Alpine High School Jurisdiction Case Study

Cases that involve the First Amendment in school systems have always been around but the issue of finding a balance with these freedoms is

Whether school board terminating the teacher violated the First Amendment right for publishing a letter in the newspaper while expressing one’s view as a concern citizen (Findlaw.com).

The court concluded that school officials are not in violation of a offending a student’s First Amendment Rights if they stop the student from expressing views that the officials feel promotes the use of drugs.

Luis M. v. Hayward Unified School District case can be applied to this situation when a student was attacked and thusly injured in his school’s hallway in between class changes. There were no teachers supervising the hallway. Luis M. was a 15-year-old sophomore. Luis M. said a gang member attacked him in the lunchroom on his first day at Hayward High. Luis M. said the school was negligent in supervising the students and allowing the nonstudents to enter campus. Applying this case to the walkway here, the school could easily be considered negligent if a student were to become injured while traveling along this area because of a lack of supervision. The school is breaching its duty of care to the students’ safety. Lack of supervision could

Unquestionably, Morse et. al. v. Frederick (2006) argues “[…] the school punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption” (Morse et. al. v. Frederick, 2006, p. 1). This argument from Morse et. al. v. Frederick (2006) demonstrates that court recognized it was a First Amendment violation on the school. However, Morse et. al. v. Frederick (2006) provides the decision from the Supreme Court stating “[…]

A group of student created “The Spectrum” and 2 pages of “The Spectrum” contain stories of of divorce and teen pregnancy. These stories were controversial because not everyone had the same opinion about them. Especially the principal who thought the 2 pages of the newspaper was inappropriate so he censored them. This caused outraged because the student thought that the principal’s action violated the 1st Amendment which is their freedom

In the well-known case of of Tinker Verses Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court remarked, “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” While shedding your thoughts and freedom of speech or expression at “the schoolhouse gate” can be difficult, the district did have the right to not renew the teacher’s contract. I think that it is important to keep my mind what the judge stated in the facts above, “teachers … do not have a right under the First Amendment to express their opinions with their students during the instructional period.” The teacher gave her opinion and an idea of her political view by stating

Reason Filed: A middle school student created a website filled with graphic bloody images of a math teacher and the school principal. The image of the math teacher went through some type of metamorphosis where her image was transformed into the image of Adolph Hitler. Additionally, the website offered money for a hit man to murder the teacher. The website created a lot of mental anguish for the teacher. The student was suspended and while under suspension the school was in the process of expelling the student. The student and family claimed that the school could not disciple the student because their child was practicing their First Amendment rights.

Issue: “Does the decision of a principal to prohibit the publishing of certain articles, which he deems inappropriate, in the school newspaper violate the student journalists' First Amendment right of freedom of speech?”

My opinion is going to reflect on the majority opinion that the school didn’t violate the students first amendment and that the topics were inappropriate and that the school rules doesn’t allow inappropriate things inside the school especially in the school newspaper. For the minority opinion that having the right to expression and that the government should not take that way in which the students were writing about two different subjects which could help others in the future in which writing about the topics would be an idea so students can read about it.

Reynolds, upon seeing this immediately withheld the issue. Cathy Kulhmeier and two other students soon took the incident to court. The case was resolved by the Rehnquist court in the years 1987-1988. The court gave a 5 to 3 vote in favor of the school. The majority opinion, given by judge White, stated that the school must retain the authority to not sponsor the newspaper in order to prevent the promotion of drug use and underage sex, which is considered inappropriate for a civilized setting, This was supported by Judges White, Stevens, O’Connor, and Scalia. The dissenting opinion, given by Brennan, accuses the majority of not seeing the difference between student-initiated and school-sponsored speech, they believe the school is able to strike this down in an act of “protection” of other students, this was backed by Marshall and Blackmun. This case comes in conflict with the first amendment’s “freedom of speech” due to the censorship of the newspaper. The main question is “was the school neglecting the students’ first amendment rights?”. Many journalist groups and media agencies, such as “The Seattle Times”, have clearly voiced support for the students, others have questioned if the first amendment

In this case, students presented two inappropriate articles in the school’s newspaper. Principal Reynolds removed the articles and the newspaper was published without them. This led Cathy Kuhlmeier and two former students to fight against it through the courts. Once again, the Supreme court ruled in favor of the Hazelwood School District stating, "Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were 'reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns'" (oyez.org). Alike Morse v Frederick, Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier had a tighter policy in regard to the situations presented in the cases. As opposed to the pervasive restrictions in the new policy from

Therefore, this is a final order and it was proper for the father to file his Notice of Appeal within 30 days from March, 16, 2016. The father entered the Notice of Appeal on March 26, 2016, ten (10) days after. Consequently, this Court has jurisdiction to heard this case, which was filed in a timely manner.

I tended to favor a loose interpretation of the laws for this case. Even though everyone is to allow to express their opinions, the restrictions were necessary. These restrictions were created to avoid mayhem within the student body which can lead to even more serious trouble.I honestly think the school was in no wrong because the school was doing like any other school would do by protecting their student’s rights. The school was just simply representing the interest of the majority. Newspaper are a way the students could have used to express their feelings

HISTORY: Plaintiff appealed from summary judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco in favor of defendant.