Trayvon Martin Case Study

All around the world, the United States is known for its freedom and rights set up by the constitution. In “United States Supreme Court majority Opinion,” by Chief Justice Abe Fortas, “United States Supreme Court dissenting opinion,” by Justice Hugo Black, and a transcript radio interview with law professor Catherine Ross it explains that school children were suspended for peaceful protesting and their opinions on the outcome of the court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. While all the arguments were presented with evidence, the argument best presented was in the passage by Chief Justice Abe Fortas and in the the radio transcript. This is because of the use of ethos, logos, and pathos.

During the 1960 Civil Rights Movement, demonstrators were brutalized and killed, sometimes at the hands of law officers, whereas many slayings remain unsolved. “In some cases where local authorities failed to go after the attackers, or all-white juries refused to convict, the federal government moved in with civil rights charges.” Fifty-Two (52) years later in 2012 a murder of young unarmed African American teen Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman from Sanford, Florida, was found not guilty of second-degree murder and acquitted of manslaughter. The verdict sparked a heartfelt online message regarding the decision, which stated “essentially a love note to black people” which ended with “Black people. I love you.

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.

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.

John and Mary Beth Tinker were public school students in Des Moine, Iowa in December of 1965. The school directly violated and broke their 1st and 14th amendment by making them take off their armbands or get suspended until they agreed to go to school without them on. Tinkers had the right to wear the armbands and the school could not say otherwise

The case of Tinker vs. Des Moines demonstrated the need to find a balance for students and staff in schools to have protection under not just the first amendment, but all of them, while still giving schools authority. John Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore armbands to school to protest their hostilities for the Vietnam War. They were suspended from the school for wearing them. The school board decided it was too much of a disruption for the school. Eventually the case was then taken to court by the fathers of the protestors. The case Tinker vs. Des Moines is significant even today, for it shows that not always will constitutional rights win in the court of law.

John and Mary Beth Tinker and their friend Chris Eckhardt wore black armbands to school in Des Moines, Iowa, to protest the war in Vietnam. The student refused to take off armbands and then were suspended. Parent sued the school and said it was a violation of their First Amendment. On the ruling the Supreme Court sided with the students said As long as an act of expression doesn't disrupt class work or school activities or invade the rights of others, it's acceptable.

"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." This was the main argument from Justice Abe Fortas that came into play at the Tinker v. Des Moines School District Case of 1969. The case involved a small group of students who silently dissented against the government’s policy during the ongoing Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school. In response by the school administration, each of those students was suspended from the public schools they attended in Des Moines, Iowa. This case is a prime example of the Constitutionally protected symbolic speech we have

Des moines case, the majority opinion of the court ruled that, “the school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners” This case set a precedent for the overall message for public schools, declaring it unconstitutional to shed all of the rights of students when they enter the school. Under this clause, the Supreme Court shows that the school officials in Tinker versus Des Moines had no right to suspend the kids for wearing an armband because it did not cause a specific disruption, it merely showed off their own political views on a specific topic to the general public, which differed the protestors from the social norms our country expects. This connects to the T shirt case because this student was merely depicting his own religious viewpoint in a direct way, rather than a symbolic way. Simply because students were offended by his shirt, this does not outweigh the right that Harper has to express his freedom of religion and speech in school about what he felt about homosexuals. The case states that “In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.” Expression of opinion is completely legal no

Tinker, 393 U.S. at 511. Thus, discomfort, hurt feelings, embarrassment, or disapproval of an unpopular viewpoint do not justify a school’s restriction of silent, passive expressions of student speech. Id. See Emmett, 92 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (holding that a student cannot be suspended for non-school sponsored website featuring mock obituaries on the basis of fear of disturbance); and Tinker 363 U.S. at 512 (finding that a school cannot restrict students’ free speech to avoid discomfort and unpleasantness of an unpopular viewpoint when the school suspended students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War); and J.C., 711 F. Supp. 2d at 1107 (finding that a school cannot suspend a student over a YouTube video because of a teenager’s hurt feelings, rather it must be something more than “ordinary personality conflicts”); and Burge, 92 F. Supp. 3d at 1060 (holding that a teacher’s upset or angry feelings about a student’s comments on Facebook, such as “she should be shot,” was insufficient for a substantial disruption). Any words spoken in class, the lunchroom, or on campus that deviate from the majority can cause a disturbance, but the Constitution asserts it is imperative that students’ take the risk of voicing unpopular opinions.

Many families in Des Moines, Iowa have decided to encourage their children in wearing black armbands to school to symbolize their objection to the war. Catching wind of the plan to wear armbands, the Des Moines school board meets to adopt policy stating any student wearing a black armband will be asked to remove it or be suspended from school. Seven students wore black armbands and all were suspended from school. A complaint was filed in the United States Courts asking for an injunction reversing the Des Moines school board. “After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court dismissed the complaint. It upheld the constitutionality of the school authorities' action on the ground that it was reasonable in order to prevent disturbance of school discipline. 258 F.Supp. 971 (1966) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0393_0503_ZS.html).” The District Courts properly supported the Des Moines school board affirming their authority within

Words are used to serve a fundamental purpose: to convey a message. Many people would agree that one of the most influential tools a person can use is the power of words. This arsenal can establish one’s identity through creating a voice and exercising the right to express an opinion. However, it is not only words that effectively achieve these measures. Students have become increasingly successful at illustrating their point of view through inventive methods, keeping it ‘legal’ under the first amendment. This is especially evident through Tinker v. Des Moines, which began when John and Mary Beth Tinker, along with their friend Christopher Eckhardt, protested unanimously against the evils of the Vietnam War effort.

The motivation behind the police in the administration is to secure and serve and to convey crooks under the control of the law. Police are in charge of getting lawbreakers who undermine the job, property and tranquility of different subjects. But it's a different reality brought up by the article, "Trayvon Martin Case Shadowed by Series of Police Missteps." The New York Times has the police department be viewed as tragic heros. For it states what the police officers could of done that night to know what really happen, like “The police were not able to cover the crime scene to shield evidence from the rain, and any blood from cuts that Mr. Zimmerman suffered when he said Mr. Martin pounded his head into a sidewalk may have been washed away.”

Until February 2012, many Americans most likely had most likely never heard of Sanford, Florida. Even in the immediate aftermath of the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman on February 26, media attention was mostly contained to the local area (Banesh, 2014). Although Martin’s family contacted civil rights attorney Ben Crump two days after Martin’s death, it was not until March 5, 2012 that Crump and his partner contacted a publicist to develop a media strategy (Trotta, 2012). Two days later Reuters ran a story about the case and it was picked up by other media sources, sparking nationwide interest and igniting a media frenzy.

In this article, Tom Jacobs lists many examples of historical court cases involving students and their rights to free speech in school. Some of these cases ruled in favor of the students and some did not. Most of the students involved in these cases presented the same argument. They argued that their school was infringing upon their rights under the first amendment. One of the cases listed was the Tinker v. Des Moines case. The students in this case wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam war. School officials suspended the students when they refused to remove the armbands after being told. The supreme court ultimately sided with the students. This case is an example were students were wrongly punished for acting upon their rights.