Analysis Of Avi's Essay 'Nothing But The Truth'

Would you believe me if I told you a child was suspended for humming the national anthem? In the book Nothing but the Truth by Avi, that is exactly what happens to 9th grader Philip Malloy. Philip Malloy’s rights were violated because, he has the right to freedom of speech, he was suspended from school and he has the right to express his patriotism and in the book he was not allowed to do these things.

The First Amendment is designed to protect all citizens by giving them the right to express themselves in different ways. In doing so, we still have to be careful on how we do it. Students have the right to express themselves as long as it does not cause any disruption. In my school district, we abides by the First Amendment by not forbidding all mention of religion in the school system (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015). The only part that is prohibited is the advancement or inhibition of religion (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015). My school district feels that there’s nothing unconstitutional about using religious subjects or materials as long as it is in compliance to the neutrality of the education program (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015).

On Page 83 Dr. Palleni tells Mrs. Malloy, ”Students cannot break-- cannot make a disturbance in the classroom. Straightforward rule infraction.” AVI In this quote it is shown what rule Philip Malloy had broken. He was creating a disturbance, which is why he was kicked out of the school. OnPage 1 in the memo it says “Please all rise and stand at respectful, silent attention for the playing of our national anthem.” AVI The rule that Philip broke is right on the first page in the memo. Stand at respectful, Silent attention. The rule Philip broke is right in the memo that he was sent most likely when he entered the school. He broke the rule, suspension is deserved. On Page 105 Dr. Seymour says “The answer is no. We do not have such a rule. Absolutely.” AVI This is said by Dr. Seymour while he is speaking to Jennifer Stewart. He is saying that there is no rule against singing the star spangled banner. On Page 111 the conversation states “Ms. Stewart: …. You suspended a student, Philip Malloy, for singing “The Star Spangled Banner”? Dr. Palleni: I did no such thing!” AVI In this quote, Dr. Joseph Palleni is defending himself after he is accused of suspending Philip for signing the national anthem. This shows that Palleni did not suspended Philip Malloy for singing the national anthem. He suspended him for some other reason, for creating a

The case of Wallace v. Jaffree calls into question the constitutionality of an Alabama statute that authorized teachers to lead a one-minute period of silence for “meditation or voluntary” prayer in all public schools. Ishmael Jaffree, the parent of three students in the Mobile County Public School system filed a complaint that two of his three children had been “subjected to various acts of religious indoctrination,” as a result of Alabama statute 16-1-20.1 and asked for an injunction prohibiting Mobile County schools from “maintaining or allowing the maintenance of regular religious prayer services.” The purpose of Jaffree’s complaint was to prohibit the devotional services occurring in his children’s school and the consequent mockery of his children that occurred when they refused to recite the prayers to “Almighty God” (Stevens, 40). This type of law in Alabama public schools was not the first of its kind. Prior to statute 6-11-20.1, Alabama passed law 16-1-20 authorizing one minute of silence in public schools for meditation. After the authorization of statute 16-1-20.1 came 16-1-20.2, which allowed teachers to lead “willing students” in a prayer (Stevens, 40).

One of the things that stand out in in Anthem is the little amount of freedoms they have. The society has been completely turned on its head every little thing they do in life is dictated and controlled down to who they can like. They aren't even allowed to be taller or different looking from their brothers. One of the freedoms missing that stands out to me is the freedom of speech. For people here in America, the freedom of speech is something we all take for granted and don't think about all that often. We know it's one of our rights and we know that some other countries don’t have it, but we don't tend to stop and think about what it would be like if we had that taken away. That is something that everyone needs to think about from time to time.

Neil Gaiman once said, “The current total of countries in the world with First Amendments is one. You have guaranteed the freedom of speech. Other countries don’t have that.” At the time of the amendments’ creation, a vast majority of operating countries had not yet granted their people such freedoms. Granting every citizen of the United States this right seemed to have been an important landmark in this nation’s history. Along with others, this right is declared to the people in the first amendment of the constitution. The first amendment is the most important because it grants people freedom of speech, prohibits prior restraint, and declares the right to peaceable assembly.

Des Moines is an important case for free speech in the United States. It affirms that students don’t lose their rights when they go to school. However, it also affirmed that schools can limit speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). However, the Court has ruled that there are times that the school can limit speech. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bethel v. Fraser that students can be disciplined for using vulgar and offensive language in school (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p. 25). This case differed from Tinker v. Des Moines because that case was about political speech or expression. Another example of where school can limit the First Amendment is school sponsored newspapers. This was affirmed by the Court in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). That decision stated that schools can reasonably limit the content of school-sponsored newspapers (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p.

America’s first president George Washington once argued at the [whenever he said this] that “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” It is an essential component to the daily life of any constitutional republic, such as that of the United States even though it is a right granted to all American citizens, in the past, freedom of speech has been abridged to accommodate political correctness, to prevent disruptive behavior that could negatively affect others, and to protect confidential military information.

Everyone in America should be guaranteed the freedom of speech granted by The Constitution. In 1988, the court ruled in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier that schools \could limit freedom of speech in school if they had “educational concerns” (Jacobs). The problem is that “educational concerns” is too vague and school districts are able to use this as a loophole to get away with removing articles that do not need to be removed. Often, the concern is based on perception and image more than anything else. Angela Riley’s article “20 years later: Teachers reflect on Supreme Court’s Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ruling” quotes Frank LoMonte, executive director of

Here are the quotes that counter my case On Pg 72” I have the Right to do it” He does have the right to hum along but it was a disturbance of the silence On Pg 74 “ How can she keep me from singing the national anthem” Which means that he can sing along even though the first amendment supports him but he should not be disturbing the class.

I do not feel that Phillip Malloy’s free speech rights were violated. There are multiple reasons for this. Philip was not singing to be patriotic, but instead to annoy his teacher Ms. Narwin. He was also warned multiple times to give the national anthem “quiet respect”. Once Phillip was in the principle’s office Phillip was even given a chance to apologize to his classmates for disturbing them during the national anthem, but he refused. These three facts are why Phillip Malloy’s free speech rights weren’t violated, and he was only singing to create a disturbance.

People think Phillip has a right to be patriotic and express himself by singing The Star-Spangled Banner. On page 217 in the article from “American Affiliated Press Wire Service” says “The boy, Philip Malloy, who wished to sing in the spirit of patriotism”. Philip thought that he was simply being patriotic. Philip was expressing himself, but making distractions during the announcements are strictly prohibited at the school, and Philip knew

The rights protect the freedom of religions, press, and speech. Base on the Amendment, citizens of the United States had the rights to speech their opinion and saying their grievances. However, this right was not absolute. That mean some speech would not be right. The speech would be considered as unprotected speech when it were defamation, obscenity, and cause the fight. Therefore, the message on Gunner’s shirt was not constitutionally-protected free speech. The words on his shirt were put under unprotected speech. It means the freedom of speech would not protect him. As the principle Cuthbert said, the words on the shirts was disrespect to Christ, and Christian. The meaning of the word was defamation to the God of the religions belief. It was not just show disrespect to the God; it also showed respected to all the population who believed on this religion. It could cause a fighting between religions. The language was used on the shirt was obscenity. It should not be used. As a star of the school, the language he used would become a model to the fellow students. It affect to an entire population. Therefore, the freedom of speech of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights would not protect

Therefore, the principle may not force Anthony to stand for the national Anthem or condemn Beth for “acting her faith.” In conclusion, if the school district continues with Beth’s suspension, they would be violating her rights to express her feelings. Opposers may state that Beth’s reasons were not clear as she protested, and because of the “material and disruption test”, Beth’s speech was not protected. However, Beth clarified her reasons to the principal and her student peers before they came to their conclusions. Ergo, just as Anthony’s actions are protected under our law, so should Beth’s as they took the same actions.

“Students … [do not] shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gates.”