First Amendment Rights In Schools

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

Des Moines. This case cemented the argument that non-disruptive free speech is constitutional, and, is more importantly, allowed in school. The Supreme Court held that “it can hardly be argued that students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech at the school gate” (Matthews). To deem the discussion of homosexuality unacceptable, No Promo Homo Laws are expressly disobeying the Tinker v. Des Moines ruling. To say that speaking on LGBT topics is “controversial” or “un-American” is not enough to ban this discourse. Public discord of a topic has no legal foothold, and the ban is nothing more than a topic of disagreement between lawmakers and the general

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 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.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) defined that students do not lose their Constitutional rights when they enter the school. This case has helped shape school and district policies and regulations since it was handed down, including the policies of Regional School Unit #40. Other cases, such as Bethel v. Fraser (1986), have clarified that schools can punish lewd speech and language. In more recent times, several Circuit Court decisions have looked at speech on social media written outside of school, but are later brought into school through the Internet. In general, those decisions have upheld that the speech must cause a substantial disruption, or be likely to do so, for an administrator to punish the

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 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 First Amendment gives the citizens of the United States their most important rights: the right to freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, and the freedom of assembly. Over time these rights have worked themselves into the everyday lives of United States citizens. However, there are still places where our First Amendment rights may be compromised. In the school system, finding a balance of respect and freedom of speech and press is as difficult as learning out to tightrope walk. One wrong step and you could be compromising the learning environment of the entire student body.

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

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

The majority opinion included the fact that the principle acted correctly since the rights of the other students’ in the articles were in question of being violated; moreover, they did not believe that the Tinker standard applied to this case. In the Tinker case, personal expression was by students’ rather than over a school newspaper they wrote; the unorthodox opinion, though, felt that the Tinker standard did actually apply to this case. The opposition claimed while the articles are from a school newspaper, they still reflect personal student views; then the opposition went on to express growing concern for allowing the restriction in this case, because they believed it would lead to big infringements on First Amendment

If a student says, “I am going to shoot you” during recess to his friends, does the school have a right to take disciplinary actions? Is it a violation of the student’s First Amendment? School officials can restrict speech activities on any student in a school if it has been established there was harm or threats made against others, including teachers. Although the First Amendment states freedom of expression, school officials may punish students for expressing their personal views on school grounds. With the case of S.G. v. Sayreville Board of Education [1], a school’s right to discipline a student was questioned by parental guardianship.

Whenever there is any kind of debate or altercation, people are usually quick to point out that having their own opinion is their first amendment right. This statement is true, but a person cannot just go around saying absolutely anything they want to others. The right to freedom of speech definitely has limitations.

It is against the right of Freedom of Speech when schools punish students for their words/ behavior outside of school. However, in some cases officials should be able to use information from private devices or social networking sites un order to protect the community. Officials should not be able to use information from private devices or social networking sites in order to protect the community.