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
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.
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...
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.
“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. .
Does government or school districts have the greater ability to restrict free speech? This is a very important question because this is giving great power to one over the other. This is just down right wrong because it’s unwarranted to give the right to do such a thing to schools and not to government.
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
"Students are minors, adults serve as employees, and a public learning institution requires a peaceful environment to thrive. The Center for Public Education thinks students right to a freedom of speech should be allowed and only limited for very specific reasons. "The big idea behind free speech is simply this: Students and teachers are free to reveal their views unless there is a compelling reason to stop it. School officials cannot arbitrarily pick and choose the speech it will
Hall, K. (2002, September 13). Free speech on public college campuses overview. Retrieved from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/free-speech-on-public-college-campuses
...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.
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...
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.
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