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. Fraser's father brought action against the school board in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. He alleged the suspension and punishment were a violation of his son's First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The father sought injunctive and monetary damages under 42 U.S.C.
Two days later, aware of the policy, the Tinkers and a friend wore their armbands to school. They were asked to remove the armbands and upon refusal, were suspended. They returned to school after January 1st, 1966, when the protest was scheduled to end. The Tinker’s filed a lawsuit against the school in a district court, asking for a small amount of money for damages and an injunction to restrain school officials from enforcing the policy. The court recognized the students’ First Amendment rights, but concluded that the school was within its jurisdiction in due to potential disruptions caused by the students’ silent protest.
After referring the student to a counselor, the student was suspended for the potential of a significant disruption. The issue with this controversial case was that the student wrote the poem from a first-person basis and the words did not present any physical harm or threat to other students. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the school district because the writing presented the likelihood or potential that a suicide could occur, which could have had a devastating and psychological impact on the school community. Melton v. Young, 465 F.2d 1332 (1972) A high school in Chattanooga, Tennessee suspended a student for wearing a jacket that depicted a Confederate flag. The school had already banded the flag prior to the student’s suspension, for fear of racial backlash.
However, when I, a common student at West Rowan High School try to express my feelings on "the state of the Bill of Rights in schools today" by making a computer presentation in multimedia class, my work is declared "bad" and my teacher and assistant principal do one of the most un-American things imaginable: they censored it. I had to re-make the presentation and lighten the harsh tone, and also erase the anarchy symbol from it. The teacher said that she was worried about me for reasons such as my feelings on the freedom of religion were almost satanic, because I said teachers should not be able to publicly practice religion in schools because it will encourage students to become a part of that religion. The presentation was neither slanderous nor obscene, but it did criticize teachers and administrators calling them "fascist dictators". At first I was angry at the school because I could wear clothing that was obscene or contained liquor advertisements, now they have completely taken away my freedom of speech.
The book was later reinstated in the curriculum when the board learned that the vote was illegal because they needed a two-thirds vote for removal of the text.' 'In 1977 parents in Pittsgrove Township, New Jersey, challenged the assignment of the novel in an American literature class. They charged that the book included considerable profanity and "filthy and profane" language that premoted premarital sex, homosexuality, and perversion, as well as claiming that it was "explicitly pornographic" and "immoral." After months of controversy, the board ruled that the novel could be read in the advanced placement class for its universal message, not for its profanity, but they gave parents the right to decide whether or not their children would read it.' 'In 1978 parents in Issaquah, Washington, became upset with the rebellious views expressed in the novel by Holden Caulfield and with the
His complaint alleged that his termination was unconstitutional because he was not given an opportunity to respond to the charges against him before his removal. As a result he was deprived of liberty and property (steady employment) without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court ruled that his due process rights were not violated. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard a consolidated appeal: Loudermill’s case together with another similar case (Cleveland Board of Education v Donnelly). The court reversed, in part, the previous decision and stated that the Board of Education had, in fact, violated Loudermill’s due process rights by removing his property right (to employment) before giving him a chance to respond to the charges against him.
Fraser majority at page 2. Jason did in fact use offensive speech when talking about the other students in his post, the names he called them and the profanity in the speech would reasonably be seen as offensive and vulgar. Though if applying this case to the Fraser test Jason’s speech would not be protected, in this case I decided to apply his speech to the test set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines. If we apply the existing Supreme Court Precedent set forth in the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines, Jason’s speech would not be protected under the First Amendment. As stated in Tinker vs. Des Moines “schools may prohibit speech that may reasonably lead school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities or that collides with the rights of other students to be secure and be left alone” Tinker at page 513.
Upon refusing to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance Ebony was asked to exit the room by her teacher. Unsure if to reprimand or to punish kids who don’t stand for the Pledge the teacher had a meeting with the principal who informed the school that students are allowed to remain seated during the pledge because it is their right to do so (Galley par. 3). Students have always had the option to opt out of the Pledge of Allegiance in the morning, but students and teachers didn’t quite understand the how their rights were affected. As a result, everyone now understands how their rights allow them to be in control.
Journalism students across the country are seeing the effects of the Hazelwood decision through administrative censorship of their school's newspaper. In 1988, the Unites States Supreme Court made the decision that, "High School principal's deletion from school-sponsored student newspaper of pages containing articles he reasonably considered objectionable held not violate students' First Amendment rights," (Hazelwood). Earlier, in 1987, the May 13th edition of Hazelwood East's newspaper was scheduled to contain articles student's experiences with pregnancy and divorce. The principal decided to withhold these articles from the final edition of the newspaper, on the basis that they were deemed obscene (Hazelwood). The students fought the censorship, saying that for something to be legally obscene, it must be "patently offensive, appeal to prurient interest, and, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific values," (Martinson 3).
Parents believe they are acting in their children best interest; but do not have the foresight to realize that by not allowing their children to face challenges or suffer consequences they are hindering their spiritual and social development. The first ethical dilemma stems from the parent of a graduating senior with Turrets syndrome, labeled as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) student. While in the process of enrolling the younger son into 9th grade, the parent was informed that he did not meet the guidelines set by the Federal Government for ESE and would have to take regular courses, she became irate and began screaming obscenities in the front office of the High School. I heard the commotion and as the parent was once a volunteer, I decided to intervene. I ask the parent to come into my office so we could discuss the matter privately.