Student court cases against schools, or vice versa, are not as uncommon as they may seem. Tinker v. Des Moines was a court case that ended in 1969 regarding students protesting the Vietnam War. The three students involved in the trial wore black armbands to school, which was prohibited, and were suspended. Since the students felt that their First Amendment right was abused by the school therefore they took the issue to a local court, then eventually the Supreme Court. The case has left a mark on First Amendment rights for students since then. The Tinker v. Des Moines court case impacted the United States by questioning the First Amendment in public schools, spreading awareness of student rights, and by challenging future court cases using …show more content…
Today, there are student laws regarding disruption that were brought about because of the court case (Sternburg). If what is said is not disruptive in the classroom, create chaos, or invade other 's rights, it is considered acceptable (McPherson 86). The students involved in the Tinker case were lucky since they were protected because they were not disruptive, nor was there offensive speech (“Tinker v. Des Moines: Establishing the Right”). It is important for students to avoid disruptions to prevent offensive speech that could be taken as …show more content…
It was a 1986 case involving a seniors, Matthew Fraser, campaign speech at school that used “sexually suggestive comments and gestures” which created an uproar in the audience (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). Fraser was suspended for several days and was not allowed to speak at commencement therefore he made the decision to sue the school district since he felt his First Amendment was violated (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). He was voted against seven to two because he used vulgar language which is not allowed in schools (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). Because Fraser was not peaceful or non-vulgar like the Tinker case, he was not able to win the case against the Bethel School
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.
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
We, all, have the opportunity to voice our opinion on subjects that matter to us. The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech and expression. However, this was not provided to all students in 1968. During this time, there were three students in Des Moines, Iowa, who wore black armbands to school. These armbands were a symbol of protest against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. After the Des Moines School District heard about this plan, they instituted a policy banning the wearing of armbands, leading to the suspension of students. A lawsuit has been filed against the Des Moines School District, stating how this principal goes against the students’ First Amendment rights. Thus, in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, Justice Abe Fortes determined the policy to ban armbands is against the students’ First Amendment rights. Yet, Justice Hugo Black dissented with this decision, determining the principal is permissible under the First Amendment.
Mary Beth Tinker was only thirteen years old in December of 1964 when she and four other students were suspended from school because they wore black armbands. The black armbands were a sign of protest against the Vietnam War. The school suspended the students and told them that they could not return to school until they agreed to take off the armbands. The students did not return to school until after the school’s Christmas break, and they wore black the rest of the year, as a sign of protest. The Tinker family, along with other supporters, did not think that the suspension was constitutional and sued the Des Moines Independent Community School District. The Supreme Court’s majority decision was a 7-2 vote that the suspension was unconstitutional (Tinker V. Des Moines).
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
In the landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), John Tinker and his siblings decided to openly protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school (Goldman 1). The school felt that their efforts to protest the war disrupted the school environment. “The Supreme Court said that ‘in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.’ School officials cannot silence student speech simply because they dislike it or it is controversial or unpopular” (FAQs 2). What about theatrical performance? Should certain plays not be performed at school because of inflammatory content? Theatrical performance plays a significant role during various years of a child’s youth, but, alone, has one central aim that allows for tolerance and multifariousness within the “salad bowl” United States. High school theatre arts curriculum’s purpose is to develop appreciation of the doctrines, perspectives, principles, and consciousness of diversified individuals in distinctive epochs throughout history as conveyed through literary works and theatre. If theatre has this sort of impact, why does the school administration, teachers, parents, even the state government, infringe upon the student body’s First Amendment rights? Schools should make no policy that would chastise a student for speaking their mind or expressing oneself, unless the process by which they are expressing themselves meddles with the educational methods and the claims of others. If a student threatens another student under “the right” of being able to speak freely, one would hope a school would take immediate action before potential harm occurs. The First Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” In reference to students and a school environment, the definition of freedom of speech and expression becomes very unclear as to what they can and cannot say.
It was irrational for these students to be suspended from the school. The high school students named John F. Tinker, who was fifteen-years-old, John’s younger sister Mary Beth Tinker, who was thirteen-years-old, and their friend Christopher Eckhardt, who was sixteen years old, should not have been suspended. They were under the protection of the First Amendment. The parents of those students sued the school district for violating the students’ right of expressions and sought an injunction to prevent the school from decupling the students. The Supreme Court of the United Sates stepped in and the question of law was if. They ruled in the favor of the Tinker’s because it was in a seven to two decision "Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District."
J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 757 A.2d 412 is a case from 1998 that is about whether or not the Bethlehem Area School District was justified in their decision to expel a student (J.S.) because of horribly offensive materials he published on a website about his teachers. J.S. created a website called “Teacher Sux” onto which he posted highly offensive material about his principal and two of his teachers. One of those teachers was J.S.’s algebra teacher, Mrs. Fulmer. On the website he made a page that read “take a look at the diagram and give the reasons I gave, then give me $20 to help pay for a hitman” in reference to Mrs. Fulmer. He created a disturbing illustration of Mrs. Fulmer’s head which was decapitated from her body and it
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
I fully agree with the District Court and the First Circuit Court on the ruling for the school district against Jason, a high school student that wrote a facebook post during school hours and on school campus that included vulgar and offensive words towards his fellow classmates in which he named in the post. When first looking at this case you can either apply the Supreme Court precedent set in the case of Bethel School District v. Fraser or Tinker vs. Des Moines. If we apply the Fraser test to Jason’s speech his speech would have not been protected. According to Fraser schools may prohibit speech that “materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." 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.
Background: In Des Moines, Lowa, the students came together and organized the kids to wear black armbands to school to protest the vietnam war. The kids wore the armbands to school and the principal found out and suspended all the kids because of the armbands. The students gaurdians sued the school for not allowing them to have freedom of speech. The United States court was on the schools side, ruling that the armbands were a distraction of the kids learning abilities. The kdis appealed the rulling to a United States court of appeal but in the end they lost.
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.
School dress code is controversial, sometimes being the cause of inner-school violence. The censorship of this raises issues when students complain that their personal rights to express themselves after schools limit what they can or cannot wear. School dress code are the guide lines that schools set that define what is acceptable to wear to school. An example of student dress code censorship was the case involving a thirteen year-old student in Williamstown displaying his political opinion about former President Bush (Nguyen). Because the shirt contained drug references and words calling the president a "crook", an "AWOL, draft dodger" and a "lying drunk driver," he was told to go home after refusing to take it off (Nguyen). This case went to two different courts, a US District Court, and the Second Circuit Court. The US District Court agreed with the school's opinion because they believed the images on Guille's shirt were not appropriate for a school atmosphere (Nguyen). Meanwhile, the Second Circuit Court ruled that the school should not have censored the shirt because even thou...
50). Essex cites part of the Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court opinion: “School officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of the petitioners…” (p. 50). Essex explains that “…students are entitled to express their views in an orderly fashion” (p. 50). The issue of the shirt was that the student was also disrupting the school environment. Therefore, the principal could had argued that the prohibition was based on that point. However, she did mention to him that the ‘Day of Truth’ words could had been disruptive. If that was her argument to ban the t-shirt she could be standing shaking grounds. During the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette Supreme Court case decision, the Justices stated that the believes of the Jehovah Witnesses did not alter or affect the rights of others and that this case was based on authority v. individual rights. If the student’s legal defense decided, they could have argued that the shirt did not coerce anyone. The school district legal administration did foresee this possible outcome because they reversed the decision of Ms. Howard about the t-shirt. The decision to allowed him to wear his shirt followed the guideline of the Supreme Court by explaining that the words did not forced the student’s religion on