Analysis Of The Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District Essay

In the history of the Supreme Court, there have been many First Amendment cases that outline if exercises of free speech and expression are constitutional or unconstitutional. One of the most paramount 1st amendment cases is that of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). This significant case helped shape the extension of symbolic speech, as well as ensure the freedom of speech and expression to students in schools.

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.

Significance: The case Tinker v Des Moines broadens the interpretation of student’s First Amendment rights. The students do not shed their First Amendment right when they enter school grounds. Thus extending their right of free speech, press, etc. in their school. They have the ability to freely speak about issues in their schools, etc. However, their rights are still limited in a way their speech may not disturb the learning of

The Tinker vs. Des Moines case helped determined and interpret legal rights of young citizens for the first time. A group of students made a decision to wear black armbands to school to support a peace establishing agreement during the Vietnam War. As a result, the participating students; Mary Beth Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and John Tinker got suspended for their actions (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District).The school outlawed and attempted to penalize petitioners for a “silent, passive expression of opinion”, that didn’t cause any commotion (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist). The parents decided to sue the school for disrespecting the student’s constitutional rights of expression.

The 1960’s was the height of many civil rights and anti-war protests. During this time, student activist became more radical. It began mostly on college campuses when students would organize “teach-ins” to express their opposition to the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case called Tinker v. Des Moines. This case changed the history of America because it gave students freedom to voice their opinions. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines, the question of whether or not the First Amendment’s free speech rights extend to students’ symbolic speech can be analyzed by examining the background, considering the arguments, and reviewing the impact.

In summarizing the salient points of the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, it had to do with the respondent’s father who sued candidates, including a school region, affirming that the school locale's approach requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at his little girl's school damaged the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the father had standing and decided for the father. Certiorari was conceded to audit the standing and First Amendment issues.

Citizens in America are born with a various amount of rights. One of these rights include the freedom of speech and expression. However, school administrators have the ability to restrict a student’s expression. The Supreme Court Cases ‘Bethel School District v. Fraser’ and ‘Frederick V. Morse’ gave schools the right for the administrators to discipline children when they see fit. Students should be able to express themselves in any way without fearing that their school administrators will discipline

In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, two Supreme Court justices, Abe Fortas and Hugo Black, give their testimony through writing, in which, Fortas agues in favor of the students and gives valid evidence in order to prove his case. However, Black, while he leans in favor of the schools focuses mainly on his opinion that the decision should be left to the school officials and not the courts.

In 1969, three young activists walked into school and were told they could not symbolically express themselves. Without these teens carrying out this simple act of rebellion, students today would lack basic rights in the school place, as they would have no outlet outside of the home to express their views. In order to understand Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District one must examine the history behind the case, analyze the case itself, and evaluate the impacts on modern society.

To avoid disturbance and disruption and to create and maintain a safe learning environment, public schools often adopt policies that forbid certain acts on the part of students. Included in many of these policies are prohibitions on hate speech. The opinion of the court in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) broadly stated that students retain their first amendment rights when they enter the school, but the breadth of that statement is not without limit. Schools may narrowly curtail free speech rights to the extent necessary to maintain good

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

The decision in this case seems to have left public school students’ free speech rights in an ambiguous state. The Justices in support of the majority opinion—Justices Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia—were thus

Freedom of Expression is a right that all Americans can joy on a daily basis, now imagine if it were a controlled right? That doesn’t make it a right, more so something that we can use when the government says so. In November of 1968, 4 students organized a silent protest against the US policies in Vietnam, which ended with suspension from their local schools. The issue was brought up in court, which led to split consensus. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court was that the expression of speech couldn’t be prohibited unless it was a disruption and harmed the rights of others. The dissent opinion stated that if freedom of speech was without a limit to an extent, who says it could lead to school being a platform for the exercise of free speech instead of education. The argument came to the conclusion of defining the rights and freedom of speech for children in school. I agree with the majority opinion, seeing the freedom of expression shouldn’t be controlled and such.

The 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines court case attested the First Amendment privileges of understudies in school. The Court held that a school region abused the students’ freedom of speech rights when it singled out a type of typical discourse – black armbands worn in dissent of the Vietnam War – for denial, without demonstrating the armbands would bring about significant disturbance in class.

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