It took it to mean "do bong hits and you'll get to meet jesus," meaning, bong hits kill you.

What does the "Bumps 4 Bankers" mean?

mr. carney,

wow. you have completely mischaracterized lithwick's argument. you have taken it completely out of the context in which it sat, namely, that, roberts devalued and is applying arbitrary rules to the speech in morse as compared to the speech in WRTL. you also fail to connect several logical dots, fail to employ valid examples (the "how are you" one is particularly bad), and fail to avoid petty ad hominem attacks against lithwick ("deeply frivolous"; "liar or a fool"). C-

Carney supports his "argument" by calling her a "liar," "fool," "idiot," and "deeply frivolous person." Is Carney trying to channel Ann Coulter? Advocacy by calling people names is very, very persuasive. No wonder Carney is a non-practicing lawyer; he probably couldn't cut it.

12:52

There is some equivocation occurring in regards to "obvious meaning." Carney interprets "obvious meaning" to indicate a pro-drug reference, and not a specific grammatical structure. You, on the other hand, seem to think that if something has an "obvious meaning" its interpretation is subject to one grammatical structure.

The question is what Carney gives up in his admission? I'm inclined to think he doesn't give up a thing. Despite the fact that the banner is not subject to a *precise* interpretation, I agree that it has a core pro-drug message.

Also, I am in general agreement regarding Lithwick. I find her writing to be glib and condescending. It's as if she is actively seeking to perfect the art of the strawman argument.

"[W]e don’t need to insert pretend words to read and understand otherwise cryptic messages. We just understand them because they are clear."

You think an admittedly "cryptic" message is also "clear"? M-W.com says "cryptic" means "having or seeming to have a hidden or ambiguous meaning." Since you and Roberts agree the message is "cryptic" how can it also be "clear"? Both the majority opinion and dissent are in full agreement that the message is difficult if not impossible to parse. The fact that your interpretation of the phrase is actually much more plausible than any the Supreme Court suggested just further reinforces the point.

Comparing "bong hits 4 jesus" with "how are you" is pretty disingenuous as well, don't you think? It's obviously drug-THEMED, but it's not obviously drug ADVOCACY by any stretch. As a relatively young person, the phrase sounds more like an internet meme than anything. You know, like "all your base are belong to us." The meaning of phrases like that is usually totally beside the point, they just SOUND FUNNY.

1:06 --you cannot discern the "core" of the meaning until you determine the meaning itself. To do otherwise is to engage in guesswork.

The problem here is that there is no framework of social conventions that would create the interpretive basis for understanding what "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" means. While Judge Friendly was correct to note that "text must yield to context," here there is no context at all.

Gramatically meaningless and pragmatically undefineable, the student's sign had no meaning at all. This is consistent with his stated intention to communicate only absurdity.

I have never spent much time on DealBreaker, and I now I know why. This is one of the worst critiques of anything that I have read in a long, long time.

I have never spent much time on DealBreaker, and now I know why. This is one of the worst critiques of anything that I have read in a long, long time.

The gist of CJ Roberts' opinion seemed to be that a statement "celebrating" drug use cannot be protected political speech. But can the statement BONG HiTS 4 JESUS really be so easily categorized? Arguably, political speech which advocates the legalization of marijuana could also celebrate its use (for example: "marijuana should be decriminalized because it provides a good mild buzz").

As demonstrated by the competing interpretations of the true meaning of the phrase BONG HiTS 4 JESUS, reasonable minds could differ on whether it is political speech on some level. For that reason alone, the petitioner should have been granted qualified immunity. But why undermine the First Amendment by rigidly classifying the phrase as one which only celebrates illegal drug use? Shame on the Supreme Court.

Assume the banner said "Let's smoke a ton of pot for Jesus." Is that pro-drug? Is it *that* different from what the banner actually said?

I think, more than anything, the opinion demonstrated the difficulty in nine old people making these kinds of decisions. They all seemed mystified by the word "bong" and probably had to look it up on urban dictionary.

Carney = moron

1:12

I'm not so sure. If I walked over to the office next door, and said "lunch" to my colleague, she could interpret that to be 1.) a question or 2.) a command. The fact that my single word is subject to competing interpretations does not entail that my statement lacks a basic normative element. It does. It communiciates that I'm interested in lunch.

Clearly, Justice Stevens is also disingenuous and/or stupid since he thought the message was nonsensical and therefore not advocating the use of drug advocacy.

Did Carney bother reading the opinions in this case?

Advocating the use of *drugs,* I mean.

1:06 -- Sure, but being interested in pot, or creating a sentence with pot as one of the nouns (either subject or object, it isn't clear) is not equivalent with a statement advocating its use.

Also, "lunch?" Could also mean "Is that your lunch in that bag?" or "were you just talking about lunch?" An oral statement is easier to interpret given cues derived from intonation and body language, however.

Why does it have to be a pro-drug message as opposed to a satirization of a religious message?

Yeah, astonishingly bad analysis. I can only assume that the whole "it means what it says, dummy" line of argument is some sort of bastardized trickle-down from the conservative "strict interpretation" ethos.

Shame the kid didn't hold up a sign saying "BONG HiTS FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE"

(Yes, I left off "reform" on purpose.)

Excellent point, 1:36 #1.

Here's what Litwick wrote:

"He insists the phrase ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’can be read as ‘celebrating drug use’; indeed to get there he needed only insert the imaginary words, ‘bong hits [are a good thing]."

I disapprove of the name calling in the critique, but substantively, this guy is right. Is Lithwick seriously arguing that "bong hits 4 jesus" CAN'T be read as supportive of drug use without inserting words into the text? That's ridiculous. If I hold up a campaign sign that says "Georgians 4 Bush" everyone knows damn well it's an endorsement of Bush. The fact that somone might concievably read it otherwise -- contrary to its fairly accpeted meaning -- does nothing to diminsh the fact that it certainly can be read as an endorsement, and almost everyone will in fact understand it that way.

Here's my problem with this.

Marijuana is legal in Alaska. Yes, you read that right. An adult may legally possess a small amount of marijuana in Alaska. Google it if you don't believe me.

So that being said, the student wasn't even necessarily advocating illegal behavior.

The fascist supreme court is a travesty. I hope the 5 justices get cancer and die painful deaths.

sorry if i go off all grammatical here, but words have meaning, dammit.

am i the only one who read "bong hits 4 jesus" and thought that the only sensible interpretation of those four words was as a declamatory version of the imperative "allow jesus to have bong hits," implying both the normative statement "jesus should be allowed to have bong hits" and the indicative statement "somebody is denying jesus bong hits." i think this is pretty clearly evidenced by the banner on the courthouse steps - "free speech 4 students" - using the same form, and having the same subtleties (or lack thereof) of meaning. I guess breyer picked up on this with his "wine sips 4 jesus" analogy, but didn't run with like i think he should have. The sentence isn't grammatically nonsensical, it's just asking for something nonsensical: that jesus (who, assuming we're talking about the jesus i think we're all talking about, is dead) be allowed to do something he's not (when, i guess, many would say he can pretty much do anything he wants, 'cause he's jesus) , and which (i guess), most people think he wouldn't want anyway. of course the kid wasn't really in his heart of hearts advocating that position, but schools aren't allowed to suspend students for disingenuous argumentation.

if the above is the case, how can this be seen as anything other than content discrimination against an unpopular opinion? principal morse pulled down that banner and silently shouted "no he should not!" and suspended the offender for a week for his opinion about what jesus should and shouldn't be allowed to have, even though she couldn't make sense of it at the time.

i leave the argumentation re the "drugs are different" justification to the opinion and others - my point is, i think it's disingenuous to claim she was doing anything other than punishing a student for advocating a position, because the message was clear, even if it was stupid.

1:52 -- the correct analogy is whether we would understand "Bush 4 Georgians" as a clear statement endorsing Bush.

Isn't this a take off on the 'jews for jesus' signs? Taken literally, that means that statement is absurd because bong hits can't really be for anything. That was the point of the plaintiff, I think.

If a meaning had to be ascribed, it seems to me that it could be a pro- or anti-, depending on what one thinks of "jesus." At least 5 people on the Sup. Ct. think the bible is literally true, so, that is a forgone conclusion for them.

1:57 -- meaning does not reside within words. Meaning is in utterances, which reside within contexts. The reason why you can reconstruct "free speech 4 students" as "students should have free speech rights" is because you live in a society this is a matter of common belief, and because the case being discussed provides an interpretative framework that strongly suggests that this is what the protesting students intend to communicate. "Bong hits 4 Jesus?" Not so much.

1:57

So the only sensible interpretation of "Jews for Jesus" is that Jesus should be allowed to hang out with as many other Jews as he pleases? Or is it that (some) Jews support Jesus? In which case, maybe the banner says we ought to smoke pot for Jesus?

I'm reallly mystified. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that the banner clearly says "[Let's do] bong hits for Jesus" and is thus, on some level, pro-drug.

Using the Georgians 4 Bush analogy, the statement could as be interpreted as political proclamation. Bong Hits would like Jesus to be elected president. Simply because Bong Hits have failed to turn out in large numbers in past elections does not mean they wouldn't show up en masse (and then slowly dissipate) for the right candidate, namely Jesus.

The greater point, and the one I think Lithwick was making (certainly with greater clarity than this guy), is that the phrase can mean anything. It can be a message of pro drug use. It can be a message of pro Jesus use. It can be a message of increased use of numerals in sentences.

CJ says it means only one thing and this one thing is something we think schools should be able to regulate. He has to insert his take that it's pro-drug to do that though. That's a very logical take on the phrase. But it's not the only possible one, and if we believe him when he says we need to be protect core political speech then we should be careful about vague speech that might possibly be core.

Lat - Don't ever publish anything from this idiot again. He's an idiot.

2:08(b) -- if the correct interpretation of every statement in the form x 4 y is that x supports y, then bong hits 4 jesus should be interpreted as meaning "pot [smokers?] support[s] jesus."

Maybe that's what the kid meant. Who knows?

Hey Carney, Lithwick's "interpretation" might be disingenuous, but yours is hardly any better. The students' banner was "undoubtedly" pro-drug in the same way that Ann Coulter "undoubtedly" advocated the murder of John Edwards on TV the other day - or, maybe both statements were made in jest to make another point.

Who really, REALLY thought that those kids with the banner were advocating religiously-motivated water pipe smoking? Or is it maybe more likely they were clowning around trying to get on local TV, or at least get some laughs out of their friends? I won't argue that this rises to the level of political or literary speech, and I don't find its protection especially compelling. But it's a far cry from genuinely advocating drug use, even if the words used can be syntactically processed in that way.

The clearest analogy is "wine sips 4 jesus;" andI honestly do not know what it means!

I think the previous poster who said "it just sounds funny" is right. Its nonsensical and has undertones of marijuana use (although "bong hits" are not, strictly speaking, limited to marijuana), which is HILARIOUS to a high school student. Big deal. More important in my estimation is that the student was not at school that day, it was not at a school event, and that the sign was not on the school's physical property. Thats an awful long reach for the school to have over speech.

2:14 is right. I couldn't say "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" without giggling for at least a month.

It seems to be more like the comment 'Nuke the Whales' than 'let's do drugs.' Is the 'nuke' comment a nonsensical statement, or is it advocating actually launching a nuclear weapon at a whale? I think the SCOTUS majority on this case was simply a ruling that was looking for a reason.

2:03, get your religious conspiracy theories straight! The conservative justices aren't Evangelical fundamentalists who believe in biblical literalism, they're Catholic traditionalists who are imposing canon law on the American populous. Everyone knows that.

this is worth a random guest post?? weak, weak stuff.

at an absolute stone cold minimum, the sign can -- with 100% equal plausibility -- be taken as absurdist humor. pulling together random cultural threads from disparate referents and jamming them into a phrase that's tought even now to say without cracking a smile.

2:15,

That's a terrible analogy. "Nuke the Whales" is clearly farce because the people advocating the position have no control over nuclear policy, nor would anyone actually advocate nuking whales.

But people do have control over what they ingest, and, gasp, a ton of high schoolers light up every day. So it's pretty easy to infer from "Bong hits for Jesus" that the dude who wrote the banner is into pot and is advocating pot.

In the end, I'm just not that dismayed that a kid got busted for putting up that lame banner at a school-sponsored event.

Your argument's in trouble when you have to tell everyone what's "obvious."

2:08:

deep! i prefer "Language is a cracked kettle on which we beat out tunes for bears to dance to, while all the time we long to move the stars to pity," but ok what you said.

others:

that said, in english word order dictates meaning almost as much as word choice. bh4j (which should be a t-shirt, shouldn't it?) is nonsense, and funny because it's smart nonsense, using taboo words juxtaposed... tabooishly. jabberwocky (the poem) was the same way, but the words weren't taboo, they were evocative.

so, i admit the "jews for jesus" or "georgians for bush" readers have a good point: it could be read as a statement that bong hits support jesus (or maybe that people who do them do, or maybe through inference that the people who do them are the ones holding the sign). equally nonsensical, but they're relying on an accepted construction of the words that were there on the banner to glean meaning (if any). if a school wants to limit drug-advocacy speech, don't they bear the burden of doing the same? (i mean, apparently not, but shouldn't they?)

so, to return to the case, is it ok for a principal to suspend somebody for claiming bong hits support jesus (whatever that means), or that he (the student, not jesus) does drugs?

shit, i should get back to work.

Carney's ad hominem attacks are so nasty, I feel the need to imagine a juicy backstory. Maybe Carney and Lithwick competed for the job at Slate and she got it, leaving him a sad, little-known, bitter blogger? or she dumped him years ago and he's never gotten over it?

He does sound Ann Coulter-like, but at least Ann has the excuse that she hasn't eaten since 1987, which does have a tendency to make one a bit irritable.

How would Carney interpret a sign on a lawn in front of a drug rehab center that said "Keep Off The Grass" ? A joke is an obvious possibility, and yet it's interesting that he doesn't consider that interpretation in the Bong Hits case. That was the author's explanation.

Scalia and most other "new textualists" resort to "anyone of normal intellience" type evidence to support their interpretive conclusions but they usually make arguments that make the claim a little more than just saying "this is what it means because this is what I say it means."

Carney ought to think more carefully about those "clearly cryptic" answers his editor and girlfriend are giving him. Who knows what they're really trying to tell him.

2:21

The analogy stands up just fine: the Court could just as easily say that 'Nuke the Whales' clearly advocates nuclear terrorism against whales and the whaling industry, and our country's stated policy against terrorism therefore forbids students from taking such positions in their speech. Your final comment seems to demonstrate that you're OK with the Court just finding a reason for the ruling because you agree with the conclusion. Our essential freedoms are whittled away incrementally by such indifference.

Bong Hits 4 WGWAG.

Thank you for your time.

can please return to the question of why Lat allowed a poorly reasoned, half-assed and half-baked (no pun intended) post about a complex legal issue? is it because carney felt the need to bloviate about a legal issue and Lat "owes" him? because he's a non-practicing attorney? because he pays Lat's salary? someone please clarify.

Why did Carney go out of his way to announce that he's a total douchebag? I don't understand.

Walter Dellinger finds it productive to respond to Lithwick, but Carney insists that she's either stupid or dishonest. Says more about Carney than it does about Lithwick.

Lat, you associate with useless people.

Carney (center) even looks like a douchebag

http://www.gawker.com/assets/2006/06/IMG_6718.jpg

This is not the type of post I come to ATL for. I come to ATL for legal news, gossip, and happenings. I couldn't care less about this Carney character's perspective on Dalia Lithwick. For that, he can start a blog. His own blog. Another blog. He can call it "My Platitudes and Misconstructions. Er, I'm an idiot." Because his analysis is (1) trite, (2) misplaced, (3) condescending, and (4) unnecessarily personal. He manages this concoction with the veil of intellectual rigor.

I do appreciate intellectual (or even pseudo-intellectual) dialogue like this, but just not on this forum. So I'm left wondering: What is UP with ATL and David Lat's recent posts? He lets Billy Merck show up and make fun of lawyers' physical shortcomings. He serves as a PR mouthpiece for deceptive law firms claiming to pay market bonuses ("thanks for the info! I REALLY appreciate your candor. I'll post it now! Yay!!"). And he pawns off ill-informed postings to unqualified guest bloggers.

On behalf of your readership, Lat, get it together. Capitalism is a beast, and it's only a matter of time before another legal tabloid emerges with some serious A-game competition.

I disagree. "Nuke the whales" doesn't imply terrorism, it implies that "we"should nuke the whales. If you did come up with a nonsensical statement that at the same time implied either an act of terrorism or something highly illegal, you would have a more apt analogy.

How about this? Should we suspend a kid for unfurling a banner that said "Kill Bush for Neptune?" Nonsensical? Yes. Also arguably not in the best interest of a school? Yes.

I think this is closer to "Bong Hits for Jesus."

[a] legal tabloid emerges...with a writer who won't whine about his posters' ingratitude.

Now, I am as much a defender of the First Amendment as any knappy headed ho out there. However, there is something from this argument. This sign was held up by a douch-bag high school student while at a school event. One would think his parents would come down on this future tax burden for being an asshole, but no. They decide to sue for his "rights" instead.

A word of advice for this family of dip-shits - Don't try to take on Ken Starr on a Constitutional Issue with an Environmental Law Attorney

Just one more reversal of the 9th Cir.

It's interesting how little tolerance for dissent so many of you guys have. And how badly you misread the post.

In the first place, Carney is defending the view of the majority of the court on the meaning of the banner. Is the legal profession really so tilted left that this is widely regarded as a horrible thing to do?

Carney didn't call Lithwick a fool or a liar. He said that this was the only plausible explanation for Lithwick claiming she can't understand that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is pro-drug.

ps. "nuke the whales" is a bad analogy to this case. "nuke the whales" clearly means "kill the whales with nuclear weapons." nobody even questions this, it makes perfect sense; the motivation behind saying it might be unclear (to be funny, darkly ironic, or to protest against environmentalism, who cares?), but it's tantamount to a banner that says "smoke pot." punish away. 10 day suspension.

PPS.

carney clearly is having a bad-logic day but I find this paragraph interesting:

quote

Anyone of normal intelligence understands that “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” is drug advocacy. The only question is whether it’s a command that would mean “Do Bong Hits For Jesus” or a confession meaning “I Do Bong Hits For Jesus” or even an offer, as in “I Have Bong Hits Available For Jesus.” In any case, it's undoubtedly pro-drug.

endquote

In the first, he adds the word "do," because the english imperative form requires it. so he changes the sentence to change the meaning. ditto for adding "i do," where he's added the pronoun of his choice too (could just as easily have added "they"). but then, good stuff, he actually thinks of another semi-sensible interpretation of the banner while not adding words: "I Have Bong Hits Available For Jesus," kind of like shouting "newspapers, newspapers 4 the public here" in an old-timey way. bit of a stretch, but maybe somebody thinks it means that.

but so what? a student in class claims to have drugs on his person. if he does, we punish him for breaking the law, not for what he said. if he doesn't, can he be suspended for his clearly misguided ways? maybe, probably not.

meaning, now i see three plausible interpretations of those four words, without adding words. none of those meanings really sound like advocacy to me, i'm just sayin'.

in which case, he was suspended for being a troublemaker and using the words "bong hits" and "jesus" in the same sentence. some might agree with that outcome on those grounds, but just say it for what it is.

i clearly do not have enough work to do.

I'm a conservative. I disagree with Lithwick. She's a little whiny at times, and some of her snappy turns of phrase might be criticized as lacking intellectual rigor. That said, she's neither dishonest nor stupid.

Calling out Carney isn't intolerance for dissent. It's intolerance for a particularly smarmy form of argument that deserves no respect from anyone and has no place even on a blog as debased as this one.

3:55 - go post your "legal" wisdom somewhere else...say, dealbreaker? your stupidity would float well over there.

June 28: the only explanation for your claim of intolerance for dissent is that you are either a fool or a liar.

There. That feels better. And I didn't even have to call you a fool or a liar.

i meant 3:55(1)

3:55(1)

Actually, it was about 12 feet long and held up by a lot of kids, but one kid brought it and got in trouble for it... it was on TV, which was the point after all.

The future tax burden is currently teaching English in China, and laughing at us. Well, mostly at you.

Assume a kid wears a t-shirt to school that says "rape and murder Principal Skinner for Jupiter." Is that free speech, or do we suspend him?

4:09 - laughing at me? He lost. (you're not by chance an environemntal attorney are you?) I'm glad to see he's teaching in China. The last thing we need is for this idiot to educate kids here.

He lost? They suspended him again? Dang I didn't realize that, he must really feel bad. But I guess student speech lost too, so tough break for America anyway.

And to answer your misspelled question, by the craziest of coincidences, yes I am.

you got me on the typing issue. Good one.

Do you also "by coincidence" work in Alaska?

Please clarify - why is he laughing? He lost at every stage of this entire waste of time and money. Well, except for the 9th Cir, and winning there certainly carries weight.

Sorry, I go with Justices Black and Thomas - HS students have no first amendment protection

WHITE GURLZ 4 ASAIN GUYS!

If it isn't abundantly clear after these 67 comments, isn't the idea that the meaning of speech is subjective, and thus that courts should err on the side of butting out?

Yep, you got me. I'm Douglas K. Mertz. I troll abovethelaw comment boards in my spare time refuting dimwitted aspersions cast upon my profession. Um, good one.

He's laughing because he's getting more attention than he ever dreamed of, which is what he wanted. And it didn't cost him any money because I made a bad mistake and took this one on contingency, silly me. Except maybe it wasn't such a bad idea... I work in the 9th Circuit, after all. Probably some pretty good press over there for me.

*The author hopes that it is very clear that he is not Douglas K. Mertz. Sheesh.

Really, is it so obvious? It's hilarious some out of touch suit who spends his day behind books is going to tell the world the plain meaning of a cryptic counter-culture slogan. Please also advise me on the obvious meaning of ghetto slang.

Is the banner also endorsing Christianity? Isn't the obvious meaning, instead, to irk the right wing, Jesus loving, moral crusaders who love the war on drugs by suggesting that marijuana can be part of a religious ritual? It's an attack on the moral fervor of the drug war; Stevens got it right.

5:26 contradicted himself so many times in his post that I now have a headache.

5:33 is so good at cutesy, dismissive trolls that I now don't care.

It was a snowboarding/skate slogan in the '90s. It's not obvious to you because you've never smoked a joint going up the lift as your equally non-religious girlfriend throws her bra on the tree; when you return to school on Monday there's anti-drug assembly organized by the same clean cut idiots praying in front of the flagpole voluntarily before the assembly.

If you don't get it, you don't understand the clash of cultures. It will never have a plain meaning for you. For those of us who lived it, it's pretty clear. Now go back to being quippy, sarcastic, and self-righteous about something you clearly don't understand.

Wow. My guest post taking issue with something Dahlia Lithwick said about “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” provoked a lot of fiery responses.

It seems a lot of people are angry because I called Lithwick “deeply frivolous” and said her argument raised the question of whether she is a “fool or a liar.” I had mixed feelings about writing that way about someone as well-liked and well-established as Lithwick. She writes about the Supreme Court for a fancy online magazine owned by a major media organization. I edit an online tabloid about Wall Street. Who am I to say such nasty things about her? What’s more, I’ve always heard it’s not polite to accuse people of making bad faith arguments or having diminished faculties.

But it was unavoidable here, since it is simply not credible that anyone of at least ordinary intelligence cannot understand that “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” is a pro-drug message. And so I’m going to be impolite again and admit that I suspect most of the commenters who defended Lithwick’s position do not believe it. They are basically lying when they say they do.

But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe they have a really misguided notion of how meaning is conveyed. Unfortunately, no-one in the comments bothers to state a theory of how language conveys meaning so I don’t have much to go on here. In short, I’m not sure why they say “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” doesn’t mean anything, only that they keep saying that it doesn’t.

I am sorry for being so rude. But just because I'm rude doesn't mean I'm making an ad hominem argument. Nothing in my argument depends on whether or not the people saying the banner had no discernible meaning are liars or fools. If I were trying to win a debate, I probably wouldn’t have made that point.

But, as amazing as this might seem to some of you, I wasn’t trying to win a debate. I was describing a particularly weird way of arguing that seems to involve pretending not to understand what you do understand.

I’ll note that I find it very odd that so many people are attempting to defend the rights of teenagers to fly pro-drug banners on the grounds that they are not pro-drug. It would be far better to make the point straight out rather than engage in sophistic and implausible arguments about linguistics.

Thanks to everyone who commented on my post.

so he was promoting drugs and braless HS chicks

Some will argue that they are admirable causes. But protected - apparently not

"[I]it is simply not credible that anyone of at least ordinary intelligence cannot understand that 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' is a pro-drug message."

Jesus, didn't SOMEONE at UPenn or Skadden teach you that you don't become more convincing by being more emphatic? Are you really going to stick with the notion that Justice Stevens is either not of at least average intelligence or, in the alternative, lying?

As for your comments that "no-one in the comments bothers to state a theory of how language conveys meaning so I don’t have much to go on here," go back to 1:12 and 1:57. Then, since you have some remedial reading to do, I suggest some research on Gottlob Frege and Jerry Fodor's theories of language. Then perhaps you will have some basis to claim that an arguments about the philosophy of language (not linguistics, BTW) are "sophistic and implausible."

The money you all spent on your educations was *NOT* a waste, nor were the hours you all billed to your clients while participating in this "debate."

am i the only one that thinks it's ironic that the person attributing "a particularly weird way of arguing that seems to involve pretending not to understand what you do understand" to everyone else boils this issue down to "attempting to defend the rights of teenagers to fly pro-drug banners on the grounds that they are not pro-drug." And I thought there was some wacky First Amendment issue tied up in this American drug policy debate.

Stevens is a senile old man - Give us another pick!

As a skate/snowboard slogan, it is a mockery of the moral fervor of the drug war and symbolic cultural resistance. That doesn't equate to a "pro-drug" message, whatever that is, but it's certainly not an advocacy of drug use. Why does mentioning it have to endorse it or denounce it?

Think of the message as "Associating Jesus (a sacred cow of the ruling adult conservative evangelicals running our day to day lives) with marijuana (something that represents us, youth skaters) will really piss them off." It's symbolic resistance as much peeing on the flag is. If anything, the central inquiry should be why are religious icons a target in the first place? You can't decide if it's a pro-drug message before you decide why Jesus was chosen. It can't be a pro-drug message when the message really has nothing to do with drug use in particular.

Hey Ash:

Clerks get a lunch break, dumbass. BTW, my education has been useful to me while working here at the circuit; especially when I'm assigned to work on false advertising cases where the meaning of the ads are in dispute.

Nice attempt at ad hominem, though. I guess it's best you stick to what you know instead of trying to be, y'know, smart.

I am so fucking glad I live in the UK. For so many reasons.

It's almost cute to see sophists trying so hard. I say "almost" because it seems like some of these folks believe their own bullshiat. That's a shout-out to you, 1:12 and 6:24. And, linguistics has a branch called semantics which deals with the meaning of phrases such as Bong hits 4 Jesus.

BTW, my wife has a Ph.D. in this field, and I have a not-insignificant amount of book learning in the area. While the phrase may have some ambiguity around the precise meaning of the phrase, its pro-drug message is pretty damn clear.

The young punk got duly slapped down for being stupid. Serves him right. That said, Justice ET would have probably signed onto Breyer's concurrence about qualified immunity. Still, kudos to Thomas for taking a ballsy position vis-a-vis students' rights (or lack thereof).

Dalia Lithwick is not nearly as smart as she believes she is; I find her virtually unreadable.

-- ET!

"And, linguistics has a branch called semantics which deals with the meaning of phrases such as Bong hits 4 Jesus."

That branch of linguistics is called pragmatics, which relies on the philosophy of language. Semantics deals with the meaning of words.

Rookie mistake. Try harder.

10:30 -- not quite, kiddo. The "rookie mistake" was cute but not accurate.

I'll give you that interpretation of the phrase lies close to the semantics/pragmatics border. If the kid's trying to say there's some socially-conditioned meaning associated with the phrase that is different and apart from the implicit (but nonetheless clear) message supporting marijuana consumption, THAT would tend towards pragmatics.

But that argument is simply the sophistry I was mocking earlier. Makes no nevermind; the punk still got what he deserved.

Best!

-- ET!

What you call sophistry has been virtually dogma in philosophy of language since the breakdown of the Sausurrian paradigm. All linguistic meaning is socially determined; meaning is in use.

Accordingly, no one with "a not-insignificant amount of book learning in the area" would have suggested that the meaning of a phrase/utterance can be determined merely by reference to notions of "well-established" semantic meaning.

No amount of half-assed post hoc qualifications can cover your ass now, not after you demonstrated that level of basic ignorance of the fundamental axioms of modern linguistic theory.

More succinctly: Pwned!

HS JERK-OFFS HAVE NO FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

JERK-OFF'S PARENTS SHOULD BE SHOT FOR BRINGING THE SUIT. HMM - DO THEY HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH DRY CLEANERS? THANK GOD HE'S TEACHING THE CHINESE AND NOT OUR KIDS

.aaaand

NY to 190!

First!

11:19 p.m. -- Nope, not pwned; not even close.

Sadly, your generalization ("[w]hat you call sophistry has been virtually dogma in philosophy of language") is at such a level of abstraction it's almost completely devoid of meaning. You attempt to bolster this meaningless statement by a Good Will Huntingesque tossing out of a single linguistic theorist's name. (By the way, it's misspelled, it's Saussurian, not Sausurrian). You then make ad hominum attacks ("not after you demonstrated that level of basic ignorance of the fundamental axioms of modern linguistic theory") built on your faux-credibility gained by name-dropping.

I'll concede this board is not subject to the same rigorous analytical demands that legal reasoning requires. But, your "pwned" comment is pretty far from what the field requires. Name-calling is the last refuge of the scoundrel, so to speak.

I'd love to continue the debate (my e-mail address is at yahoo.com), but I've got a real live job to go to.

Best,

-- ET!

OMG, spelling errors on teh internets!

Can't you understand that pointing out an unsupportable premise --i.e, one inconsistent with modern linguistic theory, is not an abusive ad hominem? Furthermore, if you inject your credentials into a debate, they become relevant.

Using your own ignorant statements to demonstrate your defective understanding of the field is entirely different from the name-calling and allegations of bad faith that have permeated your arguments from the outset.

As for your repeated ad hominem attacks on me, well, I don't need to convince you that you are wrong to win this argument. The point is, I have demonstrated a basic ignorance of modern linguistic theory on your part, which belies your claim to the "not-insignificant amount of book learning in the area" that you cite in support of a tendentious analysis.

This is enough to convince anyone who does have that kind of knowledge that you have been talking through your ass all along. This is how arguments are won or lost, by reference to uninterested and knowledgeable third parties. Do you need a cite for that too? I didn't expect a concession, and I don't need one.

As I said, Saussure is irrelevant. Sperber and Wilson matter now. If you take a position that is flatly inconsistent with relevance theory in an argument about linguistics, you have lost, by forfeiting your credibility.

I don't pwn you; you pwned yourself. Have a great day at work.

7:44 a.m. - I guess if you SAY you've won, loud enough and often enough, you've won.

My original post's (sub)point was to suggest that 6:24's flyspecking was itself subject to challenge. The semantics/pragmatics debate was a side issue. My comments contained no ad hominium attacks save perhaps my calling you a sophist; but I'll stand by that one.

You, on the other hand ...

I'd be offended, but you're essentially irrelevant to my life.

-- ET!

(p.s. If I were to call you a "blow-hard", THAT would be ad hominium. True, but ad hominium.)

What the hell is ad hominium?

Working hard, huh?

Ordinarily, when someone complains about spelling errors on the internet, that's just lame-o gunner behavior.

When a poster notes that this wannabe gunner made a spelling error right after he made a big stink about someone else's? Now that's funny.

what about the fact that Carney is still wrong and still sucks?

Spelling errors happen once. Ad hominium happened three times.

Enjoin This, unfortunately, continues to happen.

headline from the ABA Journal eReport: "High Court Hits 'Bong'"

Pinata Hits 4 Jesus.

Too bad I missed this one yesterday. Scanning the comments, and Carney's defense of his post, I don't see any answer (besides a bunch of puffery) to the criticism that a message doesn't become "clear" just because you insist that it is so (even when you go so far as to call everybody a liar or an idiot if they don't agree with your interpretation).

One of the early commentators noted that the message was just as likely a satirical statement aimed at religion. Good point. Although I view it as merely youth angst, rebelling against the grownups. The kid took two unrelated catch-phrases from two opposite worlds and put them together to make an absurd message that would anger adults. He succeeded.

The CJ's opinion is open to criticism because he decided something better left undecided. The school official's response was not unreasonable, and the court needn't go further than that.

If I was that kid, I would have gone with "What would Jesus smoke?"

Why are all of you people so fucking stupid? Do none of you get it? "Bong hits for Jesus" isn't pro-drug or anti-drug. It is like flag burning or cross burning or like in high schol when you finger banged your girlfriend in church when you know the priest can see you.

The phrase is intended to do nothing other than to express a sacrilegous viewpoint, and to get a rise out of uptight religious losers like Rohn Joberts or your school principal. You might just as well say "felchers for jesus" or "dirty sanchezers for jesus" or "jews for jesus." If you are trying to offend liberals, you might say, "god hates fags," or "the holocaust didn't happen."

"Jesus, didn't SOMEONE at UPenn or Skadden teach you that you don't become more convincing by being more emphatic?"

that about says it all. please lat no more of this guy.

BONG HITS FOR JOHN CARNEY

NUKE THE WHALES!!!