Kara Kowalski Case Study

In the history of the Supreme Court, there have been many First Amendment cases that outline if exercises of free speech and expression are constitutional or unconstitutional. One of the most paramount 1st amendment cases is that of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). This significant case helped shape the extension of symbolic speech, as well as ensure the freedom of speech and expression to students in schools.

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.

v. Berkeley County Schools (Document C). K.K., who formed a discussion group online that accused a classmate of being sexually promiscuous and was joined by more than 20 other classmates, was suspended from school for 10 days and issued a 90-day “social suspension.” On July 27, 2011, the US Court of Appeals ruled that the punishment was just, stating that the “[connection] of K.K’s speech to [the high school’s teaching] interests was sufficiently strong,” and that school officials are “trustees of the student body’s well-being.” When a speech disrupts the interests of the school – that is, teaching and protecting its students, it is then not protected by the First Amendment, and schools should punish its speaker. Even though the speech was off-campus, the sufficient connection of the speech to the interests of the school means that the school has the right to punish the

High school student Matthew Fraser gave a speech to his high school classmates that was considered to lude and against school code, this speech was given on behalf of a friend to help his friend win an election held by the school. This assembly took place during school hours, on school grounds. Fraser had made many obscene gestures, and used foul language several times during his speech, the speech made references to sexual acts, and had many curse words in his speach. Fraser did have a discussion with instructors over the content of his speech that he intended to give, they told him it was not recommended and advised him he should not use the speech he had prepared,

Students do not always realize that their free speech can go against certain limits that the Supreme Court has issued on this freedom. The US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights suggests that harassment creates a hostile environment when the conduct is sufficiently severe or persistent so as to interfere with or limit a students' ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by the school. (Doc. G) In consonance with this, it is the school's responsibility to address harassment incidents to protect students' privacy rights. Allowing full access to the first amendment in schools can often result in the violation of the fourth amendment by infringing privacy rights. There are many forms of harassment that can violate students' civil rights. According to the same department, harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability violates the civil rights laws that the OCR enforces. (Doc. G) Cyberbullying often falls into these categories which are all violations of civil rights, and many schools may not have proper standards for this violation. It is the school's responsibility to protect the civil rights of students, teachers, and administrators, so they must take a stand against discrimination, including online speech. Not only does cyberbullying contravene with civil rights, it also causes emotional

Free speech can often be limited in times of war, or if it endangers others. For example, the ba precedent was set in the case Morse v. Fredrick, in which the Supreme Court decided that schools were justified to limit student’s speech, as it protected other students from the advertisement and promotion of illegal drug use ("Morse v. Frederick", 2017). Though some may argue that the current North Carolina law is protecting all minors from individuals on the sex offender registry, however the current law banning all social media usage is much too broad. While saying that Packingham is not allowed to have any contact with minors on social media may be seen as justified in order to ensure the safety of minors that frequent social media sites, Packingham was not doing such. Packingham simply expressed his thankfulness for his belief in god on his personal social media page, which was not viewable to any minors. The fact that this law limits all social media usage by convicted sex offenders limits the First Amendment of free speech in an unjustly broad manner. Generally, free speech cannot be limited unless it is directly endangering others. As Packingham did not attempt to contact minors, or specifically the one involved in his guilt, this law forced his imprisonment for extending his right to free speech. This law should be deemed unconstitutional because the law is too

Bethel School District v. Fraser 478 U.S. 675, involved the Bethel School District and a student named Matthew Fraser. The case dealt with freedom of speech in public schools. During a student government speech Fraser used inappropriate language that included sexual innuendos in order to nominate a fellow classmate. The speech created a rowdy audience of over 600 students. Fraser argued that the school violated his First Amendment rights when they suspended him for his endorsement of a fellow classmate. After being tried and appealed in the Ninth Circuit in 1984, the case found it’s was to the United States Supreme Court in 1986. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and ruled that school officials did NOT violate Fraser’s

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

Dwight Lopez and Betty Crome, were students at the Central High School and McGuffey Junior High Schoo. The students were suspended for apparently engaging

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

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

In document C, K.K knew and with all intentions made a hate website on S.N. The school wasn’t online stalking K.K. The parents of S.N went the next morning to the school administrators. No parents want their child to feel scared and unsafe. I see nothing wrong with the school trying to prevent what could've been a teen suicide or a

In writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts took note that the Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) ruling decided that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." However, the Chief Justice also relied upon the precedent set forth in Bethel v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986) which explained how "the constitutional rights of students at public school are not automatically, coextensive with the rights of adults." Additionally, the rights of students are applied "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment," according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266 (1988). The special circumstances in Morse v. Frederick were first that the school has a policy that specifically forbids advocating illegal drug use due to the risks it imposes on other students, and second that principal Morse was forced to decide in the moment whether or not she should act.

This paper addresses a situation in which a student notified this author that she was being subjected to bullying through another classmate’s Facebook page. A discussion of steps required by Oregon’s statutes, the Lake Oswego School District 's board policies and the student handbook, will provide a basis for examining any First Amendment arguments that the bullying has raised, with a discussion of the author 's First Amendment responses consistent with applicable Supreme Court cases.

I received a call from Ms. Karleen Jogodka (612) 747-3190. She has some concerns regarding CS Summer Golf program injuries. Ms. Jogodka indicated that she has left a message for Travis and he has not returned her call. Here are her concerns: