More handpicked essays just for you.
Background information on freedom of speech in higher education
The importance of free speech in universities
Academic essay about freedom of speech at universities
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Juneau-Douglas High School principal Deborah Morse suspended Joseph Frederick after he displayed a banner reading "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" a slang reference to marijuana smoking, across the street from the school during the 2002 Olympic Torch Relay. Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner and suspended Frederick for ten days. She justified her actions by referring to the school's policy against the display of substantial that promotes the use of illegal drugs.
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
…show more content…
For example, Bullies think they can say what they want but they under no circumstances know how much their hurting someone. People getting offended can lead to suicide. Circumstances like this I consider there should be limitations. In my outlook I think we already have limitations because True freedom would mean we can say whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want without getting into legal trouble. With defamation laws and the laws behind unwritten threats we cannot do that. For example, I cannot say I’m going to burn the house down with someone it without getting into trouble. So that is why I think there is some limitations
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.
The case also states “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments” (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District). Because the students didn 't necessarily disrupt the education process, their First Amendment freedom of speech should not have been violated by the school officials.
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.
I admit that everyone has the right to freedom of thought and freedom speech. However, several questions come to my mind: Do people really need to use offensive speech to say what they think about the other? Does offensive speech resolve problems? Is really necessary to use it? As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes says, ‘“…separating speech that deserved protection from dangerous speech that did not’” (Richey, 61). The position shows us that offensive speech that provokes violence action should be ban. So, why are people using offensive speech, to provoke violence actions where many people could die? Every time when someone uses offensive words, those are going to incite some people’s response, it could be just a verbal response back or grave disturbance or confrontations between both sides. As a result of offensive speech or the right to say whatever people want; some people will die. Therefore, what is the purpose to use offensive speech? To provoke violence and to harm, and whoever heard it directly or indirectly most probably want to respond in the same term and experience any emotional pain. So, offensive speech could incite rampage worldwide. People around the world have different beliefs, education, and religion, which is the essence of human being, to be
We, all, have the opportunity to voice our opinion on subjects that matter to us. The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech and expression. However, this was not provided to all students in 1968. During this time, there were three students in Des Moines, Iowa, who wore black armbands to school. These armbands were a symbol of protest against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. After the Des Moines School District heard about this plan, they instituted a policy banning the wearing of armbands, leading to the suspension of students. A lawsuit has been filed against the Des Moines School District, stating how this principal goes against the students’ First Amendment rights. Thus, in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, Justice Abe Fortes determined the policy to ban armbands is against the students’ First Amendment rights. Yet, Justice Hugo Black dissented with this decision, determining the principal is permissible under the First Amendment.
A position generally held by the courts is that it is the goal of the public school is to educate students and that a student’s personal rights to free speech or free press may interfere with that goal. Court cases over several decades over freedom of speech rights for students have set legal precedents and are being used to argue for and against student’s rights and and student rights violations (Constituial Topic:Student Rights.
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.
Have you ever been to a band concert and bought something you wanted to wear? Well this student named ben had a rock band t-shirt and wore it to school, and it caused some arguments. Therefore his principal suspended him. Ben got suspended because he broke the rule,the rule stated that you can not wear band t-shirts on school grounds, or anything that disrupts class. I feel that ben did not break the rule,because rock band t-shirts do not cause trouble.
Students’ rights in schools are limited or just taken away. Kids are forced to do whatever the officials at their school, either the principal or the teachers, tell the students to do. One of the main right that gets taken away or limited is students’ first amendment rights, which is the freedom of expression. Students can gets suspended by just doing things the staff at the school does not like, including saying things that they don 't like or supporting a religion that the school does not support. Also, if something is said about the school or the people attending the school is said on social media that student can also get in a lot of trouble. Students should be able to have more first amendment
A kid name Ben Brewer wanted to wear his favorite band t-shirt, but he got in trouble for wearing his t-shirt. The consequences were a week of out of school suspension. The rule is you cannot have anything that disrupts class. In my opinion Ben didn’t disrupt class. In my opinion Ben didn’t disrupt class with wearing a t-shirt that has a band on it. Also, not many people would be looking at someone’s t-shirt during class.
Instigation and advocacy are the deciding factors that determine whether certain expressions should be restricted when examining them through Cohen’s four dimensions. When evaluating expressions using the Harm Principle and Offence Principle, it is said that free speech can be limited or restricted if it physically or mentally harms someone. By understanding the importance of content, manner, intention, and circumstance of an expression, it is better understood whether or not it should be restricted.
Every time we flip open a newspaper, there are articles which relate to someone getting arrested or getting fined due to their derogatory remarks or actions. These articles spark huge debates as the definition of right and wrong is sometimes ambiguous due to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, which is the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint, is a popular topic these days, especially with social media making it so easy to voice our opinions. Although this allows many people to say their inner thoughts, knowing that they would not get in trouble, this power may come with consequences and therefore, I do not think that freedom of speech should be protected at all costs as issues with violence and law enforcement may
Did you hear? A kid was suspended for wearing a band t-shirt. That’s right. Ben wore his favorite band t-shirt and refused to take it off. That’s what lead to his suspension. Last year, there was a lot of disruption from students about the band t-shirts. Even though there hasn't been any fights or arguments about it this year, Principal Carter still felt like he had to take action. Ben did violate the rules by wearing the t-shirt but the only conflict that it caused was when, a teacher saw it and sent him down to Carters office.
Imagine you are wearing your brand new t-shirt of your favorite band or singer. Pretty cool right? Well now you are not allowed to wear it because it is said to be disruptive and cause problems. In Hamilton Middle School a student named Ben was suspended for just that. There is a new rule stating that students are not allowed to wear any types of band t-shirts because of they are causing problems amongst the students that attend the same school. These problems are said to include the disruption of the learning environment. In addition, the shirts supposedly cause arguments and other problems. With that being said, the student should not have been suspended because his shirt is not breaking those rules.
It is more than clear by now that people have the right to believe what they please and to expose their thinking without fear, but is this an absolute freedom? Is there any limit to it? I believe there is. Freedom of speech is a base for American society, but so are other values, and when there is conflict between the freedom of speech and these values, the government tries to regulate or balance the situation.