Freedom Of Speech In Schools

school environment" (Eaton, 2014). The Supreme Court has not yet made a ruling on a case

Justice Hugo L. Black argued against and gave a dissenting opinion from the majority. He argued the school had a right to maintain order and those armbands distracted students from schoolwork, ultimately detracting the abilities of school officials to perform duties. Additionally, concurring opinions arose from Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Byron R. White. Potter argued that students are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of the First Amendment rights, and White argued that distinction between communicated words and communicated actions are what drives the majority opinion (“Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District:”). In the “Tinker v. Des Moines School District” article it is written that Justice Abe Fortas famously wrote that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” giving way to students’ First Amendment rights in the school place (“Tinker v. Des Moines School District:”). In order for a student to lose such right, the school district would now have to prove this act interfered with other students, an issue that begins to surface throughout the remaining 20th

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.

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

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier was a lost fight for the First Amendment rights in schools. When a couple of school journalists’ articles were blocked by the principal of Hazelwood East High School, the students decided that they needed to take their case to the courts. One of the articles was a story about

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 case Morse v. Frederick was a very controversial case involving freedom of speech in the school and at school sponsored events. A High School in Juneau, Alaska consented to a school supervised release from

At first the District Court dismissed the complaint and ruled in favor of the school authorities’ action saying it was reasonable in order for them to prevent disturbance in classrooms. The case was appealed and brought to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit where they also agreed with the District Court rulings and ruled in favor of the school authorities.

Kuhlmeier (1988) Holding: Administrators may edit the content of school newspapers. The principal of Hazelwood East High School edited two articles in the school paper The Spectrum that he deemed inappropriate. The student authors argued that this violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that administrators can edit materials that reflect school values. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression. The case concerned the censorship of two articles in The Spectrum, the student newspaper of Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis County, Missouri, 1983. When the school principal removed an article concerning divorce and another concerning teen pregnancy, the student journalists sued, claiming that their First Amendment rights had been violated. A lower court sided with the school, but its decision was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which sided with the students.(wiki) In a 5–3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the circuit court's decision, determining that school administrators could exercise prior restraint of school-sponsored

Later, on the Tinkers' and Eckhardt's parents sued the district for violating their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The U.S. District Court of the Southern State of Iowa argued that the black armbands the students were wearing would cause a disruption in the classroom and distract other students. Allan Herrick, the lawyer for the district, said that limited speech should be allowed if said speech could lead to "violence, disorder, and disruption. The students’ lawyer, Dan Johnston, countered by statingthat the district had previously allowed other kinds of political speech occur and that no disruption was caused because of it. In the end the school board failed to prove that the armbands would do as they said they would, and so on February 24, 1969, the court announced that it sided with Tinker and company with a 5-person lead. It was 7-2. The court argued that the armbands symbolized pure speech and that it was completely different from the actions of the people wearing them, and because that just because they were students on school property didn't mean that they lost their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Justice Hugo Black wrote a dissent saying that the armbands did in fact disrupt

In the article Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Districts by Justice Hugo Black, he says, “Secondly, the Court decides that the public schools are an appropriate place to exercise ‘symbolic speech’ as long as normal school functions are not ‘unreasonably’ disrupted.” The Court stated that there was no unreasonable disruption because of the armbands. In addition, Black also writes, “While the record does not show that any of these armband students shouted, used profane language, or were violent in any manner...” The students did absolutely nothing to disrupt their fellow classmates. As long as there were no harmful disruptions, there was no crime

In this case, students presented two inappropriate articles in the school’s newspaper. Principal Reynolds removed the articles and the newspaper was published without them. This led Cathy Kuhlmeier and two former students to fight against it through the courts. Once again, the Supreme court ruled in favor of the Hazelwood School District stating, "Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were 'reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns'" (oyez.org). Alike Morse v Frederick, Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier had a tighter policy in regard to the situations presented in the cases. As opposed to the pervasive restrictions in the new policy from

Freedom of speech is more than just words, it is posters, petitions, rallies, protests, and more. This lets opinions be shared and spread to make a difference in the world. The problem is that in schools there is a limit on the amount of freedom of speech students can have. How are students supposed to feel like they have a voice when they are being told that they can only speak of certain topics? By what means could student be educated on their rights like the First Amendment if they cannot have full access to that right at all times? Students are brought together by freedom of speech, schools should not be stopping that. It is essential that freedom of speech in schools should not be limited because it gives students a voice, it educates them on their rights, and it brings students together.

As an educator, it is extremely important to know educational policies. On top of the knowledge, it is also imperative to respect the rights granted to students in the democratic society. Attached above is an article, published by the first amendment center, regarding how the first amendment is employed within public schools. The first topic in the article is titled speaking out in school. Here I learned that the school cannot limit the student’s freedom of speech, unless it is hindering the environment to learn, and even then, there is a lot of grey area. Here the school must be able to provide substantial evidence that the student’s writing, speech, or expression would cause great disruption. This also ties directly into school dress code and uniforms required by the school corporation. Students, in many

The issue pertaining to freedom of speech and finding the right median has drastically evolved over the past couple of years. College campuses have become the Meca for those who are yearning to find their voice, and take a stand. The latest problem is the risk of safety during the protests and the lack of respect for those who have other beliefs. As citizens of America, we have been given freedom unlike any other nation; the Bill of rights has continued to sustain the rights and privileges that we all deserve to have. The problem is that many abuse this gift and decide to exclaim their views and beliefs at the risk of others ideals to be overshadowed. A prime example took place on August 28, 2017 in Berkeley, California. Thousands of students stood together for the “stand against hate” rally where they specifically protested President Trump and his future placement in office. As the protest went on, students started to attack Trump supporters and the entire crowd erupted into chaos. The police that were standing on call shot rubber bullets into the crowd and tear gas was emitted to extinguish the mob. Fourteen were immediately arrested and many more were taken into custody for questioning. This is only one