Tinker V Moines Case Study

This concept is key to the ultimate decision in the case. Speech that is a disruption to the

John and Mary Beth Tinker were public school students in Des Moine, Iowa in December of 1965. The school directly violated and broke their 1st and 14th amendment by making them take off their armbands or get suspended until they agreed to go to school without them on. Tinkers had the right to wear the armbands and the school could not say otherwise

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

The School made a statement that said if anyone wears the armbands to school and that they will be suspended. The Tinker kids still showed up with the armbands leading to a suspension. The Tinker family of Course took this case to the supreme court since the armbands fall under the 1st amendment freedom of expression. The school argued that the armbands were a distraction to school activity and that they had a right to enforce the use of armbands to control the classroom environment. There was a testimony that the armbands did indeed affect the school. The armbands drew comments and students with the armbands were being made fun of for wearing them. A math teacher said he "Had his lesson period practically wrecked chiefly by disputes with Mary Beth Tinker, who wore her armband". If this is true it would be in favor of common good since the class can operate without any disturbance if they made the Tinker kids take the armbands off. The court did not rule this way and opted to protect the individual rights of the Tinkers. The court ruled that the evidence was not enough to suspend the Tinkers. Justice Abe Fortas delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority,

The functionality and success of the American democracy is dictated by the fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution. These rights have been utilized by American citizens on numerous occasions throughout the centuries when advocating for these critical rights. However, questions started to arise when high school students started exercising these rights in their high schools, specifically their right to free speech and expression. The right of high school students to freedom of speech became an issue when their speech began to disrupt the school day and, as a result, teachers began to restrict it. Tinker vs. Des Moines, the landmark case advocating for students’ right to free speech, as well as Bethel vs. Fraser, the case ruling that students don’t have the same first amendment rights as adults, have been instrumental in dictating the outcome of future court cases regarding the right to freedom of speech of high school students. The exchange of information and exposure to new and different ideas is critical to students’ education and should be protected. However, if the freedom of speech infringes upon the need to maintain a safe learning environment, should it be protected? In my opinion, interpretations of Tinker have proved to be too restrictive on the First Amendment rights of students. The right to freedom of speech is a core right of the American

Symbolic speech is a form a freedom of speech. As citizens they were just expressing their views in a public setting, which is protected by the First Amendment. “Symbolic speech is non-verbal communication used to express or convey a specific message or idea” (Coleman, “Symbolic Speech: Definition & Examples”). The school officials judge the students by limiting the student’s speech because they did not agree with their views on the war. In the case study, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District., the school prohibited the wearing of the black armbands when it” exhibit opposition to the nation’s involvement in Vietnam”, but “the school authorities did not purport to prohibit the wearing of all symbols of political or controversial significance” (pg.139). Since the Tinkers were students in a public school that the Supreme Court consider a limited public form. Public forms are designed for people to express their views, but in a limited public form

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, a group of high school students in Des Moines, Iowa wanted to show their opposition to the deployment of U.S. troops in Vietnam, and decided to wear black armbands during the holiday season. The school system found out about the student’s plan to wear black armbands, so the principals of the Des Moines schools adopted a policy that required students to remove the armbands or be suspended until the student would return to school without the band. Several students, including John Tinker, wore armbands and were suspended from school. As told by the United States Courts, the parents of the suspended students sued the school district because they believed the school district violated the students rights to free speech. The parents lost in the Court of Appeals, and went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the students on February 24, 1969, because, “Students don’t shed their constitutional rights at the school gates.” (United States Courts)

They claimed that the wearing of the armbands was not being disruptive and they linked it close to “pure speech” which is protected under the First Amendment . Not allowing the students to wear the armbands is taking away their First Amendment rights. The Authorities had no reason to believe that the armbands would interfere with the work of the school or disrupt anyone, however the authorities actions were made to try and avoid controversy.

The tinkers knew of this rule before continuing with their protest they showed up two days later, with four other students joining them, they went to school with the armbands when asked to remove them they refused so they were asked to leave and not return until they agreed not to wear the armbands. They refused to get rid of the their armbands because it was their

The principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the student’s plans on wearing the armbands to school. The principles decided to meet On December 14, 1965, to discuss this situation. They decided to adopt a policy that said any student that participates in wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it. If the students refused to remove the armbands, then that

The students were suspended and told not to come back unless they didn’t wear the armbands. They complied, but their parents took the case to the Supreme Court, claiming a violation of First Amendment rights, specifically freedom of speech. On February 24th, 1969, “the Court ruled that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and school officials could not censor student speech unless it disrupted the educational process,” ("Tinker v. Des Moines - Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Behalf of Student

For some people, it seems a little bit odd to have a hearing because of wearing a piece of clothing that violates the school’s rights. Especially, in our country, we know for a fact that we are

They stated that, “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” In that quote, the people were basically saying that because they’re in high school, their rights for speech do not really matter because they’re not adults yet. In reality, there should not be a difference in what students can express in school, and what an adult can express. The students should not be limited to what their beliefs and interests are. They should be able to express themselves without permission from the school

I’m in favor for the strict interpretation of the laws and rights in the case within the school the students have certain amount of free speech but when they are not in school they can speak what they want. For writing about pregnancy and divorce in the school newspaper that there should be certain limitation for how much they can write about those topics. The people do have the right of free speech but when you are in a school setting there is certain amount that the administrations will the students to have. For the reason that I have chosen the strict interpretation is because even though that the students may not have as

One example, of how a government in school district, many students are able to express themselves through what they wear to school, students and teachers are free to speak their minds on public school grounds. They can even wear T-shirts with messages, dye their hair funky colors, and wear jewelry or buttons that make a social statement. But, even with First Amendment protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, there are limits in the school setting. And figuring out where the line is drawn is fairly complicated, and more teenagers are facing restrictions as the school’s boards across the country adopt more stringent policies.