Does the Constitution only apply in certain situations? Is it a document in which one can pick and choose what to enforce? In the court case of Tinker v. Des Moines Mr. J. Fortas and Mr. J. Black have very different outlooks on the topic of freedom of speech and whether a few students could or could not be protected by this law.
In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines held a meeting in the home of 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt to plan a peaceful, silent, protest on their support for a truce in the Vietnam war. They decided to wear black armbands and to fast on December 16 and New Year’s Eve. The principals of the Des Moines school learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that any student wearing …show more content…
Justice Black wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the First Amendment does not give you the freedom to express any opinion at any given time. Here is a direct quote “I have never believed that any person has a right to give speeches or engage in demonstrations where he pleases and when he pleases. This Court has already rejected such a notion.” He also stated that the armbands were distracting the students and that they were creating controversy, “While the record does not show that any of these armband students shouted, used profane language, or were violent in any manner, detailed testimony by some of them shows their armbands caused comments, warnings by other students, the poking of fun at them, and a warning by an older football player that other nonprotesting students had better let them alone. There is also evidence that a teacher of mathematics had his lesson period practically "wrecked," chiefly by disputes with Mary Beth Tinker, who wore her armband for her “demonstration”.” Do you agree with this dissenting …show more content…
Justice Fortas delivered the 7-2 majority The Supreme Court held that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it, direct quote, “Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle, but not in fact. Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots.”The Court also said that the students did not lose their rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school board must be able to prove that the protest was in any way disrupting school. In this case, the school board’s actions stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual
In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines held a meeting in the home of 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt to plan a peaceful, silent, protest on their support for a truce in the Vietnam war. They decided to wear black armbands and to fast on December 16 and New Year’s Eve. The principals of the Des Moines school learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that any student wearing …show more content…
Justice Black wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the First Amendment does not give you the freedom to express any opinion at any given time. Here is a direct quote “I have never believed that any person has a right to give speeches or engage in demonstrations where he pleases and when he pleases. This Court has already rejected such a notion.” He also stated that the armbands were distracting the students and that they were creating controversy, “While the record does not show that any of these armband students shouted, used profane language, or were violent in any manner, detailed testimony by some of them shows their armbands caused comments, warnings by other students, the poking of fun at them, and a warning by an older football player that other nonprotesting students had better let them alone. There is also evidence that a teacher of mathematics had his lesson period practically "wrecked," chiefly by disputes with Mary Beth Tinker, who wore her armband for her “demonstration”.” Do you agree with this dissenting …show more content…
Justice Fortas delivered the 7-2 majority The Supreme Court held that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it, direct quote, “Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle, but not in fact. Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots.”The Court also said that the students did not lose their rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school board must be able to prove that the protest was in any way disrupting school. In this case, the school board’s actions stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual