T. M. V

Tinker was fighting for the right of freedom of speech, even though they were using their freedom of speech for a bad cause. They should have not have used their freedom of speech against the rule of the school because they were going against authority. They should have used it for the good of the school.

In the history of the Supreme Court, there have been many First Amendment cases that outline if exercises of free speech and expression are constitutional or unconstitutional. One of the most paramount 1st amendment cases is that of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). This significant case helped shape the extension of symbolic speech, as well as ensure the freedom of speech and expression to students in schools.

The dissent argues that there should be a limit on expression in school to allow students

I have supported the dominant part assessment of this choice because of the way that the school had supported the daily paper. I trust this gives the school the correct motivations to evacuate the pages, and the way of the articles doesn't help the case much either. These articles most unquestionably would have been an ungainliness and extremely diverting to the understudies too. Since these articles had sullied the rights and prosperity of others, it was of everyone's highest intrigue the articles were evacuated. I agreed with a slacked understanding in this circumstance. Although understudies hold rights, some of the time there is a circumstance where particular rights ought to be controlled to stay away from interruptions inside

This document supports limiting online student speech because the court ruled that even though it happened out of school, the school’s reason was strong enough to justify their actions toward K.K.

Justice Hugo L. Black argued against and gave a dissenting opinion from the majority. He argued the school had a right to maintain order and those armbands distracted students from schoolwork, ultimately detracting the abilities of school officials to perform duties. Additionally, concurring opinions arose from Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Byron R. White. Potter argued that students are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of the First Amendment rights, and White argued that distinction between communicated words and communicated actions are what drives the majority opinion (“Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District:”). In the “Tinker v. Des Moines School District” article it is written that Justice Abe Fortas famously wrote that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” giving way to students’ First Amendment rights in the school place (“Tinker v. Des Moines School District:”). In order for a student to lose such right, the school district would now have to prove this act interfered with other students, an issue that begins to surface throughout the remaining 20th

The Tinker v. Des Moines case had lots of impacts; including the Tinker family’s lives over the years. Mary Beth continued in activist movements such as peace, anti-war, and civil rights efforts. John Tinker continued his anti-war movements in college. He even ended up majoring in protest. In addition, only 2 years after the ruling, leading attorney for the Tinkers, Dan Johnston, was invited to Roosevelt High School to be their commencement speaker (Anker). Secondly, to mark the 50th anniversary of the case, On December 15, 2015, Mary Beth and John Tinker visited Roosevelt High School and discussed students’ rights. Besides the effects of the people involved in the case, many subsequent cases have also been affected from the Tinker v. Des Moines case. For example, a subsequent case similar to the Tinker case would be Epperson v. Arkansas. In this case, a teacher, in a public school, sued the school for prohibiting her from teaching human evolution. The Supreme Court, with Justice Abe Fortas writing the opinion, concluded that "The State's undoubted right to prescribe the curriculum for its public schools does not carry with it the right to prohibit, on pain of criminal penalty, the teaching of a scientific theory or doctrine where that prohibition is based upon reasons that violate the First Amendment” (qtd. in “Epperson v.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) defined that students do not lose their Constitutional rights when they enter the school. This case has helped shape school and district policies and regulations since it was handed down, including the policies of Regional School Unit #40. Other cases, such as Bethel v. Fraser (1986), have clarified that schools can punish lewd speech and language. In more recent times, several Circuit Court decisions have looked at speech on social media written outside of school, but are later brought into school through the Internet. In general, those decisions have upheld that the speech must cause a substantial disruption, or be likely to do so, for an administrator to punish the

Maria A. Cardona, write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of T.M v. State of Florida.

I, The Honorable Nyla Lennon write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of T.M. v. State of Florida.

To avoid disturbance and disruption and to create and maintain a safe learning environment, public schools often adopt policies that forbid certain acts on the part of students. Included in many of these policies are prohibitions on hate speech. The opinion of the court in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) broadly stated that students retain their first amendment rights when they enter the school, but the breadth of that statement is not without limit. Schools may narrowly curtail free speech rights to the extent necessary to maintain good

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.

In writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts took note that the Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) ruling decided that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." However, the Chief Justice also relied upon the precedent set forth in Bethel v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986) which explained how "the constitutional rights of students at public school are not automatically, coextensive with the rights of adults." Additionally, the rights of students are applied "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment," according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266 (1988). The special circumstances in Morse v. Frederick were first that the school has a policy that specifically forbids advocating illegal drug use due to the risks it imposes on other students, and second that principal Morse was forced to decide in the moment whether or not she should act.

Freedom of Expression is a right that all Americans can joy on a daily basis, now imagine if it were a controlled right? That doesn’t make it a right, more so something that we can use when the government says so. In November of 1968, 4 students organized a silent protest against the US policies in Vietnam, which ended with suspension from their local schools. The issue was brought up in court, which led to split consensus. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court was that the expression of speech couldn’t be prohibited unless it was a disruption and harmed the rights of others. The dissent opinion stated that if freedom of speech was without a limit to an extent, who says it could lead to school being a platform for the exercise of free speech instead of education. The argument came to the conclusion of defining the rights and freedom of speech for children in school. I agree with the majority opinion, seeing the freedom of expression shouldn’t be controlled and such.

Prior to the landmark ruling by the United States Supreme Court, New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985), the clarity on how search and seizures applied to students in public schools were unclear. A particular case from 1969 can shed some light regarding on how the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution defines student rights in public schools. In Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733; 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), the court found that: