Rehnquist, CJ., dissenting SUPREME COURT THE OF UNITED STATES Student B v. Ed Rooney, Principal of Easton High School [April 24, 2014] CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting. In the principle’s favor, the last decision in which the Court of Appeals evaluated that in the 2007 case of Student B vs. Rooney the sighting of wearing or speaking things of hate speech on school grounds will not be tolerated and suspension of Student B for wearing a hat that stated “F all Muslims” assigned by, principal Rooney constitutional. In the dissenting opinion, we believe that Supreme Court should remain or uphold the decision in favor of the principal that the decision was constitutional. According to precedent, in the similar case Ray v. City of Paul Minnesota regarding freedom of speech, a similar incident took place under the concept of school grounds and was also handled by school officials. One student and a couple of affiliating teenagers were accused of creating an inappropriate cross, made by taping together broken chair legs. The cross was then taken and burned in an African American family that lived across the street from the petitioner’s house, and front yard. The decisions made on the case of Ray v. City of Paul Minnesota are as follows, the petitioner was charged under the St. Paul Bias –Motivated Crime Ordinance, however, Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court found this ordinance unconstitutional. In comparison, this relates to the case Student B vs. Rooney because the incident and petitioner were off school grounds when it occurred. However, the petitioners were STUDENT B v. ROONEY Rehnquist CJ., dissenting both juvenile offenders. The mental states of innocent people were affected and the expressions were targeted to... ... middle of paper ... ... which stated that it violated the students free speech rights, the suspension of Student B for wear the offensive cap by Principal Rooney from my interpretation of the law and circumstances was constitutional. There are several reasons that have led me to make this decision. To begin, although the student never wore the hat on school property there was never a defined proof as to where the school property ends and where it actually began. My next point is STUDENT B v. ROONEY Kagan J., dissenting that the display of the cap by Student B to where it became a priority of the student to make sure that Student A saw them wearing this was a clear form of hate speech, which is any speech that offends or threatens based on race, color, religion or sexual orientation that may entice violence or other actions against an individual or group (cite).
In the majority opinion, Justice White wrote “Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were” The court also noted that the paper was a sponsored newspaper by the school which was not intended to be seen by the public, but rather for journalism students to write articles based off of the requirements for journalism 2 class, and all subjects must be appropriate for the school and all its
Over five years have passed since high school senior Joseph Frederick was suspended for 10 days by school principal Deborah Morse after refusing her request to take down a 14-foot banner he was displaying at a school-sanctioned event which read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Born as a seemingly trivial civil lawsuit in which Frederick sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights to free speech, the case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the long-awaited ruling of Morse v. Frederick has finally been released. In a 5-4 split decision, the court ruled in favor of Morse and upheld the school board’s original ruling that Morse was acting within her rights and did not violate Frederick’s First Amendment rights by taking away his banner and suspending him for 10 days. The controversial decision has led followers of the case to question the future of student speech rights.
Many Supreme Court cases in the United States have reassured its citizens’ rights. One of those cases was that of the 1965 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case. This case was about five students who were suspended from school for wearing black armbands. Should the students have been suspended? The Tinker v. Des Moines case was a very controversial Supreme Court case in which the right to freedom of speech and expression for students in public schools was violated.
“Marvin L.Pickering, a high school science teacher in Illinois wrote a letter published in a newspaper denouncing the board of education's choice of allocating of funding between athletics and academics, he also criticized the superintendent who did not inform the local taxpayers why they were actually paying more for the school. After posting the letter, the high school teacher was fired because the board claimed that he delivered false information that could affect the efficiency of the school administration, it damage the reputation of the board of education and of its superintendent and that it could possibly encourage “controversy, conflict, and dissension” between the school staff "Detrimental to the best interests of the schools"(Findlaw.com, I) . Pickering decided to sue the school for violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and of equal protection because he claimed that he has the right to free speech and is allowed the same rights as everybody else.“
This is just down right wrong because it’s unwarranted to give the right to do such a thing to schools and not to government. Thesis Schools have more rights than the government to affect and restrict the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech. Annotated Bibliography Hudson, David L., JR. " First Amendment Center. "
There have been many cases where exceptions have been made over the first amendment, such as in the Tinker vs. Des Moines Community School District Case. Teenagers by the name of Christopher Eckhardt and Mary Beth Tinker had planned to wear black armbands to their school to show their support for a truce in the Vietnam War. When word reached the principle, of Christopher and Mary Beth’s plan to arrive with the black armbands, the principal created a policy stating that, “any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension.” (The Oyez Project). After being kicked out of school, Tinker’s parents sued them but their case was dismissed due to the fact that the first amendment does not grant one the right to express their opinion at any place nor at any time. Another official claimed that the first amendment is not fully guaranteed to children. While the first amendment may be a boon to the United States, it is not always just. There are limitations, and conditions surrounding the first amendment and our freedom of speech. In Tinker’s case, her armband was seen as disruptive, and distracting to other students, justifying the school’s actions against the student of suspending and eventually expelling
The issue at hand is one of teacher endorsement and whether or not displaying a student’s religious work represents a personal endorsement from the teacher regarding religion or religious practices. Because the works of all students are displayed, the teacher is neither presenting nor endorsing a personal belief. If there is a concern over student interpretation of a teacher displaying the work, teachers can take an educational tact by explaining to students that a religious story presented by a student is their personal story and not a story of the teacher’s or the school, thus allowing the student’s work to be presented without violating the Establishment Clause (Ross, 2014). This piece of writing and the artwork that went with it are a personal belief to the student and represent who the student considers to be a hero, and do not represent the beliefs of the teacher or the school. Justice O’Connor explained this as an endorsement test, asking two questions: “whether government’s purpose is to endorse religion and second, whether the statue actually conveys a message of endorsement” (Schimmel, 1994, p. 16). In this case no endorsement is made because the teacher displays all student work and is in no way advancing a personally held belief. Having examined the appropriateness of displaying the student’s work, the next step is to determine how the First Amendment applies to
Minersville provides a very interesting backdrop to subsequent cases with graver overtones of censorship. The Minersville case was brought by the father of Lillian and William Gobitis, on their behalf, against the public schools of Minersville, Pennsylvania. The Gobitis children, Jehovah's Witnesses, were brought up to believe that scripture forbade saluting a flag. They refused to observe the Pledge of Allegiance and were expelled from the public school system, forcing their father to enroll them in private schools (23-25).
LaMorte, Michael. School Law: Cases and Concepts. 4th ed. London: Allyn and Bacon, 1993. Lane, Kenneth, Mary Jane Connelly, Julie Mead, Mark Gooden, and Suzanne Eckes, eds.
"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
...o school. The dissenting opinion simply argued that freedom of speech is not to be used as a disturbance. Therefore, those students’ right to expression or speech was not violated because it interfered with the classroom’s learning. There is a time and place for everything, and freedom of speech should not be used everywhere.
In Goss v. Lopez, a student sued because an Ohio law allowed a school principal to suspend a student for 10 days or more with only a simple 24-hour notice to parents. The court ruled that this was a violation of a student’s 14th amendment due process clause rights because students were not given a due process hearing. In Dixon v. Alabama, a federal appellate court affirmed same standard in higher education by maintaining that a public college or university cannot expel a student without a hearing.
Hate speech, According to American Bar Association is "that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, other traits (American).” Hate speech can include “insulting nouns for racial groups, degrading caricatures, a threat of violence, and literature portraying individual as animal-like. There has been long debate whether to protect hate speech in the United States. The hate speech has been protected because it been fundament principle of the constitution. The some part of speech are regulated by the government usually are fighting words which are motivated to
... crying.” The plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 (2000) and civil rights conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 (2000). The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on the basis of qualified immunity. The court dismissed the state law claims but found that the defendant had in fact violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights due to the fact that “a state actor, through his agents, cannot randomly beat a student.” The defendant was also denied dismissal of the claim based on qualified immunity because a state actor cannot arbitrarily commit violence against a student. The plaintiff was able to show that Coach Edmundson’s conduct did violate his constitutional right of substantive due process to be free from the infliction of malicious corporal punishment by school official.
Throughout the twentieth century, the United States Supreme Court has protected students’ rights to practice their religious beliefs, so long as they are not “disruptive, discriminatory, or coercive to peers who may not share those same beliefs” (Education Weekly, 2003, para. 3). In 1943, the Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette stated that students could not be “forced to salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance if it violates the individual’s conscience” (First Amendment Cyber Tribune, 2002). The 1963 decision in Engel v. Vitale made school prayer unconstitutional, and similarly found school prayer at graduation ceremonies in its 1992 Lee v. Weisman decision (First Amendment Cyber Tribune, 2002). Student-led prayer at public school football games was found unconstitutional in 2000 with the Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (First Amendment C...