A teacher found two girls smoking in the bathroom in a school located in New Jersey. Upon arrival to the principal’s office for disciplinary actions, one of the girls admitted to smoking, while the other (whose initials are T.L.O.) denied any wrongdoing. The principal ended up searching the girl’s purse which contained evidence to prove she was smoking in the bathroom along with marijuana paraphernalia. She eventually admitted to using this paraphernalia for selling marijuana in school. Using the evidence found within the purse and the confession, she was charged and taken into juvenile court where she was eventually sentenced to a year’s probation. T.L.O argued that her 4th amendment rights had been violated…
After reviewing the case of Morse v Frederick, on a vote of 4-0, the court concluded that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it. On January 24, 2002, Principal Deborah Morse of Juneau-Douglass High School created a school-sanctioned event. This event allowed students to participate in the Olympic Torch Relay. The torch was on its way to Salt Lake City Utah, when Joseph Frederick, in front of the televised event, revealed a banner that read, “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Morse removed the banner from Frederick and suspended him for ten days. Frederick believed that Morse’s actions violated his…
On April 26, 1983, Matthew Fraser gave a speech nominating another student for an elected position. The speech was given to about 600 fourteen year olds that chose to attend this assembly. The speech contained sexual innuendo. Before giving the speech Fraser received advise from several teachers that he should change the speech or not give one at all. But he refused to take their advice (2). The next day, he was called in to an administrative office and was suspended for three days and was told he would not be able to give his speech during graduation even though he was at the time the salutatorian. The family of Fraser filed a grievance with the Pierce County school board, but the officer upheld the suspension. In response, to that decision Matthew’s father filed a case against the school district. The District Court ruled that the student’s First Amendment right was infringed upon. The students was awarded a monetary judgment and allowed to give his graduation speech. Later, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court (4). Later, the US Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in a 7-2 vote to reinstate the suspension, saying that the school district's policy did not violate the First Amendment (3).…
In this case, the general tension within and surrounding the School should be sufficient to help support the School in proving a reasonable forecast of a substantial disruption. This case is similar to Barr and Melton, as all three of these cases had pre-existing tension that resulted in or could contribute to a substantial disruption occurrence. Examples of prior tension in this case include: the past illegal steroid use scandal, general community disapproval of medical marijuana, and the brawl that resulted from students wearing apparel with a controversial expression. (R. 20, 21). These past instances are comparable to the contentious environments described in Barr and Melton that ultimately led to the schools restricting speech in fear of disruption.…
The school district appealed the decision, arguing that the speech had a disruptive effect on the educational process. The school district said it had an interest in protecting an audience of minors from indecent speech in the school. The school board believed it had the right to control language that was used during a school-sponsored activity. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.…
Personally as a Supreme Court judge and after taking a fairly through look at the cases, I’d have to rule in favor of Frederick. While the banner that Mr. Frederick had up during the school event does make a reference to drugs, the message is pretty vague as even I can’t really interpret the true absolute definition of the banner. Judge Steven even states “Justice John Paul Stevens took the position that the school 's interest in protecting students from speech that can be reasonably regarded as promoting drug use does not justify Frederick 's punishment for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement simply because it refers to drugs.” ( n/a, 2012). Another important reason why I am following this ruling is because while yes Mr. Frederick had a 14 foot banner held high it didn’t exactly disrupt the school event itself and it was the principals own interpretation of the message that caused a disruption that escalated into Frederick’s unjustified punishment. This statement from the ACLU even states that Fredericks actions were done off school campus, “As the ACLU and Mertz noted, the sign caused no disruption, was displayed at the Olympic Torch Relay - a public event on public streets - and Frederick had not yet arrived at school for the day.” (N/a, 2007 ). Just by this alone I believe that the principal had no justification in asking to take the banner down because of the cryptic message let alone punish Mr. Frederick just because of her own intrepertation.…
In my ruling, the illegal glorification of the drug culture “Bong hits for Jesus”. I feel the school had made a bad judgment call about having the banner. I feel it is not an attack on the saying “Bong hits for Jesus”. I feel that this is an attack on the student’s first amendment rights, just because the sign had something to do with marijuana. The school has an anti- drug program. I believe a non- disruptive pin, shirt, banner, etc. should not be taking from a student, for the shear fact that they oppose the anti-drug programs that the school offers. It is an attack on their first amendments rights. It was a 15-foot joke. The school dose has the right to not tolerate an interruption of a school sponsored anti-drug event. But this was not this kind of an event and the banner was not placed on school grounds. The banner was placed across the street from the school in a public open forum. One cannot be punished for holding of a banner not on school property. I feel that the principal was wrong to hastily take the banner down in the heat of the moment, but feel she should not pay punitive damages, for the banner was not worth much. Though the pride of the student’s who put the banner up was hurt a little I feel they should not be punished for expressing their first amendment rights, which they demonstrated non-violently, very conformed manner, and not on school property.…
In Deana Pollard Sacks article, “Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court’s Speech,” the author claims that The Fourth Circuit asserted that these two speech phrases are the ones protected under the first amendment. Again, this concludes that the WBC and picketers had the right to display placards about homosexuality against the Snyder’s family and that it was legal. The Supreme Court later decided to rule in favor for the Phelps in a 8-1 vote. However, Justice Samuel Alito disagreed with the court’s decision stating: “[the] WBC should not have received First Amendment protection for intentionally launching a vicious verbal attack on a private individual” and “the speech was specifically aimed at Snyder’s son” (“Snyder v. Phelps” Case Brief…
The students were suspended from school for showing their support of the anti-war movement. Wearing the armbands was protected by the First Amendment. It is implied that there are limitations to free speech in a school area, but the principal lacked the reasoning for imposing the limitations in this case. It was not shown that the conduct from the students would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.…
Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a felony under Florida State Law. He allegedly broke into a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, thus making it a felony. Mr. Gideon was indigent and asked the court to appoint counsel for him. The court stated that because Gideon was not charged with a capital offense, under Florida State Law his request was denied. Mr. Gideon stated, “The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by counsel”.…
Since the Supreme Court was established in 1789, it has ruled on some of the biggest issues in the United States. Most of the rulings by the Supreme Court effect Americans everyday. Earl Warren was the 14th chief justice of the Supreme Court and saw some of the most important cases in the history of the United States and many are still in effect today. The Warren court heavily believed in improving the civil liberties of the people. His ruling on Gideon v. Wainwright is no different.…
The question was whether or not Fraser's freedom of speech was violated when he was punished for what he said in front of the school during his speech, since he didn't feel he had "adequate warning". The argument was that he negatively affected the school environment by insulting the girls of the school, and nearly traumatizing the younger students. So, the court decided punishment was within the school's full right, since Fraser's actions had to largely impacted the common good, and ultimate goal of the school, saying "The school disciplinary rule proscribing 'obscene' language and the prespeech admonitions of teachers gave adequate warning to Fraser that his lewd speech could subject him to sanctions." Meaning he knew that he could get in trouble for what he did and did it…
Federal court found that the students' rights had been violated. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.…
Fricke v. Lynch was a court case in Rhode Island. Aaron Fricke was prevented from bringing his same-sex date to prom by his principal (Richard Lynch). He prevented him from bringing his date because he felt that the students would not approve. He felt that Fricke and his date would be harmed. The court ruled that students should not be prevented from participating in school events that are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT). The staff was also told to protect the students from harassment. Even though the principal made his decision out of safety reason you cannot ban students from participating in events because their sexual orientation is with the people of same-sex. Still today schools around the world still have teens being harassed for being a homosexual.…
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Board of Education v. Pico discussed the issue of whether the school's board acted morally. The school board decided to remove nine books that they deemed to be anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy. The Supreme Court was asked to decide if the school board had valid reasons to remove these books from the school's library. The books weren't required readings and were optional information for the students to extend their personal interests and thoughts. The First amendment was the main issue that became the focal point of this case. The majority opinion reflected what five judges concluded after they were presented with the case. They agreed that the First amendment imposes limitations on the school boards reasons to remove the books from the library's shelves. Students do not vacate their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression as they enter the school's property. Removing the books implicitly violated the student's rights because there weren't any valid reasons provided by the school board. The school board has the power of deciding which curriculum provides the values associated with its community, but not beyond the environment of the classroom and into the voluntary confines of the library. The petitioner's motivation to remove these books, were fueled by partisan and political factors. The school board didn't have sufficient evidence to remove these books, other than they disliked the ideas contained in the books. This is a violation of the Constitution. The dissenting judges disagreed with the majority opinion because they believed the Board's actions were justified. Judge Mansfield believed that the undisputed evidence of the motivation for the Board's action was perfectly permissible saying that the books were indecent, in bad taste, and unsuitable for educational purposes. His position was proven because he thought the Board acted…