Tinker vs. Des Moines This court case took place in the December of 1965, in Des Moines, Iowa. A group of students at a local high school decided that to protest the Vietnam war, they would wear black armbands from December 16 until New Year’s at school. The principals at the high school learned of the protest, and established a new rule on December 14th. The rule stated that any student wearing a black armband would be asked to remove it, and anyone who failed to remove it would be suspended. These students, however, were committed to their cause, and continued on with their protest. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore theirs, and both were sent home. John Tinker wore his wore his the following day, resulting in suspension as
…show more content…
They took the case to a District Court, where the school district argued the rule was reasonable to uphold school policy or discipline. The Court ruled in the school district’s favor.. The students and parents disliked this, and took it to the Court of Appeals. The Appellate Court affirmed the District Court, so the parents of the students took the case one step higher. The Supreme Court saw the case and ruled that the students had done nothing but expressed their opinion, and that they did not lose their first amendment right on school property.
Texas vs. Johnson In 1984 a man named Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag outside of the RNC (Republican National Convention) in order to protest the policies of President Ronald Reagan. Dallas, Texas has laws against ‘desecration of a venerated object’, but Johnson argued that his action was protected by the first amendment. The case was taken to the Supreme Court. The state of Texas made their case by saying that flag burning does not constitute “symbolic speech”, and that his unpatriotic actions were not protected by the first amendment. Johnson argued that his actions were protected by the first amendment, and that by him burning the flag, he was speaking out against what he believed to be wrong. The Court ruled in his favor by a margin of one vote. The case was 5-4 in Gregory …show more content…
Offensive speech is still constituted as free speech, and therefore is protected by the Constitution. There was a dissenting opinion, however. Justice Stevens argued that because the flag was the symbol of our nation, burning it in protest outweighed “symbolic speech.”
Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier In May 1983, a school newspaper at Hazelwood High (called The Spectrum) was written by students. The principal proof-read the paper, and found two of the articles to be inappropriate for a school newspaper. He ordered the pages to be prevented from publication. The students were angered by this and sued the school. The students believed that this violated their first amendment right to free speech. Hazelwood school argued that the content was inappropriate for a school setting, and that because the school sponsored it they could censor what was in it. However, Cathy Kuhlmeier and a few other Hazelwood students argued that this was purely free-speech, that they couldn’t strip the right away from them. The Court ruled in the favor of
They took the case to a District Court, where the school district argued the rule was reasonable to uphold school policy or discipline. The Court ruled in the school district’s favor.. The students and parents disliked this, and took it to the Court of Appeals. The Appellate Court affirmed the District Court, so the parents of the students took the case one step higher. The Supreme Court saw the case and ruled that the students had done nothing but expressed their opinion, and that they did not lose their first amendment right on school property.
Texas vs. Johnson In 1984 a man named Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag outside of the RNC (Republican National Convention) in order to protest the policies of President Ronald Reagan. Dallas, Texas has laws against ‘desecration of a venerated object’, but Johnson argued that his action was protected by the first amendment. The case was taken to the Supreme Court. The state of Texas made their case by saying that flag burning does not constitute “symbolic speech”, and that his unpatriotic actions were not protected by the first amendment. Johnson argued that his actions were protected by the first amendment, and that by him burning the flag, he was speaking out against what he believed to be wrong. The Court ruled in his favor by a margin of one vote. The case was 5-4 in Gregory …show more content…
Offensive speech is still constituted as free speech, and therefore is protected by the Constitution. There was a dissenting opinion, however. Justice Stevens argued that because the flag was the symbol of our nation, burning it in protest outweighed “symbolic speech.”
Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier In May 1983, a school newspaper at Hazelwood High (called The Spectrum) was written by students. The principal proof-read the paper, and found two of the articles to be inappropriate for a school newspaper. He ordered the pages to be prevented from publication. The students were angered by this and sued the school. The students believed that this violated their first amendment right to free speech. Hazelwood school argued that the content was inappropriate for a school setting, and that because the school sponsored it they could censor what was in it. However, Cathy Kuhlmeier and a few other Hazelwood students argued that this was purely free-speech, that they couldn’t strip the right away from them. The Court ruled in the favor of