus".

Joseph Frederick unfurled the banner near to his school as the Olympic flame passed through Juneau, Alaska, in 2002.

The Supreme Court justices ruled by 5-4 that his rights were not violated.

Chief Justice John Roberts said in a written ruling that schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating the use of drugs.

Mr Frederick, 18 at the time, said the words on his 14ft (4.26m) banner did not relate to drug use and were meant to be funny in an attempt to get on television.

Head teacher Deborah Morse, who destroyed Mr Frederick's banner and suspended him for 10 days, argued that the banner's message went against the school's anti-drugs policy and was unfurled during a school event to watch the flame pass.

A bong is a type of water pipe that can be used to smoke marijuana.

Bush's backing

The Supreme Court's ruling has tightened limits on students' rights to free speech at school events.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote: "The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic. But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."

The court found that schools "may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use".

This meant Mr Frederick's constitutional free speech rights were not violated by the confiscation of his banner and his suspension, Chief Justice Roberts concluded.

Justice John Paul Stevens was among the four justices who dissented on the ruling.

He wrote: "Although this case began with a silly nonsensical banner, it ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs."

Ms Morse and the Juneau school board were supported by the Bush administration, which wanted a broad rule that public schools do not have to tolerate speech that disrupts their basic educational mission.

Vietnam precedent

Mr Frederick, now 23 and studying and teaching in China, was backed in the case by the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Center for Law and Justice.

He was also supported by conservative groups concerned that a ruling against him could allow schools to limit students' expression of religious views, particularly on the issues of abortion and homosexuality.

Mr Frederick's lawyer, Douglas Mertz, argued that the court should stand by its 1969 ruling that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate".

In that case, at the height of the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court decided in favour of students who wanted to wear black armbands in class to protest against the war.

But the court ruled in the late 1980s that a student did not have the right to give a sexually-suggestive speech at a school assembly and that school newspapers could be censored.