Seth Linder's Parody Case Study

Mr. Chief Justice Pratik Parikh delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner Seth Linder, a high school senior attended Chester High School in Chester County, New York. In October 2013, Seth Linder went onto his personal desktop computer at home and posted on his own personal Facebook page a vulgar parody of Mr. Trask. The parody utilizing a fake questionnaire linked Mr. Trask to drugs, alcohol, and prostitutes. The Facebook page was widely viewed by students outside of the school, as well as by students on their personal cell phones while at school. As per the school’s disrespect/harassment clause, the school determined that based on the creation of the vulgar parody posted to his personal Facebook page, Linder violated the school’s disciplinary
This Court held that student expression may not be suppressed unless school official reasonably conclude that it will “… materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate disciple in the operation of the school.” Tinker at 513 (1969). The problem posed by the case at bar relates to the level of disruption caused by the production of the parody profile. If there is any sense of disruption, the school would have to believe that there was “substantial” interference. The profile page was widely viewed by students outside of the school and by students on their personal cellphones while at school. The viewing of the profile outside of school did not cause any disruption to the operation of the school. There is no indication that the viewing of the profile during school disrupted the work of the school or any class. Tinker displayed that the Petitioners went about their day completely normally. The only change was the black band on their sleeves. They neither interrupted school activities nor disrupted in the school’s operation. Tinker concluded that, “In the circumstances, our Constitution does not permit officials
T.L.O., 469 U.S 325, 340-342 (1985). As a result, the rights afforded to adults as in Cohen v. California, 403 U.S 15 (1971) do not extend to students in public school. This Court addressed the scope of the First Amendment in terms of student speech in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S 675 (1986). Matthew Fraser made remarks supporting a classmate who was running for a student government position at a school assembly. The speech was laced with sexual innuendo, which is defined as something that can be perceived as something that has a sexual meaning but generally has an innocent meaning as well. As a result, the school suspended him for three days for violating the school policy on disrespect/harassment. This Court held, “The First Amendment does not prevent the school officials from determining that to permit a vulgar and lewd speech such as respondent's would undermine the school's basic educational mission.”Fraser at 685. This Court believed a high school assembly or classroom is no place for a sexually explicit material directed towards an audience of teenage students. Justice Brennan in his concurrence wrote in Fraser at 688 (1986) “If respondent had given the same speech outside of the school environment, he