Students Shoud NOT Have the Tight to Free Speech Essay

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

What is free speech? Does the term ‘free speech’ cover offensive words? Painful ones? Words that disrespect others? What about objectionable, or even wrong beliefs? When is speech illegal? What is exactly meant by free speech? According to Rampell, the term ‘free speech’ includes ‘hate speech’, and is therefore protected by the first amendment (np). This means that even messages we don’t like, agree with, feel uncomfortable about, or even are disgusted by, are legal. Unfortunately, many college students consider harmful words an assault, and some students believe that such verbal attacks can and should be met with violence (French np). Students and speakers today are discriminated against in classrooms and other scenes where free speech and debate should be especially cherished.

In December of 1965 Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt were suspended from the Des Moines public school system for wearing black armbands supporting a truce during the Vietnam War (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, n.d). Mary Beth and John’s younger siblings, Hope and Paul, also participated in the protest (Tinker v. Des Moines, 2013). Mary Beth, John, and Christopher’s suspension was lifted following the Christmas break when the students’ planned protest ended and they no longer were going to wear the armbands (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, n.d). The students’ parents sued the school district on behalf of their children (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community

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.

Tinker v. Des Moines Schools took place in 1969. The historical significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Schools is that the case detailed the rights of students attending public schools. The case originated when five children, four of which were Tinker children and one a friend of the children, wanted to wear black armband to protest the Vietnam War at their school. The administrators on the Des Moines School Board created a policy that required the students to remove the armbands or they would be punished. Three of the five children were suspended from school. In District Court, the court ruled that the Des Moines School Board were justified in their actions.

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 the year 1969, a student, Mary Beth Tinker, her brother John, and 3 other students wore black armbands to school in Des Moines, Iowa, in order to protest the Vietnam War. The administration feared a distraction/disruption of the armbands and the students were prohibited of wearing the armbands. The Tinkers’ were removed from school when the failed to follow the restriction of the armbands, but their parents sued the school for violation of their children’s rights of freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Then, a US district court agreed with the school, by saying that by wearing the black armbands the students could disrupt learning. The students then appealed the ruling to a U.S. Court of Appeals but lost. Then the case was taken

The first amendment is practical for freedom of political speech, but does not adequately apply social or philosophical justification for free speech, as is necessary in a university. The example of a racist or sexist comment at a university is not covered under political freedom of speech, but rather classified as hate speech.

Universities are considering adopting speech codes that would put a ban on offensive, demeaning, and provoking speech. The developments of these speech codes are not necessary. Sheltering students from speech that might offend them is patronizing to say the least. Do college officials really believe the students are too weak to live with the Bill of Rights? The fact of the matter is that speech codes on college campuses are threatening students’ freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas and therefore have no place in higher education.

Some might argue that it’s unconstitutional for public colleges to place limitations on free speech, but in actuality, the right of public schools to restrict speech has been supported by the Supreme Court on several occasions. For example, in the 1986 case Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, in which, Fraser was a high school student who made an inappropriate speech at a school assembly full of offensive and lewd language. The school suspended him and in response he sued, but when the case went to the Supreme Court, the Court sided with the school. The court decided that schools were allowed to forbid vulgar speech. According to Chief Justice Warren Burger, “ The undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society's countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Even the most heated political discourse in a democratic society requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other participants and audiences,” (First Amendment Schools).

The issue of free speech has plagued school systems ever since public schools have been operating in the United States. Students and administration have gone head-to-head on many occasions as to whether or not the administration can censor or discipline students with issues regarding the topic. Teachers and students have varying degrees of free speech as delegated through court rulings throughout the history of the United States of America. Even today, commonly students push the boundaries of free speech, challenging schools around the country. What rights do students and teachers have? How have rights and liberties evolved over the years? These questions plague many citizens and the answers are too often overlooked, yet a middle ground must

Students as U.S. citizens have the right to express their opinions without any restraints from congress or school administrators. “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” U.S. constitution's, 1st amendment (“ Student Rights and Responsibilities in the Digital Age: A Guide for Public School Students in Washington State” 2). Knowingly, our freedom of speech is protected and no law or person can act upon it. However, we ourselves can cause our freedom of speech to become restricted. “Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of the right” Washington, constitution Article 1, Section 5 (“ Student Rights and Responsibilities in the Digital Age: A Guide for Public School Students in Washington State” 2). The speech must be appropriate in all circumstances, it must not discriminate or put a person at risk. If so, the person must assume responsibility and public school officials have the authority to limit their speech. In the court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969), John and Mary Beth Tinker were suspended for refusing to remove their black armbands; in response to protesting the Vietnam War. The school district were sued,

Based on U.S Court Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government, the freedom of speech includes the rights not to speak (West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages (Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), contribute money under certain circumstances to political campaigns (Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), advertise commercial products and professional services with some restrictions (Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977) and engage in symbolic speech (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

The First page amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Cornell law), Even though the law states that free speech is to never be restricted by congress it does not state that a college is not allowed to deny certain people from speaking or preaching on their campus as it is considered private property. I personally saw this as I walked down the campus to get free Pizza there was Christian preachers on campus without getting the permission of Clark College with boards that state repent or go to hell and other statements along those lines, My friend Templeton said we

Limiting the speech and expression on campus for students, speakers, and anyone else related to a campus and its activities ultimately impairs their voice and takes away some of the power they are constitutionally guaranteed. In fact, 54% of students have stopped themselves from sharing an idea or opinion in class and 29% have stopped themselves from sharing on campus outside of class because they are scared that their ideas are incorrect or offensive (“Student Attitudes Free Speech Survey”). At public colleges, all students are supposed to be protected by the First Amendment, yet students still feel uncomfortable expressing their opinion should it go against the majority. Instead of exercising their human right, they submit to the actions which have implied that the silencing of some is ok. The sad fact is that students and speakers still don’t feel safe having their own opinions at their own school, making them submissive which can likely carry on throughout their life. One example of the restriction of student’s speech was when a student group at Arkansas Tech decided to roll a ball around campus telling people to write whatever they wanted on the “free speech ball.” Even as a public university, security forced them to keep the event within a free speech zone, restricting the speech and expression of everyone involved (“Arkansas Tech University: Student”). Restriction of speech occurred again when New Mexico State University charged a student group a $300 security