Our friends in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the 2002 suspension of an Alaskan high school student who unfurled a banner proclaiming "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" in an attempt to get on television during the relay of the Olympic torch.
... the banner was protected speech because it did not disrupt school activity and was displayed off school grounds during a noncurricular activity.
Fair enough. Free speech and all that good stuff. I'll look past the fact that the kid was talking about smoking pot (which, at last count, was illegal) for Jesus (a figure most people in this country care a bit about). It was after all just words. No actual harm done. So, for the first time in the history of ever, I actually tend to agree with the decision.
But, given the current climate of religious sensitivities, let's play a little game of "what if" and then you, my dear reader, can postulate on whether our beloved court would've ruled the same. For this game, I need one illegal activity and one religious figure for a banner I will display during the groundbraking of the 9/11 memorial in an attempt to get on Fox 5 so I can shoot the shit with Ernie Anastos.
Hmmm.... How 'bout:
"Planes Into Tall Buildings 4 Allah".... Maybe a bit too close to home.
"C4 In Baby Strollers 4 Mohammed"?
I don't know... I'm not good with words. Or using numbers in place of words 2 save space.
Would the free speech thing still apply? I'm really not hurting anyone. I mean, at least with my banners, you can do some fact checking to see if they're accurate. I don't think we have any real way of knowing how many bowls JC toked on, if any.