The Case Morse Vs. Frederick

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.

"Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students."

as being the first case to protect students ' First Amendment rights at school. By ruling that it was

As in the first case discussed, the issue before the court was also based on the first amendment of the Constitution. The question before the court was; “Do school officials have the right to restrict the free expression of students without first showing that such expression will disrupt the operation of the school?”. After deliberation, the court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and determined that the school board’s actions violated the first and fourteenth

School boards often do not adequately justify their reasons for denying High School Students their first amendment rights. Usually, the

Morse 551 U.S. 393 used Bethel School District v. Fraser to help explain its decision in 2007. This case is also commonly known as “Bong Hits for Jesus”. The case once again deals with freedom of speech in public schools. During the 2002 Olympic Torch Relay, Juneau-Douglas High School brought their students to be apart of the crowd at this historical event. At the event, Joseph Frederick held up a sign that read, “Bong Hits for Jesus”. The event was nationally televised with the sign shown live. Principal Morse suspended Frederick for inappropriate behavior. Frederick sued the school system saying the school violated his First Amendment rights by telling him to put the sign down. Even though this act of expression took place in a traditional public forum it was still a school trip/event giving the school jurisdiction over the action. The language used on the banner followed Bethel School District v. Fraser’s ruling because it clearly “undermine(d) the school’s basic educational mission” of a drug free environment (Calvert and Pember, 2015). Using Bethel School District v. Fraser as a precedent, the court gave high school officials the right to regulate sexual and offensively language that is vulgar or indecent. Similar to Bethel School District v. Fraser “Bong Hits for Jesus” was also tried in the Ninth

Cases that involve the First Amendment in school systems have always been around but the issue of finding a balance with these freedoms is

The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O was a resultant case of a search conducted by the then assistant vice principal- Theodore Choplick at Piscataway township high school with two freshmen girls -T.L.O inclusive, after a teacher had caught them smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The first girl had admitted to the offense, however, T.L.O denied this. This prompted Theodore to demand to search her purse where he found implicating evidence. In short, she was expelled and fined for 1000 USD. This led to a court case with an intent on proving that the school had violated the Fourth Amendment since the school was a Governmental organization. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

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

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

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.

My argument is in favor for the defendant in the case between Guiles V. Marineau. After a student continuously wears a controversial and extremely detailed t-shirt received at an anti war rally, the school district and family of the student take their discrepancy to court. I found multiple sources pulled from sources such as, FindLaw's United States Second Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.)., ProCon.org. (2017, November 15), Supreme Court Upholds Vermont Student's Free Speech Rights. (n.d.). and What are the Legal Rights of Children? (n.d.). In the following, the reader will be introduced to the case, the final decision, and my assessment of the case. I have drawn a conclusion, that the School system was in the right in this case and properly

In the same fashion the case that I 'm getting ready to bring up clearly represents the purpose of having the liberty of free speech & the cost of having that. In addition, the island school district case brought up many important questions that regard the liberty of

This banner to some could be seen as offensive, and Morse has the choice to either take action, or to allow this banner and face consequences. She chose to take action, and uphold the school's policy. Fredericks banner violated the school’s policy. It promoted the use of illegal drugs, and although Frederick arrived late to school, he still arrived at a school event, monitored by school officials, who in turn were in charge of him. Schools have the right to confiscate any item that violates their policies, and Frederick's displaying of his banner was violating a policy. Although Frederick does have the First Amendment right to wield his banner, the school policy clearly states that nothing promoting illegal drugs is allowed. If Frederick was attending an event not approved or monitored by the school, he would have been free to display whatever he wished. Just because Frederick had the first Amendment right, schools do not have to tolerate any actions or expressions that could contribute to any dangers of their students, such as illegal drug use. In conclusion, Principal Morse had the right to take away Frederick’s banner, and is innocent of any violation of Frederick's First Amendment

In the article “Tinker v. Des Moines” it talks about our constitutional rights and how someone sued the school because they were in ‘violation of their first amendment right of freedom of speech” (Freedom). The schools say we have our rights but we really don’t. They might say that but when they feel something you said is wrong they aim at punitive actions. They are taking away parts of our freedom by not letting us be able to speak what is on our mind and they should consequences for it. Also in the same article the Supreme Court got involved with the situation and said that “students and teachers don’t shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (Freedom). If they say our freedom is not shed then why do they tell us what we can and can’t say? It shouldn’t matter where we are, our rights should still be the same. Everyone should be able to be affable at school. People should remonstrate so they could truly have