Summary: Pickering Vs. Boe

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.

[A student] may express his [or her] opinions, even on controversial subjects…if he [or she] does so without materially and substantially interfering with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school and without colliding with the rights of others. But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason – whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior – materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional

The first amendment, which is considered the right to freedom of speech, is a misconception to many. Not all citizens, but some, think that because of the first amendment; they can say whatever they want. Although citizens of the United States have the right to freedom of speech, this freedom of speech is viewed differently by others. Which leads to confusion as to what can be said and what cannot be said. Both court cases: Tinker v. Des Moines, and Bethel v. Fraser involved the confusion and misunderstanding of this first amendment.

Although some may say that he was just exercising his right. He has a freedom of speech and there is nothing that he did wrong. I would agree legally he did nothing wrong, but what about morally. Has my generation been lost in the woods for so long that we can’t see the trail that could lead us out? We all have such strong opinions, that we refuse to listen to the other. We choose to always fight instead of just being at peace with what we

It can be concluded Teachers are held to a higher standard then non-educational occupations, as “The Supreme Court has acknowledged that a “teacher serves as a role model for…students exerting a subtle but important influence over their perceptions and values” (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014, p. 251). Teachers must be conscious to the ideology their actions, words, and mannerism can directly influence their student audience. The 1st amendment freedom of expression offers protection to teachers as it applies to the following clause, “Public employees’ comments on matters of public concern are protected expression if they are made as a citizen and not pursuant to official job duties” (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014, p. 233).

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

The principal suspended the students until the end of the protest. The Tinker’s sued the School District for violating their freedom of expression right.

This was a peaceful reaction I won’t say protest to social changes in our society. Most people think the national anthem represents those who died for our country which is true in fact, but what did they die for? They died for freedom, for the right to either stand or kneel. When we look at the ethical issues about the confederate flag controversy we can look deeper and what some people believe it still stands for. Some southerners see the flag as a symbol of the South’s independence, sign of pride and the brave fight their soldiers died for. When we dig deeper though, the civil war was fought over slavery, a brutal war between states. Choosing what ethical decision to make it is always a good idea to look at social changes. There are always unified alternatives to both sides. The flag can still be represented in museums and homes, but not in public places and government buildings. After all in our Pledge of Allegiance it does say “and justice for

(First Amendment Center, 2012). With an incident like that occurring the teacher could have gotten upset and acted out on the students. The students could have done something worst the next time if the school continued to fly the flag, such as physically attack the teacher.

Case Summary: Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) involved a white Michigan resident named Barbara Grutter and the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter was frustrated by her rejection from the Law School, claiming that the University’s decision was due to a discriminatory admission policy which sought to enroll greater amounts of underrepresented minority students. Grutter believed that white candidates possessed a disadvantage due to this policy and she sued the university. According to Grutter, race was the “predominate factor” in selecting applicants instead of academics. She argued that the policy was unconstitutional and that it violated her 14th Amendment rights.

It was established that “a state cannot condition public employment on a basis that infringes the employee's constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 142 (1983). Two inquiries guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded public employee speech. The first requires determining whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. If the employee spoke as a citizen, the second requires determining whether the government’s interest overweighs employee’s interest. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). The First Amendment only protects a government employee’s speech made not pursuant to the employee's official duties upon matters of public concern. Id. In the present case, Mr. Jackson and Middleton High School had stipulated that Mr. Jackson’s speech on relationship between U.S and Cuba included a matter of public concern. Accordingly, Mr. Jackson has to prove that his statement was made as a citizen instead of a teacher. Since Mr. Jackson voluntarily gave the speech outside of Middleton High School to non-captive audiences, Mr. Jackson spoke as citizen and his speech should be protected by the First Amendment.

Grisham, what he said caused a great amount of people to get upset. When my kids were going to school, I didn’t like anyone influencing them to a certain religion or politic views. I raised my kids to choose for themselves what type of politics or religion they choose to believe. However, I would not have anyone fired because of what they said, but yes, I would not think twice if it were a teacher abusing a child sexually. I would say that is more of an important issue, then what someone may have said in a locker room.

Her only "wrong doing," was using the first amendment properly. There was no disruption on any other's rights or lives. She was arrested for violating the Jim Crow Laws. These laws segregating African Americans from whites. Although peaceful protesting is considered positive, there are those who find it to have a negative affect on society; especially one that people call "free." Some people believe that it harms communities, and creates unnecessary problems to occur. Others explain that peaceful protesters are those who try to disobey laws and presume that they will not be "punished for their consequences." Their belief is that the peaceful protest bring more harm to the situation, mostly involved around the innocent. In cases, there has been time where peaceful protesters have blocked bystanders from getting through or have verbally assaulted the accused involved in the protest. In situations like those, it should not be allowed. It seems that, that would be denying the bystanders of their rights. People who find peaceful protesting negative, also believe that there are more serious problems occurring

This was such a bad problem students started doing the protesting they would leave school and go marching which they were doing a non-violence movement this would outraged the police so they would arrest some of the students and beat them with the batons. Some students would stand outside the Supreme Court house just to get some rights which they so many students were getting arrested they would go to jail just for the fun of it and when they got freed they would just go right back in just to prove a point that was hardly going no were and making a point so the teachers risk their job to help they as men would stand outside the court house too but then would be revoked or beaten to get away so the students tried a march one more time they

UC Davis is a public school and receives it funding from the federal government. The public not only paid the thousands of dollars on a failed attempt to cover the story, but also for the compensation for the officer who pepper-sprayed the students in the first place. The Streisand Effect is the phenomenon in which an attempt is made to hide,remove, or censor information, but ends up publicizing more widely, usually through the internet. This is what UC Davis fell victim too, and for good reason. What happened to the students was wrong and the school took a violent action not just against the students, but against their right to freedom of speech. I believe Chancellor Linda Katehi should resign, not only because she used the universities money to try and save face, but because she was willing to harm the students. As a student I should be allowed to speak up for when I feel I am being wronged by the school system. Tuition in schools is the most it has ever been in history, and with many students going into debt to pay for an education, an increase will harm the students