Summary: Should Schools Be Allowed To Limit Students Online Speech

that student or teachers may not use schools as a platform to exercise free speech and in the case

Schools should take action if there is harm being done to others. In Document A of” Should Schools Be Allowed to Limit Students’ Online Speech?”, they surveyed a random sample of 10-18 year-olds from a large school district in the southern US. It shows that girls are more likely to be cyberbullied. It also shows that girls are more likely to cyberbully somebody else. According to the graph, 25.1% of girls have been cyberbullied in their lifetime,

Freedom of speech is one of our rights listed in the first amendment, but there should be a limit on what we can and cannot say. Because of the internet, there's a better chance of people getting bullied. People can hide behind a computer screen and say what the want to others without the person knowing who they are. Schools should care about this because this can put students in harm's way. I feel that school should be able to put a limit on students online speech. Three main reasons why there should be a limit on students online speech is boys and girls get bullied everyday over the internet, it causes disturbances in school, and it puts more stress of the schools because they have to deal with it according to law.

Despite their opinions, free speech was a great way in this situation for students to rally together and publically inform the rest of campus of their beliefs. In the school newspaper, The Daily Emerald, CJ Ciaramelle wrote “About 300 students from across the campus community — student unions, Greek Life, the ASUO, the Survival Center, the Women’s Center — showed up at the meeting to protest the Forum” (1). Although the majority of people protested against the forum the right to free speech, it is important because it allows students to make decisions on their own and invite students to do the same.

A random sample of 10-18 year olds from a large school district in the southern US showed that on average, 96.15% of students have never posted a mean or hurtful picture online, and 97.05% of students have never had a mean or hurtful picture posted about them. Also, a survey of British School Teachers showed that only 15.1% of them had ever been cyberbullied. All these percents are measly, and contribute to the proposition that cyberbullying isn’t as big a problem as we think, and only affects a sliver of the

Des Moines is an important case for free speech in the United States. It affirms that students don’t lose their rights when they go to school. However, it also affirmed that schools can limit speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). However, the Court has ruled that there are times that the school can limit speech. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bethel v. Fraser that students can be disciplined for using vulgar and offensive language in school (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p. 25). This case differed from Tinker v. Des Moines because that case was about political speech or expression. Another example of where school can limit the First Amendment is school sponsored newspapers. This was affirmed by the Court in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). That decision stated that schools can reasonably limit the content of school-sponsored newspapers (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p.

In a statement by Laura W. Murphy and Michael W. Macleod-Bell, it is stated, “...that any restriction specifically aimed at [limiting] the speech rights of [people under age 18] in the new electronic forum is a step in the wrong direction and not in keeping with the ideals of our constitutional framework” (Document F). Limiting free speech is violating the right of free speech, so it would be unconstitutional to limit students’ online speech. During the J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, “Under Tinker, therefore, the School District violated J.S.’s First Amendment free speech rights when it suspended her for creating the profile” (Document D). When one punishes students for online speech, they are violating free speech rights for students outlined by Tinker. This makes it unfair for schools to limit online

Citizens in America are born with a various amount of rights. One of these rights include the freedom of speech and expression. However, school administrators have the ability to restrict a student’s expression. The Supreme Court Cases ‘Bethel School District v. Fraser’ and ‘Frederick V. Morse’ gave schools the right for the administrators to discipline children when they see fit. Students should be able to express themselves in any way without fearing that their school administrators will discipline

By limiting online speech, schools will be able to create an amiable atmosphere and keep students focused on school work. Confining speech will also legally protect students' and teachers civil rights to prevent violation of the Fourth Amendment. Lastly, schools should restrict online speech to avert emotional agony in teachers and students and even prevent causalities such as suicides caused by cyberbullying. With increasing technology, it's crucial to develop school policies limiting online speech to keep students focused on their future without the anxiety and fear of being

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

Over five years have passed since high school senior Joseph Frederick was suspended for 10 days by school principal Deborah Morse after refusing her request to take down a 14-foot banner he was displaying at a school-sanctioned event which read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Born as a seemingly trivial civil lawsuit in which Frederick sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights to free speech, the case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the long-awaited ruling of Morse v. Frederick has finally been released. In a 5-4 split decision, the court ruled in favor of Morse and upheld the school board’s original ruling that Morse was acting within her rights and did not violate Frederick’s First Amendment rights by taking away his

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Indeed, free speech is a large block upon which this nation was first constructed, and remains a hard staple of America today; and in few places is that freedom more often utilized than on a college campus. However, there are limitations to our constitutional liberties on campus and they, most frequently, manifest themselves in the form of free speech zones, hate speech and poor university policy. Most school codes are designed to protect students, protect educators and to promote a stable, non-disruptive and non-threatening learning environment. However, students’ verbal freedom

Free speech on college campuses has been a widely debated topic in recent years. Because of this, the opinions held on this subject vary. In the editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses”, the Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune defends the idea of education and free speech. The Editorial Board states that students today are not receiving as useful of an education because of the barriers put on free speech. In addition, they argue that in not allowing students to feel uncomfortable, they are not receiving a true education. [A little more summary here would be helpful—how does the author support these claims?] The editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses,” introduces a valid logical argument on education through describing instances in which students experience uncomfortable learning situations, and the ways in which they were handled. [Hannah, your reasons here are about content, not about rhetoric—what rhetorical reasons is the argument strong?]

Michael Naranjo’s speech was lewd and obscene. In order to determine the school’s ability to restrict his speech, it must occupy the area within the capability of the school to extend its restrictions off of campus. The test the court chooses to adopt will determine the school’s rights to reach outside the campus.

Girls are now more likely than boys, according to recent research, to report being bullied in schools. Other studies have shown that girls are often more adept than boys in using other forms of destructive relational aggression — including exclusion, isolation, rumoring, gossiping, sarcasm, pitting friends against one another, and other revealing or altering personal secrets. Snapchat, Instagram and Twitter can further enable and boost these kinds of emotional violence between young