The Argument Of Tinker Vs. Des Moine

There are lots of different situations where students of a public school are deprived of their right of free expression given in the fourth amendment. One example of this is the case of Engel vs Vitale. This court case took place in 1962 when a parent of a child sued because of a New York State law that required students to recite a nondenominational prayer every morning, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country”. This law goes against the Establishment of Religion clause of the fourth amendment. Another violation of The Bill of Rights is the Tinker v. Des Moines case. This case took place in 1969 when two students, MaryBeth Tinker, and her brother wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam war. However, the result of this action, according to the article, Supreme Court Landmarks from the United States Courts, “ Fearing a disruption, the

I think this court case had a really bad reason for being made into a court case. Even though there was a reason they should have found a better one to make a court case. In this court case we somehow argued for five to ten minutes with each argument that the lawyers laid on the table. We then went out and voted for money to be given to the Tinkers and to let them wear their armbands. So now the school should think of how they’re going to treat matters better instead of just kicking kids out for wearing an armband that says what they think of the Vietnam War. So I think that armbands are allowed because they’re armbands why make a big deal out

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

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines can be reasoned

"The District Court concluded 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. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression."

The hearing took place on November 12,1969. During the hearing, leading attorney for the Tinkers, Dan Johnston, argued that the action of the students was censored under the First Amendment and their symbolic speech caused no disturbance. On the other hand, the school argued that they should have the duty to enforce and maintain order and all discretion should be left at the hands of the school and not the court (Anker 379). Around the same time, another case with the same problem arose. In the Burnside v. Byars case, there was a group of black students that attended an all-black public school in Philadelphia, Mississippi. To protest the racial segregation happening in their state, they wore freedom buttons. About thirty of the students who wore the buttons were suspended. The Court of Appeals, in the fifth circuit, said that the students have free speech rights and in order for the school to ban the buttons, the school must have evidence of disruption; otherwise, it is considered arbitrary and unreasonable and cannot be sustained (“Tinker…1969”). In the ruling of the Burnside v. Byars case, the Court of Appeals stated that in order for the school to interfere with students’ free rights, they must have evidence that it was interfering with school orders. However, Judge Stephenson, judge in the United States Court or Appeals, claimed that schools should not be limited to how they restrict

Issue: “Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?”

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.

The case of Tinker v. Des Moines revolved around American's discontent for the actions the country was taking overseas in Vietnam. In 1965 in protest against the war, John and Mary Beth Tinker "wore black armbands to their public school as a symbol of protest against American involvement in the Vietnam War" (StreetLaw Inc. 1). The two were young students at a local high school. Their protest was noticed by the authorities of their school, who then promptly demanded that the two remove their armbands. This demand was denied, and the Tinkers refused to do so, claiming that it was their right to free speech that was provided to them by the Bill of Rights. As a result the two were suspended from their school (StreetLaw Inc. 1). Yet, the Tinkers were unwilling to accept the punishment, and saw the act as a violation of their First Amendment rights. They sought legal action and took the case all the way to the Supreme Court in 1968.

In Scott v. School Bd. of Alachua County two Florida students in 2003 were suspended from school for displaying images of the Confederate flag. Both students were told countless times to stop displaying this symbol. One student flew a Confederate flag on the antenna of his truck while the other student wore a T-shirt with the image clearly displayed. The principal believed the Confederate images created an “unhealthy environment and could lead to a dangerous environment at school.” The students sued the school saying that their First Amendment rights were violated. They argued that under Tinker v. Des Moines

Background: 1965 three students from Des Moines, Iowa (15 year old John Tinker; his sister, 13 year Mary Beth Tinker; and a friend, 16 year old Christopher Eckhardt), opposing the Vietnam War came up with a plan to wear black arm bands to their respective schools. The arm bands were to serve the purposes of symbolizing a protest against the Vietnam War. School officials got wind of the children’s protest plans and created a policy that if student showed up at school wearing black bands would be suspended and unable to return to school until they agreed to follow the “no black arm band” policy. All three children still chose to wear the black arm bands to school and all three were suspended from school.

Later, on the Tinkers' and Eckhardt's parents sued the district for violating their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The U.S. District Court of the Southern State of Iowa argued that the black armbands the students were wearing would cause a disruption in the classroom and distract other students. Allan Herrick, the lawyer for the district, said that limited speech should be allowed if said speech could lead to "violence, disorder, and disruption. The students’ lawyer, Dan Johnston, countered by statingthat the district had previously allowed other kinds of political speech occur and that no disruption was caused because of it. In the end the school board failed to prove that the armbands would do as they said they would, and so on February 24, 1969, the court announced that it sided with Tinker and company with a 5-person lead. It was 7-2. The court argued that the armbands symbolized pure speech and that it was completely different from the actions of the people wearing them, and because that just because they were students on school property didn't mean that they lost their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Justice Hugo Black wrote a dissent saying that the armbands did in fact disrupt

This article emphasizes the First Amendment and its limits. In this article, there are many examples and cases that involve the First Amendment and how it is used. In Tinker v. Des Moines, John Tinker and some fellow students that attended Des Moines public school were suspended for wearing black armbands to school. They wore the armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The school district was afraid of the outcome of the students wearing the armbands rather than acknowledging their freedom of speech The students then brought a suit against the school saying that the suspension violated their rights of freedom of speech. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the students did nothing wrong. They silently expressed

I am writing to share my opinion and feelings on T.M. v. State of Florida. My viewpoints reflect the leading part theory on this case, subsequently I imagined that the constraint of the daily paper didn't abuse substitute rights under the First Amendment. The greater part sentiment likewise incorporated the way that the standard acted dependably since the privileges of different understudies in the articles were being referred to. Moreover, they didn't think the Tinker standard connected to this case. In the Tinker case, single expression was by understudies as opposed to through a school daily paper. The controversial feeling, nonetheless, felt that the Tinker standard did in actuality apply to this case. The difference guaranteed while the

Does the prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public schools, a form of symbolic protest, violate the Freedom of Speech Clause guaranteed in the First Amendment?