Case Study: First Amendment Under Attack

I think this court case had a really bad reason for being made into a court case. Even though there was a reason they should have found a better one to make a court case. In this court case we somehow argued for five to ten minutes with each argument that the lawyers laid on the table. We then went out and voted for money to be given to the Tinkers and to let them wear their armbands. So now the school should think of how they’re going to treat matters better instead of just kicking kids out for wearing an armband that says what they think of the Vietnam War. So I think that armbands are allowed because they’re armbands why make a big deal out

The case was heard by the Supreme Court on November 12th, 1968 to a packed court house. The main constitutional question at hand was if a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech and expression. Attorney Dan L. Johnson argued on the Tinker’s behalf, proclaiming that the students had the constitutional right, as per the 1st amendment freedom of speech and expression, to wear the black armbands as a form of symbolic speech. On the other hand, attorney Allan A. Herrick defended the school board’s actions, inciting that the prohibition of armbands was necessary to prevent and stifle any violence or disorder. The topic of discussion during the oral arguments centered largely upon whether Tinker’s protest was disruptive to the class environment. Johnson argued that the anti-Vietnam protest, although sparking some talk, was undisruptive to school, citing that there was no evidence of disruption in any of the classes. Herrick, conversely, argued that the Vietnam War was an inflammatory issue, and that armbands invoked violence, especially since a

This document supports limiting online student speech because the court ruled that even though it happened out of school, the school’s reason was strong enough to justify their actions toward K.K.

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.

The hearing took place on November 12,1969. During the hearing, leading attorney for the Tinkers, Dan Johnston, argued that the action of the students was censored under the First Amendment and their symbolic speech caused no disturbance. On the other hand, the school argued that they should have the duty to enforce and maintain order and all discretion should be left at the hands of the school and not the court (Anker 379). Around the same time, another case with the same problem arose. In the Burnside v. Byars case, there was a group of black students that attended an all-black public school in Philadelphia, Mississippi. To protest the racial segregation happening in their state, they wore freedom buttons. About thirty of the students who wore the buttons were suspended. The Court of Appeals, in the fifth circuit, said that the students have free speech rights and in order for the school to ban the buttons, the school must have evidence of disruption; otherwise, it is considered arbitrary and unreasonable and cannot be sustained (“Tinker…1969”). In the ruling of the Burnside v. Byars case, the Court of Appeals stated that in order for the school to interfere with students’ free rights, they must have evidence that it was interfering with school orders. However, Judge Stephenson, judge in the United States Court or Appeals, claimed that schools should not be limited to how they restrict

In a statement by Laura W. Murphy and Michael W. Macleod-Bell, it is stated, “...that any restriction specifically aimed at [limiting] the speech rights of [people under age 18] in the new electronic forum is a step in the wrong direction and not in keeping with the ideals of our constitutional framework” (Document F). Limiting free speech is violating the right of free speech, so it would be unconstitutional to limit students’ online speech. During the J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, “Under Tinker, therefore, the School District violated J.S.’s First Amendment free speech rights when it suspended her for creating the profile” (Document D). When one punishes students for online speech, they are violating free speech rights for students outlined by Tinker. This makes it unfair for schools to limit online

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

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

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

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

California case. In this case, freedom of speech was the issue to be addressed in conjunction with the first amendment. This case was argued February 22, 1971 and decided upon on June 7, 1971. On April 26, 1968 Paul Robert Cohen was in the corridor of the Los Angeles County Courthouse wearing a jacket that said “Fuck the Draft.” The words were clearly visible and there were numerous women and children all around him in the courthouse. Cohen was arrested for wearing this jacket purposely in front of everyone and being in the courthouse. Cohen admitted that he wore the jacket purposely to inform the public of the way he felt against the Draft and the Vietnam War. He was convicted and sentenced to XXX days in prison.

The issue of Tinker v. Des Moines ISD was that students were to wear black arm bands to school in protest of the Vietnam War; however the school warned that anyone wearing the armbands would be would be suspended, but the Tinker children wore their armbands to school (they were the only ones of the group to do so) and were suspended leading to Mr. and Mrs. Tinker filing a law suit claiming that the school violated the children's right to freedom of speech and expression. The court ruled against the school district saying that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates. In doing so the court protected what has come to be known as "symbolic speech." In the case of Engle v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that prayers in schools were considered unconstitutional, leading to a ban of all prayers led by teachers in school, even if the prayer was considered voluntary, stating, in a way, that there was some sort of “separation of church and state” which is not true. Lastly, New York Times v. Sullivan focused more on the freedom of the press, ruling that “actual malice” must be proven to support a finding of libel against a public figure.

Tinker v. Des Moines was a case arguing over whether the students were allowed to peacefully protest the Vietnam war in schools by wearing a black arm band with a peace sign on it. The Supreme court decided that they were allowed to peacefully protest because it didn't hinder the students for learning and it didn't lead to criminal activity. This case was one of the most important cases in US history because it was a stepping stone for students to express themselves freely in schools.

The court ruled in favor of the university of the basis, “based on the university’s defense that focused on the time and place of distributing the newspaper issue, the student’s being on academic probation, and the issue of indecent speech, the Eighth Circuit affirmed in its favor” ( ). The primary reason for the court ruling in favor of the university, however, was that they believed that the student’s freedom of expression could be limited if the publication was indecent and offensive to the university community.

In a statement made by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), the bench clarifies that "the standard of conduct that a teacher must meet is greater than the minimum standard of conduct otherwise tolerated given the public responsibility that a teacher must fulfill. . ." (SCC as cited by Kruk, p.19). Epitomizing the antithesis of this standard is the active case of Brad Badiuk. In December 2014, Badiuk, a high school teacher from Winnipeg, Manitoba, made a number of discriminatory comments against Canadian Aboriginal peoples in an extensive dialogue on the social media website, Facebook (FB) (2014, Gonzalez). As a result of Badiuk's postings, he could conceivably face permanent termination.