1. Read the Background Information on the Supreme Court Case Tinker vs. United States (1969). The information can be found below.
2. After reading the information about the case, answer the questions that follow.
- Do you think that the school policy banning armbands was fair? Why or why not?
- The students knew they would be suspended if they wore armbands to school and chose to do so anyway. Why do you think they ignored the rule?
- The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Why do you think the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech? Are these reasons valid?
- Pretend that students in your school wanted to protest the school-wide ban on smoking. Should they be allowed to protest by wearing T-shirts that read "Up with 'Butts'!"? Why or why not?
Post your responses to the questions. Looking forward to seeing what you have to say.
Background Info
John and Mary Beth Tinker attended public school in Des Moines, Iowa. In December of 1965 a community group in Des Moines decided to protest American involvement in the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands. The Tinkers agreed to wear their black armbands to school. However, principals in the school district, aware of the students' plans created a rule that any student wearing an armband to school would be suspended unless the student removed the armband. Although the Tinkers knew about this rule, they decided to come to school wearing armbands anyway. After refusing to take the armbands off, John and Mary Beth Tinker were sent home by the principal. Their suspension lasted until they agreed to come back to school without the armbands.
The Tinkers filed a suit in the U.S. District Court to stop the school principals from enforcing the rule in the future. Although the District Court said that this type of protest was a form of expression protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause, the Court sided with the school officials, saying that the rule was needed to "prevent the disturbance of school activities." The Tinkers appealed their case to the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, but they lost. The Tinkers decided to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The fundamental question of the case came down to this: Does the First Amendment's promise of free speech extend to the symbolic speech of public school students? And, if so, in what circumstances is that symbolic speech protected? The First Amendment to the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." The Fourteenth Amendment extends this rule to state government as well, of which schools are a part. However, the First Amendment does not say which kinds of speech are protected. It also does not specify what types of expressive actions should be considered as speech.
The question of what kind of speech or action is protected under the First Amendment has been considered many times by the Supreme Court of the United States. Generally, the Court has held that the First Amendment protects adult symbolic speech that does not harm or threaten to harm. However, at the time of Tinker, it was unclear whether students' rights in this area were different.
In 1968 the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the Tinker's case and consider whether the Des Moines public schools ban on armbands was an unconstitutional violation of the students' right to free speech. The Court's decision in Tinker v. Des Moines was handed down in 1969.
32 comments:
Okay first of all I think that banning the armbands was not fair. It was freedom of speech and they violated that right.Eventhough the students knew they would be suspended they still wore the bands because they were aware of the right they had to wear them.They knew that they werent doing anything wrong.I dont think wearing those t-shirts would be terrible.They are trying to express how they feel through clothing.Why would that be so bad?I think that they should have the right to wear what they want.
Chrissy Thomatos Pd.6
What john and maria Tinker did was an act of freedom of speech.I do however understand why black headbands were band.From what i've seen it was probably to prevent rioting.However what i don't understand is why the students knew they were going to be suspeneded and still wore them.They were probably very concerned about the war. I think that congress stated actions should have the same meanings as protected speeches because, some situations could endanger serious lives.If students who smoked were protesting the prohibition i say they shouldn't be allowed to wear t-shirts that said "up with butts" because this would cause fights between students and teachers.
Billy Poulos
902
I think that banning armbands from school was fair because arm bands werent part of the dress code. The students ignored the rule because they thought they had the right to wear them because of freedom of speech. I think that the Supreme Court has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech because they wanted the rest of the school. If student were to protest on smoking they shouldnt be allowed to wear read Up with butts because that can be hurtfull to someone and it shows a sign of inapropreate clothing
No because its the right of the people to wear whatever they choose and no one should tell them otherwise unless you have to wear a uniform.I think they ignored the rule to show that they can wear what they want when they want to.i think supreme court made that law because people say things verbally but it is the same as saying the only difference is you are writing it.No because it is students choice to smoke or not and it wouldn't be appropriate to wear that shirt.
Do you think that the school policy banning armbands was fair? no i don't think it's fair cause just cause someone protest by wearing arm bands dosen't make a difference!so no i don't think it's fair!!!!
Why or why not?there no point
The students knew they would be suspended if they wore armbands to school and chose to do so anyway. Why do you think they ignored the rule? they diden't care, they stood tall to keep the protest going.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Why do you think the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech?well i belive verbal speeh is the same as speech and noone should tell you that yuo canot do this or that!!
Are these reasons valid?no i think there right in a way but still there just doing this because they don't want any other student to be disterb by this type of situwation!
Pretend that students in your school wanted to protest the school-wide ban on smoking. Should they be allowed to protest by wearing T-shirts that read "Up with 'Butts'!"? Why or why not? im not sure if for yes smokingr no smoking but if it's for no than i belive that that should be a ligle protest and should not be supended just for doing that!
1.)I think that the school policy of banning armbands was not fair at all to the students because if they wanted to protest they should be allowed to protest. Its not fair because if you protest something is it not phisically hurting anybody and I think people should be allowed to protest especially since its one of the amendments in the
constitution which is the first amendment.
2.)I think that they ignored the rule because they believed protesting and they thought that it was the right thing to do.
3.)I think that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain action should have the the same protection as verbal speech because its under the first amendment which is feedom of speech. I think these reasons are valid.
4.)I think that if the students in my school wanted to protest by wearing T-shirts that read "Up with Butts" should be able to protest because it won't be hurting anybody physically just by wearing a T-shirt. They students would only be standing up for what they think is right without hurting anybody physically.
Maria A
USHistory 09
I agree with banning the arm bans because it could have started a fight and alot of kids could have gotten hurt but on the other hand they have the right to freedom of speach. Then they ignored the rule because they wanted to support what they beleive in. They also say that they should be vaild because they can express them selfs. Even though they are supporting something they beleive in the t-shirt is the wrong wording and it is also giving the wrong meaning and some people might take it the wrong way.
Erin O'Driscoll 903 pd.7
I think that the school policy banning armbands wasnt fair, because the school believed that the students would create a sitaution with them opposing American involvment in the war.
But thats not the case, the students wouldnt creat problems with that and they DO have the right to wear whatever they want. Its' ridculous.The students wore the bands even when school officals warned them because they still were fighting for what they believed. They weren't going to stop doing the HARMLESS if someone told to .
I think that the Supreme Court ruled certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech because through a visual theres' a message being brought out. Supreme Court fears that there would violence and a opposing if students recognized what was going on.
Students who want to protest the school-wide ban on smoking should be able to wear shirts opposing it. THEY SHOULDNT. But they should have the freedom to;;its their decision. Its not like the school board would actually allow Smoking. By the way, thats a complete differnt case because SMOKING ISNT GOOD. So it wouldn't really make sense.
Livi Cabrera
Period 6
I think they shouldent band armbands from the school because their is nothing wrong with wearing that in school. The kids knew that they will get suspended if they wear the armbands but they did it any wear because they maybe thought that it wasent fair that they weren allowed to wear that. I dont see anything wrong if kids start protesting and wearing a t-shirt that says up with butts. They also shouldent wear that because they are trying to protest about smoking.
The school policy of banning the armbands was not fair at all because it violated the students right of freedom of speech. Also, the armbands were not even that harmful. all they were was solid black colored armbands that symbolized anti Vietnam. The armbands didn't even say something like f- the president or f- America and this f-ing war. They were just simple armbands to make a statement about an issue that was affecting americans. They ignored the rule because they knew that they were not advertising profanity or other obscenities. They ignored the rule because sometimes people have to fight for what they believe in. If they took off the armbands, their political voice would be suppressed. The Supreme Court has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech because some statements and acts do not disturb the welfare of other citizens. However, some people tend to challenge these things just for the sake of being difficult. I can understand challenging something that is inappropriate but black armbands just doesn't make any sense. These reasons are valid because if the message being presented by the citizens is perfectly appropriate and doesnt say something rascist or over the line, then it should be valid. No because that kind of shirt would disturb the learning enviroment. Athough it refers to cigarette butts, People with a pooer sense of humor could also think its referiing to the the thing that poeople use to sit down with. Jason K 902
The Supreme Court affected the rights of americans because they make sure that law are needed to american people. They all so make sure that peoples rights are protected.
By: Monica T.
Class:902
Period:7
1) i dont think that it was fair to banned students from wearing arm bands. Students should be able to express themselves and stand up for what they believe in.
2) They ignored the rule because they wanted to stand up for what they believed in.
3)Yes because when people protest they still talk but just express themselves iwth what they're wearing.
4) Not really because it wouldnt be the most respectful way of putting it.
Eirene Skocos
class 903
date 11/27/07
I dont think the school policy banning armbands was fair because it was a non violent form of protest, a right protected in the Constitution. The school, knowing this, was purposefully limiting the rights of students where such actions were not necessary.
I think the students planning the protest pointedly disobeyed the rule because they were defending their opinions. They may have felt that their actions were more important than the consequences they would face.
I think that the Supreme Court has given some actions the same protection as Freedom Of Speech because they offer the same type of nonviolent expression that a healthy individual should be able to exhibit. Freedom of religion, for example, or deciding what to practice and who to worship are choices not limited by the government. Peaceful protest, in this case, is being discussed.
Im not very sure of the situation stated in the blog entry because what the children are protesting may pose a risk to the student body. This brings up the more general issue of whether or not its acceptable for students' rights to be abridged by the school itself. If it is agreed that students constitutional rights are fully protected, than the form of protest is acceptable and should not be punished as it harms no one. If it were otherwise, however, it would be up to the faculty
-Bridgette C. Period 3
I think the school policy banning armbands was not fair because the students weren't causing any harm by wearing them. I believe the students chose to ignore the rule because they knew they had a right to free speech/expression. I think the Supreme Court has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech because it still has to do with expressing yourself. I think it is a valid reason because it is after all stated in the Constitution. I don't think they should be allowed to wear "those" shirts because they might offend somebody, and that would be an irresponsible use of the right to free speech/expression.
By:Mariela Ortiz(per.7)
I think that what the principal did was fair because she wanted to avoid a conflict of opinions within the school. Suppose some kids didn't agree with the ones wearing the armbands, what would happen then? There would be fights and arguments. They ignored the rule because they wanted their views on the Vietnam War to be known. Wearing the armbands was symbolic to them. The Supreme Court is right because the armbands were symbolic of the "opinion" the students felt was right. I think the reasons are valid because without these freedoms, nobody's opinions or ideas would ever be heard. They are not able to wear those shirts to our school because that would violate the dress code and they will be sent home to change their clothes. If we did not have a dress code, then that would violate the kids rights and then they can wear the shirts.
Maria Quintero in 7th period class
I think that the school banning armbands was unfair because the students have the 1st amendement right were they are able to make any kind of stamnet they want unless they do not harm or threaten to harm and this silent protest was not harming anyone...it was making a statement that did not harm or threaten to harm anyone so it should not have been banned
I think the students still wore the armbands because they knew they still had the write to make anytype of stamnet they wanted and this statement was said through armbands
I belive that the supreme court says that some actions should have the same protection as freedom of speech because they may be making a stament of what they belive and it is not hurtin anyone or threating to hurt anybody...yes these reasons are valid
The t-shirts should be allowed b/c they are saying what they belive and if they are old enough to smkoe then they can
1. Do you think that the school policy banning armbands was fair? Why or why not?
2. The students knew they would be suspended if they wore armbands to school and chose to do so anyway. Why do you think they ignored the rule?
3. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Why do you think the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech? Are these reasons valid?
4. Pretend that students in your school wanted to protest the school-wide ban on smoking. Should they be allowed to protest by wearing T-shirts that read "Up with 'Butts'!"? Why or why not?
1. I think it’s not fair that school policy is banning armbands. Unless armbands have no curse words or gang affiliations it should not be banned. Students should have a right to express themselves with what they wear but only up to a limit if their in school.
2. I think they ignored the rule because they wanted to give people the sense of how to stand up for what they want or not want.
3. ???
4. No students would not be allowed to protest by wearing that certain shirt. They wouldn’t because it goes against school rights of the dress code. Even though some school have no uniform there are still limits on what you can wear and what you cant
-rabaya rahman
sarah bianchi
I dont think that the policy was fair. The students have the right to protest the way that they feel as long as its not hurting anybody.
I think that they igonored the rule because the arm bands represented something that they belived in and felt strongly about.
The supreme court says that actions have the same protection and verbal speech. I think they did this because actions can have just as much affect as words. i do think that this is a valid reason.
i do think that they should be aloowed to wear the t-shirts. People are allowed to protest freely and there is no reason for the school to say no. They are expressing thier opinion. Sometimes its ok to have a little Controversie between people, it helps thme learn.
2. The school policy banning armbands wasn't fair. The armbands represented something they fely highly about and them wearing it shouldn't have mattered because of the freedom of speech. They ignored the rule tthinking that they were protected under the Bill Of Rights. The Supreme Court has ruled certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech because its a sign of expression. The reasons were valid because it is a form of freedom of speech. The students should be allowed to wear such clothing as a protest for a issue but it is inappropiate and shouldn't be for school.
---Kristofer
*Do you think that the school policy banning armbands was fair? Why or why not?
i believe that banning the armbands was wrong because John and Mary Beth Tinker wore the armbands because on December of 1965 a community group in Des Moines decided to protest American involvement in the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands.
*The students knew they would be suspended if they wore armbands to school and chose to do so anyway. Why do you think they ignored the rule?
i think they ignored that policy becasue they wanted to protest American involvement in the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands.
*The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Why do you think the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech? Are these reasons valid?
becasue prevent the disturbance of school activities. no becasue everyone has teh freedom of speech.
*Pretend that students in your school wanted to protest the school-wide ban on smoking. Should they be allowed to protest by wearing T-shirts that read "Up with 'Butts'!"? Why or why not?
i believe that they shouldnt because that would prevent the disturbance of school activities. and also it is inapproated.
i think it wasent fair becouse you should be allowed to wair what you want espically when you are doing it for something that you belive is right.
they ignored the rule probably becouse it was like if they took it off then the other students would see that they really dident belive in what they were fighting for
yes these actions are valid becouse maybe they are thinking that if they dont put a certain limit onto the amendmendts such as verbal speech then people can take advantage of it.
yes they should be allowed becouse you are using freedom of speech and also becouse it is something you choose to wear and no one is forcing you to wear it as well .
the supreme court has effected americans in many ways. some of those ways are by making decions that we dont allways agree with . although we may ask them and petion them they still make the decions. these dicions are called opinions. some time this process may take longer . and that effects us by slowing down our life and making us wait.
teila t.
i think that the school policy banning armbands was not fair because the students were trying to express who they are and in the constitution it sates that people of all kind are allowed to do such a thing.
The students knew they would be suspended if they wore armbands to school and chose to do so anyway ...i think they ignored the rule because they knew that the school directors, were take away from them the rights that they all had as citizen of the united states.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." i think the
Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech because people are just protecting them selfs, but in some situations only this in a bendable rule .
yes i think that they should be allowed to wear T-shirts that read "Up with 'Butts'!even thought they are in school the students still have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expressing their feelings.
The school policy of banning armbands of being worn to school was fair for a number of reasons. One of them is being that the school’s duty is not to have the student disturb the environment of education. The students that participated in that act probably had a strong belief that they wanted to spread the word of how they felt about it. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech because it expresses what one person has to say instead of not having a voice at all. These reasons are valid because you can express yourself in an appropriate matter. If students want to protest no smoking they should do it after school where their peers can hear about it or you can also ask the principle’s permission to raise the awareness of this issue.
Shazia R.
Period 7
^_^
1] I think that it was not fair to punish the students for standing up in something that they believed in. They shouldn't have been penelized for a right that is clearly given to them in the constitution.
2]I think that they ignored the rule because it was something that they strongly believed in. They have every right to protest against something that they don't agree with. I think that they thought that they were protected by the first ammendment and it was not going to be so drastict.
3] I think that the supreme court did this because there should be different limits on this. If someone is harming the rights of someone else, they deserve consequences for their actions.
4] The reasons are valid because they were just practing something that they thought they were intitled too by the first ammendment.
5]Does this relate to WJPS and uniforms? If we didnt have a uniform and kids wore shirts, I think that they should be able to. Smoking is a big issue and everyone should be intitled to their opinion on it. I think that if the students are screaming in the middle of class or causing a riot during school by screaming something like "STOP SMOKING STOP SMOKING", they should be able to protest with their shirts.
Amanda Paolotti period6 901
(1-) I think that the school policy banning armbands was not fair.I believe that it is not fair, because the first amendment states freedom of speech, and they are allowed to express their feelings to themselves and the public, if they choose to do so. I understand that at the time in the background information, it was 1965, and they probably didn't understand these rules, but it still does not give a school the right to suspend the children, just from wearing black armbands. The armbands are meant to show a particular statement, showing a group you represent, or it can mean that you are in mourning for someone's death in the group you support. (2-) I think that the students ignored the rules even though they knew about it, because they chose to express their opinions and I think that they did not want to be put down by their choices. I also think that the students thought that their armbands wouldn't cause anyone to get hurt or start any trouble, because it is something they choose to wear, and show what they are a part of. When has that ever hurt anyone. It is possible, that if you wear something, it can be offensive to another culture, and it can cause trouble,because they don't believe in what you do. (3)
I think that the Supreme court of the United States has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech, because your actions are showing a freedom to express yourself also, and it is the same as expressing yourself verbally, but you are doing it physically. I think that it is somewhat valid, but I think that some of your actions can be innapropriate and it may not be good to express yourself that way.
(4)- I think that students should not be allowed to wear shirts that say this statement, and protest against the school wide ban of smoking. I believe that they shouldn't, because smoking is bad for your health, and I think that the school is trying to have a safe and healthy environment for the students. However, students do have the right of free speech, but I think that this violates the rule, becsue they would be wearing innapropriate clothing and it can result in many dissagreemnets and complaints of others.
From,
Anastasia P. 903 period 4 ;]
Do you think that the school policy banning armbands was fair? Why or why not?
I do not think that the school policy of banning the armbands was fair. I do not think it was fair because the students should have the right of speech. All they were trying to do, was to get the word out about the Vietnam War. They wanted to support it, and thats not hurting anybody by wearig armbands to do so.
The students knew they would be suspended if they wore armbands to school and chose to do so anyway.
Why do you think they ignored the rule?
I think that they ignored the rule because they wanted to get as much support as possible. They also must have cared much about letting kids know, and get involved in the happenings of the war.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Why do you think the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech?
I believe that the Supreme Court ruled this action as they want to protect the people. They do not want hateful or disrespectful words to be said as a 'freedom'. If the freedom of speech did not have some actions abbiding to the law, then people would cause caous
talking and saying WHATEVER they want about other people.
Are these reasons valid?
Yes they are. These reasons are good and make sense to why they should be there.
Pretend that students in your school wanted to protest the school-wide ban on smoking. Should they be allowed to protest by wearing T-shirts that read "Up with 'Butts'!"? Why or why not?
I think that they should not allow to wear those. I think this because, I beleive that protests and things worn should support a good, meaningful cause. Not a cause that can kill you, or is a bad way of life.
1. In my opinion i think that the school policy banning armbands is fair because it will capture other student's attention and they will be more interested in what the other student is wearing and what it represents than what they are learning. The armbands will be an intruption
2. In my opinon i think the reason why the students chose to still wear the armband knowing that they can be supsended is because they wanted to express them selves by representing the Vietnam war.
3. In my opinion i think the supreme court made this action because they want to protect the people. The government doesnt want harsh or disrespectful words being used because it might result in choas.
4. In my opinion i dont think students should be allowed to wear shirts that read "up with butts" because i feel it is innapproiate for school. School is a learning environment, you go to school for a good eduaction not to cause problems.
JACLYN LEONE
PERIOD 7
I do not think the school policy of banning armbands was fair. I say it doesn't make sense at all. It is not fair, the students should be able to express themselves im clothing to a certain limit. Banning armbands is the most craziest thing I ever heard of. What is the true harm in wearing a armband? How is it going to affect the school? As long as the students don't wear anything inapropriate showing of body parts and such.
The reason those students wore the armbands to school anyway is because they felt their freedom of speech/expression was being taken away from them. So they decided to stand up for themselves and go against the school rule.
I would say these reasons are valid. Because it makes no sense to take away an article of clothing that just goes aroung your arm and that doesn't affect anybody. Even though the they are children they should have the right to express there feelings. I actually say that makes them more independent. It lets them know what rights they have as a person, a citizen.
If students in my school were to protest with T-shirts that read "Up With Butts!" I would be against it all the way. Now with this issue your affecting peoples lives bringing about sicknesses and diseases to their lives. It is also showing a bad example for younger children. Now if there is a parent who is trying to keep their child out of that life style they believe and hope that the school they are sending them to is good for that thay end up sending them there just for that. The school and the students who are protesting are now going to be in trouble for that.
Joshua Howard
Class: 901
Period: 6
i think it wasent fair becouse you should be allowed to wair what you want espically when you are doing it for something that you belive is right.
ignored the rule probably becouse it was like if they took it off then the other students would see that they really dident belive in what they were fighting for
yes these actions are valid becouse maybe they are thinking that if they dont put a certain limit onto the amendmendts such as verbal speech then people can take advantage of it
I think that they should be able to. Smoking is a big issue and everyone should be intitled to their opinion on it.
jamie
I think the school policy banning armbands was not fair. People have their own opinions and are allowed to express/protest them (according to the 1st amendment).
The students believed in something and they didn't let the rule stop them from wearing those armbands. They thought they had the right to by the constitution, to protest.
Once again those students have an opinion and are allowed to express/protest them. the students are not forcing anyone to smoke. They are just expressing that they think the smoking ban should be unbanned. If the shirt said smoking rocks, smoke or be killed by us then thats wear someone should draw the line. Thats an example of a disruptive situation. When the student is harming or threatening to harm others with their opinions then they should be suspended. However if the student is just expressing their opinion then i don't see the problem.
I feel that the school policy of banning the armbands wasn't fair at all because it had violated the students right of thier freedom of speech. Also, the armbands weren't even that harmful. All they were was just solid black colored armbands that had symbolized the anti Vietnam. They were just simple armbands to make a statement about an issue that was affecting americans. In that case they had ignored the rule because they had knew that they were not advertising profanity. They just ignored the rule of it because sometimes people had to fight for what they had believed in. But when they had took off their armbands, that meant their political voice would be suppressed. Well the Supreme Court had ruled these certain actions should have same protection as the verbal of speech because there are many statements and acts that do not disturb welfare of other people.
Post a Comment