Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
I, Jhae’da Moss write this to support the majority opinion on the case of Hazelwood v Kulmeier. I chose this decision because this was done with good intentions for the kids. What he did was right, but the way he handled it was wrong. Since the articles were going to become a distraction to the students and offended several students, I believe that the school had the right to eliminate those offensive pages.
Even though everyone is entitled to express their opinions, the restrictions were necessary in this case. Created to avoid chaos within the student body, I believe that the school was just doing what any other respectable school would have done, and that is protect the students' rights. They were just simply representing the interest of the majority. Newspapers are a way the students could have used to express their feelings, but after all that was published the school faculty had every right to alter the paper.
The major factor that influenced my decision and interpretation was the fact that the identities of the interviewees would have not been anonymous. The interviewees were tricked under the impression that their identity would be concealed. I'm sure that nobody would want their opinions to be identified especially if it was on such controversial topic. Everybody has their own opinions; those differed …show more content…
v. State of Florida. I chose to go with the minority opinion, there are many reasons as to why a minor would be out past 11 p.m. From many past experiences, I can recall times when I had to errands. There are many reasons as to why a minor would be out during that time, such as family emergency, last minute errands, or even school projects with a friend. A curfew time should not be set by the law; this is more of a personal family problem that each family can solve by themselves. I believe that a curfew should be set by the guardian of the
I, Jhae’da Moss write this to support the majority opinion on the case of Hazelwood v Kulmeier. I chose this decision because this was done with good intentions for the kids. What he did was right, but the way he handled it was wrong. Since the articles were going to become a distraction to the students and offended several students, I believe that the school had the right to eliminate those offensive pages.
Even though everyone is entitled to express their opinions, the restrictions were necessary in this case. Created to avoid chaos within the student body, I believe that the school was just doing what any other respectable school would have done, and that is protect the students' rights. They were just simply representing the interest of the majority. Newspapers are a way the students could have used to express their feelings, but after all that was published the school faculty had every right to alter the paper.
The major factor that influenced my decision and interpretation was the fact that the identities of the interviewees would have not been anonymous. The interviewees were tricked under the impression that their identity would be concealed. I'm sure that nobody would want their opinions to be identified especially if it was on such controversial topic. Everybody has their own opinions; those differed …show more content…
v. State of Florida. I chose to go with the minority opinion, there are many reasons as to why a minor would be out past 11 p.m. From many past experiences, I can recall times when I had to errands. There are many reasons as to why a minor would be out during that time, such as family emergency, last minute errands, or even school projects with a friend. A curfew time should not be set by the law; this is more of a personal family problem that each family can solve by themselves. I believe that a curfew should be set by the guardian of the