J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 757 A.2d 412 is a case from 1998 that is about whether or not the Bethlehem Area School District was justified in their decision to expel a student (J.S.) because of horribly offensive materials he published on a website about his teachers. J.S. created a website called “Teacher Sux” onto which he posted highly offensive material about his principal and two of his teachers. One of those teachers was J.S.’s algebra teacher, Mrs. Fulmer. On the website he made a page that read “take a look at the diagram and give the reasons I gave, then give me $20 to help pay for a hitman” in reference to Mrs. Fulmer. He created a disturbing illustration of Mrs. Fulmer’s head which was decapitated from her body and it …show more content…
After viewing the website the principal called the police and the FBI. Because of the threatening and offensive material posted about her, Mrs. Fulmer became fearful that someone was going to kill her. She suffered mental health issues which lead to her being too distraught to finish out the school year. Because of this, the school had to hire substitute teachers, which was a disruption to the educational process. Originally the school district decided on the consequence of a three day suspension for J.S., however they quickly decided that a more appropriate consequence for J.S.’s actions was expulsion. His parents appealed the school district’s decision to the Court of Common Pleas of Northhampton County. They claimed that the school district had violated their son’s First Amendment rights. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated that viewing the material on “Teacher Sux” could “cause a reasonable person to be physically and emotionally disturbed” and that the school district was justified for choosing to expel J.S.. The court believed that J.S.’s First Amendment rights were not violated because the content affected not only the principal and Mrs. Fulmer, but also the entire school. They claimed that the school district had acted within their rights by expelling J.S. based on the fact that threats shouldn’t be taken lightly; especially because of the prevalence of violence in schools
Matthew's father appealed the school district's actions on behalf of his son to the federal district court. He alleged a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages. The District Court held that the school's sanctions violated respondent's right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, that the school's disruptive-conduct rule is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the removal of respondent's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the disciplinary rule makes no mention of such removal as a possible sanction.
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
Many Supreme Court cases in the United States have reassured its citizens’ rights. One of those cases was that of the 1965 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case. This case was about five students who were suspended from school for wearing black armbands. Should the students have been suspended? The Tinker v. Des Moines case was a very controversial Supreme Court case in which the right to freedom of speech and expression for students in public schools was violated.
Name & citation of case: Urban v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 870 F. Supp. 1558 (D. CO 1994)
FACTS: The District Court found that Kansas City Missouri School District (KCMSD) and the State had operated a segregated school system, within KCMSD. The plaintiff class attorneys sought compensation under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 1988. The District Court awarded fees based on Kansas City market rates, it used current rather than historic market rates to compensate for the delay in payment. Missouri appealed the ruling and the U.S. Court of Appeals judgment was affirmed.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines held that students do not necessarily shed their constitutional rights when they enter onto school grounds. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). However, the court recognizes the school’s special relationship with the students including abilities to limit freedoms on campus like speech that are not necessarily the same as adults outside school grounds. Id. The court established a two-prong test to determine the constitutionality of those limitations, of which either can be met. Id. The first prong is the forecast of a substantial disruption of the work of the school. Id. The second is the infringement of the rights of other students to be let alone. Id.
Charlie was first suspended for 10 days for stealing software from the computer lab at his school. The additional 3 days suspension was for misconduct on the teacher. The teacher reported that Charlie called her names, threatened to come back to school with a knife to “cut her,” and pretended to swing his fists toward her. Charlie’s teacher then called the principal, who, in accordance with the student code of conduct at the school, issued an additional 10-day suspension for Charlie, bringing his total days of suspension to
The article “Should This Student be Expelled”, by Nat Hentoff exhibits many persuasive techniques and the writing style does an excellent job in giving the readers a direct and unfiltered look into the offenses of Doug Hann. The shocking statements that have been presented in the work quickly grab the attention of the audience, allowing them to understand the facts and produce an opinion. One of many notable persuasive techniques in this work would be the accurate portrayal of Hann. There is no room for bias from the author, only room for what has happened and what was said. Overall, the article does a very good job of convincing its readers that the expulsion of Hann was not only correct but also necessary. Going into the second paragraph
The decision that I would make if I was in the supreme court would be very difficult because it can go both ways I think it was immoral because he was not on campus or in class distracting the education of other students so he should have not got suspended because in my opinion he was not on school property. I would understand if he was holding the sign up while in class or yelling it through the halls. He was not disturbing anyone’s education he was just stating what he thought was his freedom of speech. She could have told him to leave or told him why she thought it was not right. I also think that she did the right thing by suspending
Another major reason why juveniles are ending up in the juvenile justice system is because many schools have incorporate the zero tolerance policy and other extreme school disciplinary rules. In response to violent incidents in schools, such as the Columbine High School massacre, school disciplinary policies have become increasingly grave. These policies have been enacted at the school, district and state levels with the hopes of ensuring the safety of students and educators. These policies all rely on the zero tolerance policy. While it is understandable that protecting children and teachers is a priority, it is not clear that these strict policies are succeeding in improving the safety in schools.
The Supreme Court ruled that the school had the right to discipline Fraser as the First Amendment does not prevent school officials from determining that such vulgar speech undermines the basic educational mission. It also mentioned in the opinion that if the same speech would have been given in a public place and not during a school function, the government would not be able to censor the message. Although the only similarity of these two cases is the suspension of students, it is important to understand that the school has no power over the speech of students when they are in a public
In document D the court sided with the students, but the students must serve ten days, but the ten day suspension will not be shown on their records. It must pose a threat, there was no threat so they sided with the students.In document C, the school suspended the student, but that was because the student caused a threat against the targeted student, S.N. If the student did not target S.N. and say the students name and harm her directly then there would probably be no suspension.J.S created a MySpace profile (“the profile”) making fun of her middle school principal, James McGonigle. The profile did not name the principal or his school, but did include a photo of him and contained some vulgar and offensive language.J.S. did not name the principal or the school, she did not directly target the principal even though a photo of the principal was on the page.This evidence helps explain why schools should not limit students’ online speech because it didn 't cause a substantial disruption.
Id. at 261. The school argued that the school newspaper was written and edited by a journalism class, as part of the school's curriculum, as well as, pursuant to the school's practice, the teacher in charge of the paper submitted page proofs to the school's principal. Id. at 262. Therefore, it did not classify as a public forum for public expression, meaning that no first amendment rights were violated by the school by exercising editorial control over the content of the article. Id. at
...tment of Education to resolve the issue by considering Almontaser’s demands of reinstatement, back pay, damages of $300,000 and legal fees. The Department of Education however still denies that any wrong doing was done to Almontaser and no resolution has come yet from the events of summer 2007.
Unfortunately, the impact of these posts affected my academic achievements, and my grades began to slip. I reported the cyberbullying to administration and appropriate authorities, but the administration barely disciplined him for the illegal crime and my teacher did nothing to stop him from harassing me further in class — I felt unprotected and alone.