Court Cases: Tinker Vs. Wainwright

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

What if you were suspended from school because of something you were wearing? Not only was the clothing or item appropriate, it was something you were fighting for or something you believe is right. Is this fair or okay for this to happen? There is a specific incident that this situation happened to a few teenagers in Des Moines, Iowa in December of 1965. A group of students wanting to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season was in for a wake up call. (FORTAS) These plans and or idea were quickly shot down by the high school principals. The principals caught wind of the teen’s plan, so there was a meeting a few days beforehand. The talk of the meeting was to ensure the teens that if they were to wear the black armbands a few

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.

There have been several different Supreme Court cases over the years that have been influential to most everybody who is aware of them. For example, the case of Roe vs. Wade was and still is immensely influential and is the cause of pro-life/pro-choice debates. Another important case was Marbury vs. Madison, which was the first Supreme Court case to ever declare that a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional. Even though those two cases were a couple of the most important and influential in American history nothing compares to the influence that the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright has provided, in my opinion. This case was tremendously important to the way that law enforcement is to be carried out in that it forced detectives and

John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Echardt all attended the same public school. They decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. They were asked by the school to remove the armbands but the kids refused to do so. This resulted in the suspension of all three students. Through their guardians, the scholars sued the school region for infringing the scholar’s right of expression and looked for a directive to keep the school from suspending them. The Tinkers took to court. The Tinkers claimed that they were suspended for essentially expressing their views on the war. They thought this move made by the school

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.

How would you feel if you weren't allowed to go to school just because of you protesting what you think is right? I’d feel pretty discriminated against, and we know for a fact that you would too. The armbands are a piece of clothing and they aren’t disrupting anything

Does a black armband really interfere with education? The two passages answer this. While wearing black armbands, the students of Des Miones Independent Community School District, were suspended one by one. After they were told not to wear them to school. Was their freedom of speech taken, or did they set themselves up for suspention?

In December 1965 a few students in Des Moines planned to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season and they planned to fast on December 16th and New Year’s Eve to support a truce in the Vietnam War. The principal and other school officials learned that the students hatched this plan and immediately adopted a no armband policy and students would be suspended if they wore armbands. On December 16th Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home. The following day John Tinker wore his armband to school and the same result occurred. They were suspended until they wouldn’t wear the armbands anymore. The students sued for violating their first amendment right of free speech. How should individual rights and the common good be balanced when they come into conflict? The common good should be put before individual rights because we have to think of the big picture not this little tiny problem. I think the school was wrong to censor the student’s free speech because they didn’t cause a substantial disruption of education.

Des Moines, Iowa in December of 1965 Mary Beth Tinker and a few of her friends decided to protest against the Vietnamese war by wearing black armbands to school. When school officials found about their protest they thought it would disrupt school environment and they decided that anyone who refused to remove the armband would be suspended. On the other hand the students parents believed that they had the right to protest at school and any interference of school officials would be a violation of their 1st amendment rights.

The court sided with the school, stating that the school made the rule out of an understandable fear of disruption that could be caused by the armbands. Not only this, but they banned all armbands, not just the ones that the protestors would wear, so it was not a targeted rule. The case made it up to the Supreme Court. They decided in a 7-2 ruling that the students had the constitutional right to wear the armbands. The armbands that the students wore were protected by the First Amendment under the freedom of expression and freedom of speech. They stated that the students keep their rights even after they walk into school. In order to justify the suspension of the students and the silencing the opinions of the students, the administrators would have to illustrate that the situation could "materially and substantially interfere" with the school and the way it operated. The school stated that they were worried that the protest would cause a disruption rather than an actual dispute.

ISSUE: Whether the suspension of the students for wearing the black armbands to school violated the student’s right to free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment of the constitution of the United States of America.

Des Moines. This case involved a group of students wore black armbands to school to support truce in the vietnam war. The school administers took measures to try and prevent the protest, but when the students refused to remove the armbands they were suspended from school until the time when the protest was scheduled to end. The main issue in this case was that the school administration had the authority to limit freedom of speech, and protest, if it was deemed disruptive to the learning environment. However, the supreme court deemed the form of symbolic speech non-disruptive and upheld the students free

All students have been given the right to express and speak freely according to the First Amendment. In the United States Constitution, the First Amendment states “‘Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble’” (U.S. Constitution). This gives everyone in America the right to freedom of speech, expression and to protest. Therefore, any student should have the right to say or do anything they want. In the case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), there was a group of students planning to wear black armbands and to fast on December 16th and on New Year’s eve to the Vietnam war. Prior to the protest, the school found out and created a policy which stated that any student wearing an armband will be asked to remove it and if they refuse, they will be suspended. Three students, Mary Beth Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt and John Tinker wore their armbands to school and got suspended. These students did not return to school until after the protest, which was New Year’s Day. They also sued the school for violating their right to freedom of expression. When the students went to court, the court agreed with them that the school violated their first amendment rights (Oyez). This connects to the First Amendment because the students are trying to express their disapproval of the Vietnam war, while not harming or offending anyone, yet the school is limiting their freedom of expression. The students are also not doing anything wrong since none of the