Do you believe the Board of Education violated her right to privacy? Were they justified in firing her? Explain two to three (2-3) major reasons why or why not. The right to privacy is a right that gives people the ability to control all the things that are a part of us. These include one’s identity, our body, thoughts, feelings, secrets, homes and property. The right to privacy gives people the ability to choose what can be accessed by others, while controlling the extent, timing and the use of what one may choose to disclose. It is my belief that the Board of Education violated the right to privacy by breaching the use and disclosure of Mrs. Pettit feelings, secrets and how she chose to use her body. This is covered clearly by the right to privacy for all the individuals and was only a call that Mrs. Pettit would make to disclose her feelings and secrets to others. The right to privacy was invaded by the clandestine surveillance of the swinger’s group private party. However, mass surveillance has been acceptable when it is a matter of national security for the safety of the larger community, the right to privacy is to be upheld. It is clear that the situation was not a matter of concern or reason to surveillance since the members of the group were having common agendas and were adults who had made their choices. Furthermore, Mrs. Pettit was not a suspect in any ongoing police cases to beg for close monitoring by any detectives. The board of education invaded the right to
The court decided that the facts do not simply support the conclusion that the School District could have forecasted a substantial disruption of or material interference with the school as a result of J.S.'s, the perpetrator, profile. Under Tinker, therefore, the School District violated J.S.’s First Amendment free speech rights when they suspended her for creating the profile.
As human beings and citizens of the world, everyone values their privacy. It is a right that is often looked over and taken for granted by most. Since the beginning of time, there have been concerns about individuals’ rights to privacy and their personal information remaining confidential. Our founding fathers had concerns about this which is why, “…this right has developed into
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.
He could say whatever he wanted and that would be protected. But the school could also punish him how they saw fit. They also ruled that his due process rights had not been violated because he had no way of knowing whether or not he would be getting in trouble for his actions due to the school's code of conduct not needing to be as detailed as a criminal code of conduct. I believe that in this instance they made the right decision due to the fact that their reasoning makes sense. The first amendment gives citizens the right to say what they wish and have any opinion that they wish. It does not say that it will protect us from the punishments we may receive by voicing these opinions in an inappropriate way. As for his due process rights, he really had no way of knowing what course the school would take in punishing him, therefore no due process rights could be applied because the code of conduct at the school was not detailed enough for it to work in that
Everyone in America should be guaranteed the freedom of speech granted by The Constitution. In 1988, the court ruled in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier that schools \could limit freedom of speech in school if they had “educational concerns” (Jacobs). The problem is that “educational concerns” is too vague and school districts are able to use this as a loophole to get away with removing articles that do not need to be removed. Often, the concern is based on perception and image more than anything else. Angela Riley’s article “20 years later: Teachers reflect on Supreme Court’s Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ruling” quotes Frank LoMonte, executive director of
Facts: Safford Unified School District and April Redding, The dispute of this case is when Savannah’s privacy became violated when Safford School District stripped search her and revealed some private areas and her upper chest area. It got to the Supreme Court, when the district court reward a motion, then the Ninth circuit court reversed the ruling on the strip search because it was unconstitutional for them to strip search Savannah the second time.., The Supreme Court used New Jersey VS. T.L.O in the process of helping in the decision because in that case it was school officials searching a girls pursue because they had reasonable doubt that she was carrying cigs and had a list of the people that owed
While there is no “right to privacy” explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court believes that several of the Amendments embody this right; specifically the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments [6]. The First Amendment protects the privacy of one’s beliefs [6]. The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against it being forcibly used to house soldiers [6]. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches [6]. The Fifth Amendment protects the privacy of personal information [6]. The Fourteenth Amendment provides for a right to liberty in the areas of family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing [6]. And lastly the Ninth Amendment is a “catch-all,” declaring that just because a
In order to better interpret this scenario, we first need to look another case that resembles this scenario. The case related to this scenario, Pickering v. Board of Education (1983) upheld that teachers’ speech, just like that of any other citizen, is protected when the interest of the speech does not cause harm or create false statements. Overall, the
The first amendment allows the person privacy of beliefs, the fifth amendment give the person privacy of personal information and other amendments gives the person the right of privacy. Some people still argue that Americans doesn’t have the right of privacy. The supreme court, however, recognized that the 14th amendment gives the person privacy in different subjects. After that the court stated that the person has the right for privacy and the person makes his own decision. This source is useful as it supports the idea that americans has the right for privacy. This source is a reliable source as it is published on laws which is a website for publishing articles especially political ones. I think other sources were more helpful as they specified the advantages and the disadvantages of the americans privacy. I can use this source to prove that the right to privacy was one of the amendments in the Bill of
The families of the students filed suit in the District Court stating that their First Amendment rights were violated. The case went before the District Court and was appealed to the Supreme Court. The families sought for nominal damages as well (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
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.
The right to privacy has not been explicitly stated, but it has been found in a number of amendments. The fourth amendment is a good example because it restricts agents from searching people without a warrant or reasonable evidence that they have committed a crime. Privacy is an important thing to people, even when the topic is completely appropriate. It is something people like about only telling things to certain people. No one is going to tell the whole country or the whole world something that they recently experienced. They would have no interest in anyone except a chosen few to tell something like that to. These chosen people would be those that are close to that person, especially if they are friends or family. For this reason, it would
The school board is violating the Fourteenth Amendment and also Title IX of the U.S. Education Amendments of 1972, “a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination by schools” (@ACLU).
Topic: The administrators of the Columbus, Ohio, Public School System temporarily suspended several students without a formal trial or hearing. The findings of the trial court declared the actions of the administrators violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s rights to due process.
For this particular case I sit among the middle of the pack in-between a loose and a strict interpretation. Reason being, I feel it was correct for the principal to remove the content if he felt that it would harm other students rights or hurt students or families emotional state. However I do disagree with his choice not to either