Pros And Cons Of Philip Malloy

Students and children have limited first amendment rights which at times subjects them to unfair treatment . Students have also fought for their rights, and few have won, but the one that have succeeded have breathed new life into students rights. An example of this is in a fiction book called Nothing But the Truth. A boy named Philip Malloy found himself fighting for his rights after singing the national anthem in a disrespectful manner during his class, which caused a major disturbance. I don’t agree with Philip’s behavior, but his case is interesting because I doubt an adult would have similar consequences.
One reason why Philip had limited rights was that Philip can’t sing the national anthem during the morning announcements in his homeroom

classroom, which is a major violation to Philip’s first amendment rights.To prove this I summarized what AVI wrote on page 71-73, Philip Malloy and Miss Narwin got into an argument during the morning announcements about Philip having the right to sing our national anthem. Miss Narwin won this argument.The aftereffect of Miss Narwin winning the argument which means Philip Malloy can’t sing the national anthem during the morning announcements which is against the first amendment.Then on page 63 AVI wrote “Philip Malloy said, “How can you ask someone not to sing “The Star-Spangled Banner?” Dr. Palleni responded with, “It’s the rule.” Dr.Palleni literally just said there is a rule against singing the star-spangled banner which violates the first amendment.Once again AVI wrote on page 143 “At such times students are asked: “Please all rise and stand at respectful, silent attention...”” Therefore, students are asked to stand at respectful, silent attention which means that students can’t sing-along to the national anthem which is also against the first amendment.
There are few statements that say Philip could have sung the national anthem but Philip was still suspended. For example, on page 179 in NBTT AVI rote “There is no rule that prohibits a student from singing along if he or she desires.”Apparently there was no rule that prohibits the singing along to the national anthem . Philip could have sang along.
Philip was causing a disturbance by singing the national anthem, and therefore Philip was suspended. On page 154 In NBTT there was a quote written by AVI that said “On March 28-30, Philip Malloy deliberately caused a disturbance in his homeroom class(Margaret Narwin, Teacher) by singing the national anthem in a loud, raucous, disrespectful fashion, thereby drawing attention to himself”Philip was singing the national anthem to draw attention to himself and by doing this Philip caused a disruption which you can not do in school no matter what.Then I summarized what AVI wrote on pages 83-84 in NBT, This was a discussion about Philip’s suspension and what was mostly brought up was that Philip broke the rule. He caused a disturbance by singing our national anthem which seems like this means that Philip doesn’t have first amendment rights.Philip was causing a disturbance in the classroom by singing the national anthem. Which does not mean that you can’t sing the national anthem in school you just can’t sing the national anthem in school if it will cause a disturbance because of the Tinker Case.
Students have limited first amendment rights because of multiple court cases that was brought all the way to the Supreme Court.In firstamendmentschools.org on paragraph 6 of the Tinker Standard there's a quote that proves that students have limited rights “ As a result, the Court ruled that "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression."”The school can’t do anything to a student(s) if the school thinks there will be a disturbance, but if the student is causing a major disturbance, the school may step in.Once again, in firstamendmentschools.org on paragraph 7 of the Tinker Standard “Simply put, this ruling means school officials may not silence student expression just because they dislike it.”So if the school fears that something a student(s) is doing will cause a disturbance the school can’t do anything to that student(s).

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

Standard“In its opinion, the court majority stated that "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other.”Students don’t have the same rights as adults do which means that students have limited rights. After that firstamendmentschools.org wrote on Paragraph 1 of the Hazelwood Standard “Court ruled that students’ were not violated when a school principal censored two student articles on controversial topics -- pregnancy and divorce -- in the school newspaper, The Spectrum”The students can’t write about pregnancy and divorce in a school newspaper but there is newspapers that write about that stuff all the time.Then firstamendmentschools.org wrote yet again on Paragraph 8 of the Hazelwood standard “The Court ruled that "a school must be able to set high standards for the student speech that is disseminated under its auspices -- standards that may be higher than those demanded by some newspaper publishers or theatrical producers in the 'real world.””Students have to follow the school's rule for what you say which is limiting our freedom of speech. First off, on ala.org a quote on page 3, paragraph 4 it said “The Supreme Court has held that students’ speech rights are not “automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings”Students don’t have the exact amount of first amendment rights as adults. Secondly ala.org wrote on page 4, paragraph 2 “Similarly, in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser the Supreme Court held that a student could be disciplined for having delivered a speech that was sexually explicit, but not legally obscene, at an official school assembly.”Students can’t say something that is not legal just because he/she was a student and not a grown up. Then on usconstitution.net a quote on Page1, Paragraph 6. said“while a public school might have to prove that its violations are for a higher purpose”A public school would have to prove that a student's violations were for a higher purpose and thus higher purposes could be disruption in the classroom. Next of on usconstitution.net a quote on page 1, paragraph 2 said“Under the Tinker Standard, students have the right to freedom of expression as long as they do not "materially and substantially" disrupt the operation of the school or violate the rights of others.”Students can speak freely but can’t out of nowhere start a speech about first amendment rights or other topics. Finally usconstitution.net wrote on Page 1, paragraph 5 “‘The Fraser and Hazelwood cases, decided in the 1980s, gave school authorities in most parts of the country, wide discretion to censor anything which could reasonably be considered to be part of the school's curriculum.”Schools in most parts of the US can censor anything that could be considered against the school’s curriculum and if the school’s curriculum is against something normal newspapers write about then students have limited rights.
Students don’t have first amendment rights unlike the many other older citizens of the US.

According to ala.org on page 2 paragraph 1 “students cannot assert their First Amendment rights in a private school setting”This quote just flat out said that students don’t have first amendment rights in private schools. Then on usconstitution.net page 1 paragraph 1 a qoute says “Generally speaking, the Constitution applies equally to everyone, regardless of age, color, race, religion, or any other factor. However, minors are a special category of person, and in many cases, the rights of minors can be suppressed in ways that the rights of adults simply may not be.”Students are apparently a special category of person and don't have first amendment rights because of our age which I feel like is unconstitutional. Then once again on usconstitution.net page 1 paragraph 4 it says “The most common such violations are of the rights of students”Students rights are being violated the most which means that students have the least amount of right which is completely unfair and unconstitutional. Then another quote from usconstitution.net page 1 paragraph 5 ”In this duty of the school, many decisions can be made that are outside the normal governmental purview.”This means that the school can make decisions that are outside the normal governmental purview so basically the school can go past student’s first amendment rights.Finally one again on usconstitution.net page 1 paragraph 6 a qout states

“private institutions, private schools are not subject to any restrictions in terms of violations of the rights of students.”This proves that private institutions can violate the rights of students because private schools are not subject to any restrictions in violating the students rights.
Somethime although Students do have their first amendment rights. For an example on ala.org page 2 paragraph 1 “Students in public schools, therefore, do have rights under the First Amendment”This statement proves that Students in public schools have first amendment rights secondly in ala.org page 2 paragraph 1 a quote states “the court ordered a public school to allow students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War”The supreme court of the US ordered a public school to protest the vietnam war by wearing black armbands which is a first amendment right. Thirdly on ala.org page 2 paragraph 2 ”The courts also explicitly have held that minors’ First Amendment rights include the right to receive information.”Yet again the supreme court stated another right that students have, the right to receive information. !Next is on aclum.org page 2 paragraph 1 a qoute says that “School officials cannot stop a demonstration simply because they don't like its message.”The school Officials can’t stop students from doing a demonstration just because they don’t like the message!.Then aclum.org stated on page 2 paragraph 4 “Congress passed the Equal Access Act in 1984. This made it unlawful for school authorities to ban certain student-initiated groups (including religious ones) from meeting after school if school facilities are available to other student-run groups.”Therefore schools can’t ban student-initiated groups and religious groups form having or making meeting after school.Finally on aclum.org page 2 paragraph 6 this quote says “Do I have to say the Pledge of Allegiance? No. You can remain quietly seated -- but you cannot disrupt the proceedings.”Students aren’t required to sign the pledge of allegiance which is a freedom of speech law and US citizen has the right to do it.
So in conclusion there are tons and tons of stores, court cases, and much more out there that supply facts to prove that students have limited rights.