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.
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.
The right to freedom of expression of ones religion is at stake in this case. Mrs. Williams has a right to express her religion freely. However, based upon the Establishment Clause which prohibits any law “respecting the establishment of religion”, she does not have the right to force others to conform to her way of thinking. At the same time, students and community members have a right to express their religion, too. They also have a right not to have another person’s religion forced on them. So there is only one individual right at stake here, but it is not possible to respect this right of behalf of all the claimants. While the majority of the community, the school board, and some students will feel that it is Mrs. Williams’ right to keep the bulletin board posted, some community members, students, and ACLU feel it is their right not to keep it posted.
Constitution's First Amendment requirement that the District neither establish religion in the schools nor prohibit students’ free exercise of religion according to pertinent interpretation and application of those constitutional provisions by the courts. Any religious characters need to conform to policy 8800” (Markesan District School, 2013). “Decisions of the United States Supreme Court have made it clear that it is not the province of a public school to advance or inhibit religious beliefs or practices” (Markesan District School, 2015). Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, this remains the “inviolate province of the individual and the church of his/her choice. The rights of any minority, no matter how small, must be protected. District staff members shall not use prayer, religious readings, or religious symbols as a devotional exercise or in an act of worship or celebration” (20 U.S.C. 4071 et seq.) (Markesan District School, 2015). Having examined the Markesan District School First Amendment related to this topic the next step is to conclude my research on this topic.
Issues involving public schools and religion have been topics involving intense debate. It is difficult for the government to elucidate the appropriate boundaries of religion in the public schools. It is true that teaching about religion is permitted in the public education systems, but the real question is where the margin should be set between teaching religion and simply teaching about religion. It is almost impossible to teach about the history of the United States without teaching that religious beliefs associated with the history, artwork, and literature. More than the public is lead to believe, The Constitution permits religious activities in and around public school buildings. It is unfortunate that the
A student at Westside High School requested to form a Christian Club that would meet after school. The club would be granted the same privileges as the other student groups at the school, but they did not have a faculty sponsor. Her request was denied by the principal stating that the club would violate the Establishment Clause and the School Board policy requiring a faculty member to sponsor the club. Mergens took her concerns to the School Board. The School Board upheld the principal’s decision. Mergens filed a lawsuit against the Board of Education of Westside Community Schools, for denying the request for a Christian
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
Decision: In 1985, the principal and superintendent of Westside High School (a secondary school in Omaha, Nebraska) cited the Establishment Clause as a reason for denying the request of Bridget Mergens to form a Christian club that would have the same privileges and meet on the same terms and conditions as other Westside student groups, except that it would have no faculty sponsor. Ms. Mergens took the case to court, and won at first. She lost on appeal at the 8th Circuit Court, and then later won in a 8-1 decision from the Supreme Court
A couple of the families were Jewish, another family was atheist, one parent was Unitarian and the last parent was of an ethical culture society. The Parents were to believe that the school was violating the first amendment of the constitution and this was not right; that according to Thomas Jefferson there should be a separation of state and church. Never before had the public school board been argued against with prayer like issues ( Haas, pg 7-20).
This paper will examine the first amendment’s right to free speech based on three different Supreme Court cases and how there are varying examples of free speech. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, Snyder sued Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, and conspiracy because the church set-up protest outside of his military son’s funeral service (Chen et al., 2010). Another side of free speech involves a case which allow schools to restrict speech that is promoting illegal drug use. To examine this view this paper will look at the case of Morse v. Frederick. Lastly, this paper will look into the case of Texas v. Johnson. At the end of a
In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to
Whether it be at a campaign rally or college campus, our First Amendment rights here in the United States of America is sacred. Our government shall not infringe upon our right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. America now more than ever faces a free speech crisis. How will we protect people who peacefully assemble? What should the government’s role be when we exercise this right? When does one “cross the line” of free speech? These are questions Americans seek the answer to.
I further believe that in order to teach children, school districts need a certain amount of authority and structure to keep students safe and effectively teach them. School districts need to provide a positive learning environments that includes free speech for both students and teachers for optimum learning. However, I have concerns that school regulations could have far reaching affects not originally intended and when school's regulations are not applied equitably. I agree with the Supreme Court's descending decision in this case and the District Court's decision that the action of the school authorities was reasonable.
To address the first question, Keller had created a political group, Friends of Liberty, in which the group would stage “ask-ins” at open meetings for other campus organizations. First, we must address the aspect of an open meeting; these campus organizations were providing all students with the opportunity for discussion in a public forum. Public for a are the most important avenue for employing the right to unabridged speech for all United State citizens. “‘to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail,’ this aspect of traditional public for a is a virtue, not a vice.” McCullen v. Coakley (2014). This court has held that public for a are to not be regulated by the government, except in an extremely limited fashion, time-place-manner. There were no regulations for time, place, or manner by the university. Keller was fully within his rights, as a student of the university, to attend the
The First Amendment is designed to protect all citizens by giving them the right to express themselves in different ways. In doing so, we still have to be careful on how we do it. Students have the right to express themselves as long as it does not cause any disruption. In my school district, we abides by the First Amendment by not forbidding all mention of religion in the school system (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015). The only part that is prohibited is the advancement or inhibition of religion (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015). My school district feels that there’s nothing unconstitutional about using religious subjects or materials as long as it is in compliance to the neutrality of the education program (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015).