C. Plaintiff's Speech Can be Reasonably Restricted Because The School Newspaper is Not a Public Forum. Even protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 799 (1985). There are three types of forums were speech has different regulations: the "traditional" public forum, the designated public forum, and the nonpublic forum. Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 46 (1983). Access to a nonpublic forum can be restricted, as long as the restrictions are "reasonable and are not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view." Cornelius, 473 at 800. Schools or their facilities may be considered public forums "only if school authorities have by policy or by practice opened the facilities for indiscriminate use by the general public, or by some segment of the public, such as student organizations." Hazelwood, 484 at 260. …show more content…
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
In the majority opinion, Justice White wrote “Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were” The court also noted that the paper was a sponsored newspaper by the school which was not intended to be seen by the public, but rather for journalism students to write articles based off of the requirements for journalism 2 class, and all subjects must be appropriate for the school and all its
The court stated the appellant’s statements were false concerned issues that were important to the public’s attention. The statements were neither shown nor could be presumed to interfere with the appellant’s performance of his teaching duties or the school’s operation (Oyez, n.d.). In the matter of false statements, the Supreme Court looked back at New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The school board was unable to prove the statements were malicious in nature.
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.
Through using case laws, the First Amendment, and previous cases, Justice Abe Fortas explains the reasoning behind why the principal was not permissible. In the first two paragraphs, Fortas provides a brief summary stating how the policy banning armbands go against the First Amendment. In the following paragraph, Fortas says, “Only a few of the 18,00 students in the school system wore the black armbands.” When introducing his first argument, he supports this fact explaining how “the work of the schools or any class was [not] disrupted.” As for the fourth paragraph, Justice Fortas provides a counter argument with what the District Court said. The District Court concluded the school authorities were reasonable since it was based upon their fear o...
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.
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...
...o school. The dissenting opinion simply argued that freedom of speech is not to be used as a disturbance. Therefore, those students’ right to expression or speech was not violated because it interfered with the classroom’s learning. There is a time and place for everything, and freedom of speech should not be used everywhere.
“Marvin L.Pickering, a high school science teacher in Illinois wrote a letter published in a newspaper denouncing the board of education's choice of allocating of funding between athletics and academics, he also criticized the superintendent who did not inform the local taxpayers why they were actually paying more for the school. After posting the letter, the high school teacher was fired because the board claimed that he delivered false information that could affect the efficiency of the school administration, it damage the reputation of the board of education and of its superintendent and that it could possibly encourage “controversy, conflict, and dissension” between the school staff "Detrimental to the best interests of the schools"(Findlaw.com, I) . Pickering decided to sue the school for violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and of equal protection because he claimed that he has the right to free speech and is allowed the same rights as everybody else.“
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2009. Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. .
One reason why schools shouldn't limit students' online speech is that students have the freedom of speech which says that they can express themselves and have their own opinion.
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 this case, the court ruled that the administrators of schools can edit the content of school newspapers. This court case is just one of the many examples of how the schools are able to sway and control what their students say and what they see, which makes a big impact on the First Amendment rights of all the students who read and who have to write the newspaper. Another case that supports the research question is Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 1987. This case specifically points out that students do not have the rights to make obscene speeches in school.
Background- Well limiting a person’s speech online certainly isn’t a thought that just came out of the blue. It started as people, particularly young students, and their use of technology to freely share their thoughts on social media sites. And what became of it was more of bullying one’s peers online than just sharing one’s innocent opinion. But schools are meant to be a safe learning
Which include danger to the school or any of the students and this should be the only way teachers and schools can restrict students’ rights. but schools tend to go too far restricting students’ rights “The principal had ordered the stories removed from the paper because he believed the story about teen pregnancy was inappropriate for some of the younger students at the school, based on its discussion of sexual activity and birth control”(What are the free expression rights of students in public schools under the First Amendment?) a student though that this was appropriate for the school to read and it was but the officials at the school did not think the same way. also another case Bazaar v. Fortune officials tried to stop publication of a book just because it had a few words in it that they did not like.(The First Amendment and Public Schools) this is taking there restrictions just too far. The government should be able to set guidelines of what the immediate danger is and what kind of expression goes way too far and have it sent out to all the schools in the United States. This might help schools from restricting our