More handpicked essays just for you.
Democratic freedom of speech in a school system
School Rules to ensure the safety of students
Democratic freedom of speech in a school system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Democratic freedom of speech in a school system
Facts: A student and his colleagues held up a fourteen foot banner stating “BONG HITS 4 JESUS,” at a school approved public event. [1] At the request of the principle to take the banner down, all of the students complied with her request expect for Frederickson. The principle confiscated the banner when the student refused to comply because she regarded his message as violating student-conduct policies prohibiting the promotion of illegal drug use. Frederickson filed suit that the school violated his First Amendment rights of free speech when the principle confiscated the sign and suspended him from school for ten days as a disciplinary action for violating school policy even though he was off campus. Morse argues that the case at hand is not a free speech case since the school is entrusted by parents to take care of their children and must adhere to schools policies at school approved events. Procedural History: Frederickson filed suit in the District Court seeking injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages. The …show more content…
For example, minors often have curfews, subject to locker searches, and are legally the responsibility of their parents and school official while in their custody. In this case, it does not matter whether or not the children are on school property or at and approved function; school officials are legally responsible for the care and well-being of these children. Nor was Frederickson’s equal protection rights violated because he was not singled out from the other children when he was disciplined. The other children complied with the rules and Frederickson was the only child who refused, so discipline was in order and not unreasonable under school
This decision makes it clear the most important thing for a school to do is to protect the students. It also states that the board of education, whose role is to oversee the schools, must make sure that the staff of the schools is protecting those children. This case highlights that long-term abuse can happen in schools if there are not clear policies or, if there are, that there is no one ensuring that those policies are
Matthew's father appealed the school district's actions on behalf of his son to the federal district court. He alleged a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages. The District Court held that the school's sanctions violated respondent's right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, that the school's disruptive-conduct rule is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the removal of respondent's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the disciplinary rule makes no mention of such removal as a possible sanction.
In Garrett Epps's article "Free Speech Isn't Free," he discusses the United States law involving freedom of speech. One of the major points addressed is that it's not necessarily free because it has the ability to harm other people emotionally. Also, the way it's done in America isn't the only way to go about it. Epps introduces the idea of the law being in place so that people will have verbal disputes instead of immediately resorting to physical violence. Epps begins his personal argument with the insinuation he was going to evaluate both the positive and negative aspects of free speech equally. However, he ultimately uses the all of the data provided to present free speech as a trivial tool used the American public. It allows them to emotionally
The authors of The Ethics of Teaching, Kenneth A. Strike and Jonas F. Soltis, present ideas about equal opportunity and the democratic community. Kenneth Strike and Jonas Soltis mention what the NEA Code states about discrimination. The NEA states the educator cannot “exclude any student from participating in any program”. (Strike; Soltis, pg. 55). An educator also cannot exclude any student from receiving benefits. Chapter 4 mentions providing equal educational opportunities for every student. Strike and Soltis provide the Brown v. Board of Education as an example of giving equal opportunity to everyone. According to Strike and Soltis, “…segregation is illegal because it does
The impact left in this case, Jackson vs. Board of Education (2005), has been an issue that?s gone on for decades. It is a more recent encounter that shows it still exists in modern day. In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) and Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992) these cases both enforce Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 such as Jackson vs. Board of Education (2005). Rights to equal protection began in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954). This case left a huge impact on equal rights against sexual discrimination, discussing the importance of the 14th
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N.J., found two girls smoking in the school lavatory, which was a violation of school code. The teacher took them to the Principles office where they met the Assistant Vice-Principle Theodore Choplick. Under questioning the first girl admitted smoking in the lavatory. The second girl, 14 year old freshman T.L.O., denied that she had smoked in the lavatory. Mr. Choplick then asked to search the girl’s purse. He found a pack of cigarettes. Upon pulling the pack of cigarettes out Mr. Choplick discovered cigarette rolling papers, which is closely associated with marijuana. He proceeded to search the purse to find a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, small empty plastic bags, a substantial amount of money all in one dollar bills, and two letters that implies that she is a dealer. Mr. Choplick notified her mother and the police and told her mother to take her to the police headquarters. A New Jersey juvenile court admitted the evidence, saying that the search of the purse was reasonable under the standard of enforcing school policy and maintaining school discipline. The court found the student, T.L.O., to be a delinquent and sentenced her to a years probation. The appellate Division affirmed the courts decision that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation, T.L.O.
Is the upholding of the American flag as a symbol of the United States more important than the freedom of speech provided by the First Amendment? Are there certain freedoms of expression that are not protected under the First Amendment and if so what qualifies as freedom of speech and expression and what does not? The Supreme Court case of Texas v. Johnson proves that the First Amendment and the freedom of speech are not limited to that of spoken and written word, but also extended to symbolic speech as well. Texas v. Johnson is a case in which the interpretation of the First Amendment rights is at the top of the argument. This case discusses the issue of flag burning as a desecration of national unity and that the flag of the United States should be protected under a law. Texas v. Johnson expanded the rights of symbolic speech and freedom of expression under the First Amendment and was presented as a precedence for future cases along with influencing the final decision on the revision of
Fraser (1986). During a student assembly, Senior, Matthew Fraser gave a campaign speech to elect his friend to student government. Fraser’s speech was rife with sexual innuendo. Consequently he was suspended and his name removed from the list of possible graduation speakers—he was second in his class at the time. In this case, the Court established that there is a monumental difference between the First Amendment protection of expression for “dealing with a major issue of public policy and the lewdness of Fraser’s speech” (“Key Supreme Court Cases,” 2015). Comparatively, Foster’s high school points out that there is a monumental difference between Foster’s desire to express his individuality and impress girls, and the school’s desire to regulate the serious public concern of gang activity within the school. Indeed, in the petitioner’s application of Tinkering and Chalifoux court cases, the defense notes, in both First Amendment cases the students were addressing a major public issue—political and religion statements. Foster’s message of individuality, however, decidedly lacked a message that would safeguard his First Amendment
A controversial modern U.S. Supreme Court decision is the McCullen v. Coakley case. An initial ruling for this case in Massachusetts, “…has made it a crime for speakers to ‘enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk’ within 35 feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of ‘a reproductive health care facility.’ The law applies only at abortion clinics…In effect, the law restricts the speech of only those who wish to use public areas near abortion clinics to speak about abortion from a different point of view” (American Bar Association). This decision in the case has called for it to be heard again by the U.S. Supreme court as it is now a question of (1) if it is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment, and (2) if a past decision in Hill v. Colorado permits this law and whether or not it should be overruled (American Bar Association).
First Amendment Rights of Public School Students How the judicial branch rules in cases relating to the 1st and how they relate that to all the rights of public school students. This includes anything from flag burning to not saluting the flag to practicing religion in school. The main point of this paper is to focus on the fact that schools have a greater ability to restrict speech than government. Research Question Does government or school districts have the ability to restrict free speech? This is a very important question because this gives great power to one over the other.
Free speech at public universities and colleges is the most clear and the most contradictory of constitutional pr...
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
Through using case laws, the First Amendment, and previous cases, Justice Abe Fortas explains the reasoning behind why the principal was not permissible. In the first two paragraphs, Fortas provides a brief summary stating how the policy banning armbands go against the First Amendment. In the following paragraph, Fortas says, “Only a few of the 18,00 students in the school system wore the black armbands.” When introducing his first argument, he supports this fact explaining how “the work of the schools or any class was [not] disrupted.” As for the fourth paragraph, Justice Fortas provides a counter argument with what the District Court said. The District Court concluded the school authorities were reasonable since it was based upon their fear o...
Two ideas that were similar and that were shared by the sources are that the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Source #3 and source #4 explain how they would harm innocent people and would accomplish nothing positive. Source #3 proves that it is good for us to have freedom to say what we want but that there should also be limits to what we have the right to say. Source #3 states, “ The First Amendment to the United States Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech. But what if a person were to shout “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater when there was no fire at all ? The decision to do such a thing would put innocent people in a harm’s way while accomplishing nothing positive.” What is stated above shows that it would harm people by them assuming there is really fire and panic when there actually isn’t anything. Source #4 explains how all our freedoms are important and how we can hurt