Persuasive Speech On Freedom Of Speech

The excuse of the school board president was, that the armband policy was aimed so it won’t cause a disturbing influence on the students. However, in the book Illustrated Great Decisions of the Supreme Court by Tony Mauro says “Students and a lawyer for the Iowa Civil Liberties Union reminded the board that other students had been allowed to wear armbands in other situations, such as to mourn the death of people killed in the civil rights movement” (Mauro151). The Supreme Court was asked to reverse the suspensions and to make it illegal to violated the freedom expression of the young youth even in schools. The lawyer argued that students should enjoy the same level of First Amendment protection like adults. Besides, the students, at Des Moines public school, protested without disturbing anyone. In Fact, the students’ protest was a silent expression of opinion by just wearing the armbands (Mauro). According to Illustrated Great Decisions of the Supreme Court “The Court decided that allowing the Tinkers to wear their armbands protesting the Vietnam conflict would not substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students. Wearing the armbands was a silent, passive expression of opinion that did not involve any disorder or disturbance, and was unlikely to cause a material and substantial disruption in the school” (Mauro 151). Also, Teachers and

Attention Getter: During World War 2 Japanese Emperor Isoroku Yamamoto was quoted saying “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

In 1969, a group of students filed a lawsuit against their school district claiming that their First Amendment rights were violated because the school district wrote a policy that prohibited them from wearing black armbands in a silent protest of the Vietnam War. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) ruled that students are entitled to their First Amendment rights as long as they are not causing a disruption to the school environment. This paper outlines the procedure and rulings in the case as well as other legal rulings that have expanded on when censorship of students is protected in public school settings as well as provides a personal reflection on how such matters can impact my future as a school administrator.

“I have opinions that, frankly, a lot of people are thinking. They just won't tell people. They don't pollsters. They don't tell journalists. But they think it” (Lieberman). These are the words of conservative blogger and self-proclaimed “provocateur,” Milo Yiannopoulos. Yiannopoulos had been scheduled to speak at the UC Berkeley campus, but given UC Berkeley Police Department’s security concerns surrounding his appearance, the event had been cancelled. Yiannopoulos argues that his First Amendment right had been violated and vows to return for a future event, “Free Speech Week.” Additionally, Ku Klux Klan activist Chris Cantwell has been invited to speak. The University argues that due to Yiannopoulos’ past doxing activities and the threat of violence associated with his presence, it is not required to accommodate such speech. In this memo, I will provide legal precedents arguing that 1) “Free Speech Week” should be permitted to proceed with or without Chris Cantwell, 2) the associated KKK rallies should be permitted to proceed, and 3) a counter-argument addressing the strengthening of civil disobedience.

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

Tinker v. Des Moines: The students of a public school in Des Moines Iowa wore black arm bands to protest the vietnam war and they were suspended for disrupting learning. The supreme court ruled 7 to 2 that it was a violation of their first amendment rights and that there was no disruption, This garuntees the right to protest in school as long as it doesn't disrupt learning.

Introduction of Case: In the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, three students, John F. Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and Mary Beth Tinker were all suspended from school for wearing black armbands to school to protest the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. The three students who had been suspended from school filed a claim stating that the banning them from wearing the armbands and the suspension was against their Constitutional right, under the First Amendment (Tinker

The District Court decided that the students who petitioned the Vietnam War sought nominal damages. Also the court believed what the school did was under its constitutional authority to prevent the disturbance of school discipline, 9258 F. Supp. 971 (1966). The case moved on to the Court of Appeals. The case was considered en banc, which means all the appellate judges were there to hear it. The court was equally divided on the case, so the District Courts decision was affirmed with no opinion from the Court of Appeals, 383 F.2d 988 (1967). The court recognized the action of the students wearing the armbands to protest the Vietnam War was protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. This case was so close to “pure speech”, which is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment. The District Court figured that it can’t be argued that neither teachers nor students should lose their constitutional rights when at school. The problem was that the students freedom of speech rights collide with the school authorities rules. There was no evidence showing that the protest disrupted any classes or work of the schools. The District Court came to their final conclusion after looking the case over again. They decided that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. In no way was the school authorities trying to deny the student’s constitutional rights. Although the students were suspended from school for protesting the Vietnam War, it was not because they weren’t protected by the First

In December of 1965, students attending Des Moines Public Schools held a meeting at Christopher Eckhardt 's house to conduct a plan to show their support for a truce in the ongoing Vietnam War. They resolved to wear black armbands during the holiday season and also to fast on December 16 and on New Years. The principals at the school received word of the plan, and on December 14, they established a policy that banned armbands in school. Anyone who refused to remove the armband at a teacher’s request would be suspended. However, this did not deter Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt, who, on December 16, wore their armbands and were sent home. John Tinker did the same thing the next day and was immediately sent home. None of them returned to school until after New Years. Their fathers then sued the schools for violating their children 's right to freedom of expression. However, the District Court dismissed the case, and the US Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, because of this, the families appealed to the Supreme Court.

In Des Moines, Iowa in 1968, three students arrived at their schools wearing black armbands symbolizing their thoughts on the United States being involved in the Vietnam War. The principal of each school quickly created a policy banning the armbands. This soon led to the suspension of the students from school. A lawsuit was filed on behalf of the students that eventually made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court. The fact that the schools were regulating the children’s freedom of speech is wrong and unconstitutional.

I am here to ask for you to cast your vote against the new upcoming bill allowing people to carry concealed weapons across states. The Second amendment stretches for people to carry weapons with them for safety, but not for carrying weapons across states for protection. The second amendment would not support this kind of bill simply because the bill is mainly for self protection like weapons to be stored at home, not in the public eye. The constitution has been extended a far enough point where we must stop and see the better of where this constitution is taking us. Your vote can mean anything from allowing a ridiculous bill from being passed.

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.

The delegates filled Independence Hall with raucous applause. The voiceover of a Fox New pundit began narrating the scene.

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 right to free speech is one of the most precious rights an individual has as a citizen of the United States of America. This right gives people the opportunity to speak their mind and give their opinions of what they think should happen. These rights have been questioned and exercised throughout history, and have produced extremely positive things in a lot of cases. In modern times, people are always protesting something and in the colonial times it was the same. People wanted their voice to be heard and as long as it is done in a peaceful manner it is legal now, but it resulted in punishment for the colonists. People have never questioned whether or not these rights should exist, the questions involve whether there should be limits or not. No matter what side the authorities take, there are only two main points to deal with cyberstalking: free speech is an essential right, but it should not be meant to include hate speech.