Bethel School Dist.No. 403 v. Fraser 78 U.S. 675 106 S. Ct. 3159; 92 L. Ed. 2d 549; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 139; 54 U.S.L.W. 5054 Identification of the Case (Brief Fact Summary) The Respondent, Matthew Fraser, is a high school student that nominated a peer for a school elected office by delivering a sexually referenced speech at a school assembly. Action Sought Matthew Fraser sought to be granted injunctive relief and damages from Bethel School District in violation of his First Amendment rights in direct relation to his freedom of speech. Facts of the Case Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High, delivered a sexually referenced speech at a school assembly to nominate a peer for a school elected office. Matthew shared the speech prior to delivery with two educators and was advised that consequences would result due to the …show more content…
language. Matthew proceeded and was suspended for two days and prohibited from speaking at graduation since Bethel High’s disciplinary policy forbids the use of obscene language. Fraser brought suit to the Bethel School District to be granted injunctive relief and damages for violating his First Amendment rights. Question(s)to be Answered by the Court Does the First Amendment avert a school district from punishing a student for delivering an inappropriate speech at an assembly?
Were Matthew Fraser’s suspension in violation of due process since he was not aware that consequences would result from his speech? Answer(s) Given by the Court After referring back to several other cases including Tinker v. Des Moines, the court concluded that the First Amendment does not forbid a school district from punishing a student that delivers an inappropriate speech at an assembly. The court concluded after all evidence and interviews that Matthew Fraser’s suspension was not in violation of due process since educators advised him of possible consequences and Bethel High’s disciplinary policy. Reasons for those Answers The First Amendment defends those under age from being exposed to offensive language; therefore, Bethel High acted rightfully by punishing Matthew Fraser for his sexually referenced speech. The court referred back to several cases including, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and Bowsher v. Synar to ensure the rightful
ruling. Matthew Fraser disclosed his speech to two educators prior to given the speech at the assembly. The educators advised Fraser that consequences would result due to the language used in the speech. Furthermore, Fraser’s school, Bethel High states in the disciplinary policy that “obscene” language will not be tolerated since it disrupts educational practices. Significance of the Case This case is often cited as a basis to a student’s freedom of speech rights that are granted through the First Amendment and whether or not the speech is offensive. This case is essential too since adults and students also do not have the same constitutional rights.
At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. On May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. The article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce. The following article featured students at Hazelwood East and their experiences as teen parents in high school. Reynolds immediately asked for the two articles to be withheld from that weeks edition. Reynolds had concluded fairness required the father in the divorce article to be informed of the article and given the chance to make any comments. He also stated that changing the names of the girls in the teen pregnancy article may not be sufficient enough to keep them unidentified. Also, the topic is not suitable for younger students. As a result he forbid the two articles from being published. On October 13, 1987 Cathy Kuhlmeier (a student at Hazelwood East High) claimed that Hazelwood East High School was violating her First Amendment rights, and her case was
This case involves a sophomore at a high school named Christine Franklin, who alleged that she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher and sports coach by the name of Andrew Hill. These allegations were occurring from 1986-1988, a total of two years. These allegations included Hill having explicit conversations with Franklin, forcing her to kiss him, and forceful intercourse on school grounds. Franklin claimed that she let teachers and administrators know about the harassment and that other students were going through the same harassment. The result of telling the teachers and administrators was that nothing was done about the situation and even encouraged Franklin not
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=41>. . N. p.. Web. The Web. The Web. 14 Jan 2014.
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.
High school student “John Doe” responded to peer teasing by choking the student and then kicking out a school window. Middle school student “Jack Smith” made sexual lewd comments to female classmates. Both had a history of hostile and aggressive behaviors that are manifestations of their disabilities. On the fifth day of the school suspension, the district notified both boys’ parents that they were proposing expulsion and they extended suspension until the expulsion proceedings were finished. Doe filed suit against the school district and the superintendent on grounds that the disciplinary actions violated the “stay-put” provision of the then Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) (later IDEA). Having learned of Doe’s case, Smith also protested the school’s actions and intervened in Doe’s
Robert Duffley, a high school senior at Trinity High School, had withdrawn from his sophomore year early in the first semester after falling ill. Anticipating problems with his eligibility to participate in high-school sports during his senior year under certain NHIAA rules, Duffley’s principal sought a ruling from the NHIAA granting such eligibility. The NHIAA decided to allow Duffley to participate only during the first semester of his senior year. No reason was given for denying Duffley eligibility for the second semester. After unsuccessful appeals to the NHIAA executive council, Duffley filed a petition in the Superior Court, seeking equitable and injunctive relief. Duffley alleged "violation of his due process rights” and that the defendant had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in arriving at its decision, which was “unreasonable and unlawful."
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
The district court found the disruptive-conduct rule unconstitutionally vague and broad, and that withdrawal of the student's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the rule did not mention such removal as a likely sanction. The court made the case that nothing in the Constitution forbids the states from insisting that certain forms of expression are unfitting and subject to sanctions. (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969) The court affirmed that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."(Tinker) If the student had given the same speech off the school premises, he would not have been penalized because government officials found his language inappropriate.
In the Tinker v. Des Moines case, the students’ first amendment right was violated. They were not able to express their opinions freely. The first Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” (Classifying Arguments in the Cas...
On the other hand, students have the right to speak out for what they believe in without having any interference; they have the right to voice their opinion. This protection is all due to the first amendment protection. The first amendment protects the students and also the teachers’ freedom of speech, that includes during and out of school. With the protection of the first amendment no person is able to violate your right to freedom of speech. Any pers...
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.
There have been many cases where exceptions have been made over the first amendment, such as in the Tinker vs. Des Moines Community School District Case. Teenagers by the name of Christopher Eckhardt and Mary Beth Tinker had planned to wear black armbands to their school to show their support for a truce in the Vietnam War. When word reached the principle, of Christopher and Mary Beth’s plan to arrive with the black armbands, the principal created a policy stating that, “any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension.” (The Oyez Project). After being kicked out of school, Tinker’s parents sued them but their case was dismissed due to the fact that the first amendment does not grant one the right to express their opinion at any place nor at any time. Another official claimed that the first amendment is not fully guaranteed to children. While the first amendment may be a boon to the United States, it is not always just. There are limitations, and conditions surrounding the first amendment and our freedom of speech. In Tinker’s case, her armband was seen as disruptive, and distracting to other students, justifying the school’s actions against the student of suspending and eventually expelling
If the student is causing a disturbance the school can do something to the student(s).Once again firstamendmentschools.org wrote on Paragraph 1 of the Fraser Standard “in the case of Bethel v. Fraser, the Supreme Court ruled that school officials could punish high school senior Matthew Fraser for giving a speech before the student assembly that contained lewd references.”A student can give a speech but the speech must not contain rude, inappropriate, and other references that the school doesn’t want. Next up is on firstamendmentschools.org and it wrote Paragraph 2 of the Fraser
The first Amendment is known by most of all Americans, and it states Congress may not abridge the right of free speech. In 1987 Matthew F. Fraser who was at the time attending Bethel High School, gave