Hazelwood Vs. Kuhlmeier: Case Study

expression of an opinion. The dissent in the case Tinker v. Des Moines can be reasoned that there

I have supported the dominant part assessment of this choice because of the way that the school had supported the daily paper. I trust this gives the school the correct motivations to evacuate the pages, and the way of the articles doesn't help the case much either. These articles most unquestionably would have been an ungainliness and extremely diverting to the understudies too. Since these articles had sullied the rights and prosperity of others, it was of everyone's highest intrigue the articles were evacuated. I agreed with a slacked understanding in this circumstance. Although understudies hold rights, some of the time there is a circumstance where particular rights ought to be controlled to stay away from interruptions inside

Freedom of speech encompasses not only the spoken and written word, but also all kinds of expression (including non-verbal communications, such as sit-ins, art, photographs, films and advertisements). If the students wore obscene clothing, set the school on fire in protest of the war, then yes, the school can implement a disciplinary action. However, this case does not involve any of those issues. The students simply wore black armbands. I cannot see any disruptive behaviors in there. They did not use these symbols to incite other students, and they made sure to allow the classrooms to function properly.

The court decided that the facts do not simply support the conclusion that the School District could have forecasted a substantial disruption of or material interference with the school as a result of J.S.'s, the perpetrator, profile. Under Tinker, therefore, the School District violated J.S.’s First Amendment free speech rights when they suspended her for creating the profile.

The Daily Record Staff. "Legal Opinions - U.S. Supreme Court: October 14, 2008." Daily Record, The; Baltimore, Md.. 14 Oct. 2008 eLibrary. Web. 20 Jan. 2012.

He could say whatever he wanted and that would be protected. But the school could also punish him how they saw fit. They also ruled that his due process rights had not been violated because he had no way of knowing whether or not he would be getting in trouble for his actions due to the school's code of conduct not needing to be as detailed as a criminal code of conduct. I believe that in this instance they made the right decision due to the fact that their reasoning makes sense. The first amendment gives citizens the right to say what they wish and have any opinion that they wish. It does not say that it will protect us from the punishments we may receive by voicing these opinions in an inappropriate way. As for his due process rights, he really had no way of knowing what course the school would take in punishing him, therefore no due process rights could be applied because the code of conduct at the school was not detailed enough for it to work in that

A general reading of the opinion reveals that the case involves a question as to whether there was any substantial evidence to show that the individual defendants participated in the battery, and that defendant Rose City was liable vicariously

I, The Honorable Nyla Lennon write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of T.M. v. State of Florida.

Maria A. Cardona, write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of T.M v. State of Florida.

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

Thoughts: This case is a good example of judicial review of which a higher court can review the

In support of this position, the government cited two decided decisions by the Court holding that the failure to object to a jury instruction is not controlling “for purposes of appellate review of the denial of a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” Rather, the question of whether a party is entitled to a directed verdict “depends upon the sufficiency of the evidence up to that point in the trial,” not of the content of jury instructions, which are “outside the scope of that analysis.”

In 1975, the "Bykofsky v. Borough of Middletown" court case was brought to court. In this case, many parents had argued against a legally-placed curfew. The parents believed that the idea of a curfew was violating the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states, "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of people to peaceably assemble", and the Fourteenth Amendment's Privilege and Immunities Clause, which states, "Citizens of the United States have the right to enter any other State whenever they please, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they please, to go where they please at any hour of the day or night without molestation". I strongly believe

I, The Honorable Nyla Lennon, write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.

Justice Harlan wrote a dissenting opinion that arguing that the ruling does not and will not stop police brutality. The system that the judges are ruling of will still give officers the opportunity to to still practice illegal activities in order to get a confession. The ruling of the majority opinion puts a burden on the state when proving a defendant decides to waive their rights. The dissenting opinion was joined by Justice Stewart and Justice