Boobies The Court And Free Speech Analysis

Issues of censorship in public schools are contests between the exercise of discretion and the exercise of a Constitutional right. The law

In the case of Shanna’s Shirt, the school district had a written policy in place stating that “clothing may not advocate or advertise drugs, alcohol, or tobacco and may not contain lewd, profane, or vulgar language or symbols.” Clearly, Shanna’s shirt did not violate the policy. The school district should consider adding another criteria that bans clothing that causes substantial disruption and also include banning hate messages. In the case of Shanna’s shirt, a previous case of Harper v. Poway (2006) ruling by the U.S. Supreme court upheld the ban of a similar shirt that read “Homosexuality is Shameful. Romans 1:27.” The court used the reasoning that the language violated the rights of other students by being hurtful to the offended

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.

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

That well known court case is Tinker vs. Des Moines. Tinker vs. Des Moines was a Supreme Court case that happened in 1969 dealing with dress code. Students got suspended from school for wearing black armbands to publicize their objections to the hostilities in Vietnam.The Supreme Court ruled that public school officials could not censor student expression unless they could reasonably forecast that the student expression would cause substantial disruption or material interference with school activities or would invade the rights of others. This case established our second amendment right; the freedom of expression. Students were getting in trouble for expressing themselves. How can you get in trouble for simply expressing yourself? Rachel Zoe said, “Style is a way of saying who you are without having to speak.” Dressing up and wearing the clothes we wear is how we convey a message. What I’m saying is that girls should not be getting in trouble of what they wear if it is not disruptive. Our outfits are not interfering with our schooling. If anything the dress code is telling us that a male's education is more

In 1969, a group of students filed a lawsuit against their school district claiming that their First Amendment rights were violated because the school district wrote a policy that prohibited them from wearing black armbands in a silent protest of the Vietnam War. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) ruled that students are entitled to their First Amendment rights as long as they are not causing a disruption to the school environment. This paper outlines the procedure and rulings in the case as well as other legal rulings that have expanded on when censorship of students is protected in public school settings as well as provides a personal reflection on how such matters can impact my future as a school administrator.

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.

The School made a statement that said if anyone wears the armbands to school and that they will be suspended. The Tinker kids still showed up with the armbands leading to a suspension. The Tinker family of Course took this case to the supreme court since the armbands fall under the 1st amendment freedom of expression. The school argued that the armbands were a distraction to school activity and that they had a right to enforce the use of armbands to control the classroom environment. There was a testimony that the armbands did indeed affect the school. The armbands drew comments and students with the armbands were being made fun of for wearing them. A math teacher said he "Had his lesson period practically wrecked chiefly by disputes with Mary Beth Tinker, who wore her armband". If this is true it would be in favor of common good since the class can operate without any disturbance if they made the Tinker kids take the armbands off. The court did not rule this way and opted to protect the individual rights of the Tinkers. The court ruled that the evidence was not enough to suspend the Tinkers. Justice Abe Fortas delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority,

The district court determined that the student’s First Amendment rights had not been violated. The court viewed the school paper as an extension of a journalism class. It was intended to be a learning experience, therefore must follow board rules for curriculum (Open Jurist, 2008). Laws mandate balancing the rights of the students to freedom of speech and the protection of other students to speech that is lewd, vulgar, or creates a substantial disturbance. The Supreme Court held this case differently from previous cases, such as Tinker v. Des Moines, which ruled in favor of the students (2008). Students were allowed to wear allow black armbands in a silent protest to the Vietnam War. This was not a part of the curriculum and was not found to be

"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." This was the main argument from Justice Abe Fortas that came into play at the Tinker v. Des Moines School District Case of 1969. The case involved a small group of students who silently dissented against the government’s policy during the ongoing Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school. In response by the school administration, each of those students was suspended from the public schools they attended in Des Moines, Iowa. This case is a prime example of the Constitutionally protected symbolic speech we have

The students were suspended and told not to come back unless they didn’t wear the armbands. They complied, but their parents took the case to the Supreme Court, claiming a violation of First Amendment rights, specifically freedom of speech. On February 24th, 1969, “the Court ruled that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and school officials could not censor student speech unless it disrupted the educational process,” ("Tinker v. Des Moines - Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Behalf of Student

Regarding the school’s districts claim that students would become distracted by the act of wearing armbands which resulted in the suspension of the students, the court claimed that “in order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would materially and substantially interfere with the operation of the

The notion that a word as innocuous as “boobies” can be described as lewd or crude is ridiculous in and of itself, but the fact that it got two students suspended is beyond absurd. And the school’s initial reasoning for suspension being “disrespect, defiance and disruption” is a clearly bogus one for simply wearing a bracelet that offended a faculty member’s fragile sensibilities. Then the school changing the reasoning for suspension to be that the word “boobies” has a “Sexual double entendre” is just them grasping for straws as nearly every word can be a “sexual double entendre” depending on the context in which it’s used and really why should anybody care if it is anyway. Even if the school contains a policy regarding things that may considered

In the year 1969, a student, Mary Beth Tinker, her brother John, and 3 other students wore black armbands to school in Des Moines, Iowa, in order to protest the Vietnam War. The administration feared a distraction/disruption of the armbands and the students were prohibited of wearing the armbands. The Tinkers’ were removed from school when the failed to follow the restriction of the armbands, but their parents sued the school for violation of their children’s rights of freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Then, a US district court agreed with the school, by saying that by wearing the black armbands the students could disrupt learning. The students then appealed the ruling to a U.S. Court of Appeals but lost. Then the case was taken

Artists across music genres are at the forefront of new protest songs in response to the rise of President Donald J. Trump and his words in the media. One political track, titled “Land of the Free” by Jo-Vaughn Virginie Scott, speaks to society through a bouncy beat in contrast to its blunt, politically-charged lyrics. Brooklyn based rapper Jo-Vaughn Virginie Scott, otherwise known as Joey Bada$$, released his single “Land of the Free” on January 20, 2017, the day of President Trump’s inauguration. According to Scott, “Land of the Free” was inspired by African-American civil rights leaders such as Marcus Garvey, Dr. Umar Johnson, and Malcolm X (Scott, 2017, Land of the Free). In the song, Scott discusses the racism and prejudice today towards minority groups, especially African-Americans. He also touches on how former President Barack Obama’s presidency was not enough to cause big enough change on the inequality in America. The message in the track, along with the correlating album, “All-Amerikkkan Bada$$”, challenges Americans to speak up and “start a new coalition against corrupt politicians” (Scott, 2017, Land of the Free). Using the cluster analysis method, the song’s word choice is accurately analyzed since clustering the words gives the lyrics a fresh perspective on the political meaning, and it helps evaluate Scott’s motive for wanting change. Scott critiques the political indifference America has towards the ongoing issue of inequality using the key terms free, just,