Here's your assignment for this evening.
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.
20 comments:
I believe that the school policy banning armbands was not fair because it was freedom of speech and they were not harming or threatning to harm anyone. I think they ignored the rule because they felt strongly about their belief. Supreme Court ruled that some actions are ruled with the same protection as verbal speech as long as it doesn't harm or threaten to harm. I believe it is a valid reason because we all have the right to express ourselves. People may disgaree with your belief but that's just a persons opinion. If no one gets hurt, there should not be any problems. The children can protest the ban on smoking but in a respectful way with appropriate logos and attire. The black arm band was small and not distracting,a t-shirt would be a bit much. Although its not hurting anyone, i guess it would be fine.
Crystal
Period 4
1) No I do not think that the school was right to ban armbands specifically because they are restricting the rights that they received from the first amendment which gives us freedom of speech.
2) I think they ignored the rules mainly because they felt strongly about their beliefs.
3) I think the supreme court rule that certain actions should be under the same protection as verbal speech because certain things express personal belief and individually without being verbally spoken. As long as the actions of the individual are not offensive & do not bring harm to anyone else.
4) It would be acceptable as long as the logo's are not offending anyone.
-Taschya Maisonet
pd.4
1. I think the policy banning armbands wasn't fair because it's freedom of speech. (The first amendment.) Also, if it wasn't "distubing school activities" then they should be allowed to wear the armbands.
2. I think the students ignored the rule even though they got because they felt they had the right to express themselves.
3. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech because it is basically the same thing but in a different form of expression.These reasons are valid because it is a freedom of something.
4. The students should be allowed to wear those t-shirts because it's freedom of speech, just like the armbands.
Brianna R. Period 4
1. Do you think that the school policy banning armbands was fair? Why or why not?
-No, I don’t think that the school policy banning armbands was fair because if kids wanted to wear the armbands they had the right to. If the school doesn’t let them express their own opinions then there can be no freedom of expression anywhere. It will be fair if they could wear them but they shouldn’t bring any harm to them at all.
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?
-In my opinion I think they still wore them because they knew they had the right to wear whatever let them express their freedom in any way, and if putting on armbands that represented the Vietnam War mattered to them then they would wear it.
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?
-I think that they made this rule because they thought that everyone should have the right to freedom of speech, to express their feelings in an orderly matter with out bringing anybody to harm which is done in a fair way.
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?
-Maybe if that could have happen and people were against of what others were protesting about, in this case school wide smoking they could wear t-shirts that read "Up with 'Butts'!" because they are expressing their own kind of freedom of speech.
what question are we supposed to answer, if there is one??
1. No I don’t think the school policy banning armbands was fair because students should be able to express themselves anyway they want to.
2. I think they ignored the rule because they have the rights (Natural Rights) to wear what they want, when they want.
3. I think the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech because each person has their natural rights and if they want to wear something or say something they believe in they should be able to.
4. Yes, because its still freedom of speech and if that’s what they believe in then they should be able to wear whatever they want. Just like the abortion shirt we were talking about in class.
Anastasia Ioannou Period 2 :)
I don't feel that the school banning policy of armbands was fair at all. I feel this way because the teachers argument was that the action was meant to "prevent the disturbance of school activities", and wearing a black armband is not a disturbance of school activity. I think that they did this because they wanted to express themselves the way they wanted to, and thought that no one could take away their freedom of speach. I think that the supreme court stated that certin actions should have the same amount of protection as the freedom of speach because some actions protect people from causing a clear and dandrous threat. I think that only in certin cases it's valid. Students shouldn't be able to protest against smoking in school wearing a T-shirt that says "up with butts". This is so because those T-shirts distract students from class time.
Andrew Villa 931 period 2
i dont think that students should be able to wear shirts like those to schoool. for one thing, it's illegal for kids in the age group to buy or sell cigarettes and this shirt is just encouraging kids to smoke. however, if the shirt was stating tha you you shouldnt smoke, it would definitely be okay then.
--brent
Do you think that the school policy banning armbands was fair? Why or why not?
~no i dont think the school policy of banning armbands was fair because it didnt harm any students.
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 dont think they ignored the rule, i think they just wanted to make a point and show there opinion.
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?
~the supreme court of the united states has certain actions that should have the same protection as verbal speech, such as freedom of expression. freedom of expression is showing what you believe and freedom of speach is telling what you belive.
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?
~yes they should be allowed to wear the t-shirts because it is showing there opinion and it is freedom of expression.
~Alyssa L. peiod 2
No, I do not think that the school's banning armbands was fair. This is because I feel it's a choice that the student should have to make. Going to school is about learning new things, and students expressing their beliefs and ideas is a part of learning.
They ignored the rule because they felt they should have their rights. And they feel that if they stick with what they believe in, they will have a good chance of getting what they want. Which I also feel is right.
They feel that way because expressing what you feel through actions is the same as verbal speech. There shouldn't be a difference. And these reasons should be valid.
Yes, I do believe students should be allowed to do that. This is because they're expressing themselves. And there's nothing wrong with that. Just because you're not saying it out loud does not make a difference.
Megan E.
Period 2.
I believe the school policy was un really fair because under the 1st Amendemnt the students had the right to protest. All though the banding of the arm bands was a little much.
They most likey refused to remove the, because they believed that the Vietnam War was bad and hey wanted to voice their opinion and prove their point to others no matter what the concequences are.
I believe that actions have the same protection because the saing "actions speak luder then words" and these studenst wanted to prove their point by using the action of wearing the wristband. These reasons are also valid because freedom of speech I am sure the founding fathers meant all forms of protest.
I believe that it should depend on what the teacger said. For example the "Up with Butts" was a little distracting. i believe it is up to the school boars to see how the students react and if it does not cause a distribance there is no reaosn for the school to ask the students to remove the t shirt.
Allison OHagan
Period 2
I don't think it was fair banning the armbands because i feel that wearing the armbands is freedom of expression and the school cant take that away from the students.I think they ignored the rule because they wanted to express their feelings by wearing the armbands.I think the students should be allowed to wear the shirt because they have the right to express themselves but i dont think they should be allowed to wear those shirts in school because it will most likely be distracting to some kids and it will distract kids from doing what they are suppose to be doing.
Phillip Lluberes Period 2
I do not think that the school policy of banning the armbands was fair because it IS protected under the First Amendment as free speech. Most will say, "But at that time, Supreme Court officials were not sure what exactly was protected by this First Amendment because it was not specific enough," but to me, this is one of those cases where the protest did not cause any harm nor did it threaten to cause any harm. Therefore, it should be protected.
I think the students chose to ignore this rule because they thought that they were protected by the First Amendment. This was considered and act under free speech, but most contemplate on whether it was in fact backed by the First Amendment or not.
I think the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled this because some actions can also be put under the category of free speech. Those actions many not be verbally protested, but it is still getting a piece of society's opinion in and that opinion is still being fought for.
I think that students SHOULD be allowed to wear those t-shirts in form of protest because, again, these t-shirts would not cause much of a disruption nor lead to someone feeling threatened or harmed. It is simply a way for those who believe & follow the protest, to continue to follow.
Brianna H.
Period 4.
I don't think the school was justified to ban the students from wearing the arm bands because the students were expressing their freedom of expression on the Vietnam War and they weren't harming anyone in the process. I think that John and Mary Tinker still wore the armbands even thought they knew the conqequences behind them because they wanted to make a stand for what is right and what they believe in. I think the Supreme Court ruled that the these certain action have the same protection as verbal speech because they are expressing thier right of speech but through the form of a specific action and the as well the first amendment protects any type of freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition as long as it doesn't harm or threaten to harm anyone or thing. John and Mary Tinker weren't putting anyone's life in danger by wearing the armbands, so they weren't doing anything illegal. Yes, I think that the students that wanted to represent school-wide ban on smoking that they could wear the T-shirts with the slogan because they aren't harming or putting anyone in danger through the process. Of course not everyone might agree with their views, but that is the whole purpose of the first amendment is to express your opinoins freely without bringing along danger.
Gabrielle Rosado
Class Period 4
1. I think that the school policy for banning armbands was not fair because it’s a violation of the First amendment. Students are allowed to wear armbands as long as it doesn’t interrupt or disturb the kids from learning in class. It was the Tinkers’ way of expressing their opinion about the Vietnam War. They did not pressure any other students into wearing armbands or into joining them in their protest. The First amendment allows one to speak or voice their opinion even if others do not agree with what the person is saying. It was a peaceful, non-violent and non- verbal protest.
2. John and Mary Beth Tinker probably disobeyed the rule of wearing armbands in school because they believed that it was their right to express their opinion on U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and that they were entitled to freedom of speech granted under the First Amendment.
3. I think that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain actions should have the same protections as verbal speech because non-verbal speech is another way of expressing one’s opinion and is just as important as verbal speech. Sometimes other actions can be used to express a point and may actually present a stronger case than through verbal speech. Like the old saying goes “action speaks louder than words”. I feel that the Supreme Court was right in the decision they made. Again as long as no one gets hurt and the rights of others are not being violated then yes the reasons were valid.
4. I think that if the students in my school were to protest the school wide ban on smoking they should be able to wear a shirt that says “Up with butts”. I feel this way because the Bill of Rights says that we have the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not always have to be verbal. Non-verbal expressions are ways of expressing one’s opinion. If it disturbs or interrupts the class then the student should not wear the shirt to school. If the students are not violating other students rights and is not forcing them to join them in their protest then wearing the T-shirt is fine. I agree that there is a fine line in how far we can go to express our opinions. If no one is getting hurt and if the protest is peaceful, then I say leave it alone.
1)I think that the schools policy for banning arm bands was unfair because people have different ways of expressing what they feel is right and the students who went to the public school wanted to show that they have a differnt point of view from others.
2)I think they ignored the rule because they wanted to fight for what they believe in.
3)I think that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech because it is part of freedom of expression to express how you feel.
4)I think that the students shouldn't be wearing the t-shirts because it is offensive and students and teachers won't like the use the word "butt". Also ciagarette smoking is bad for you and it shouldn't be advertised in school.
Sara Touzard
period:4
1. do you think that the school policy banning armbands was fair? why or why not?
--I think that the school policy on not wearing armbands was fair this is because its dangerous, like some people's opinion might differ then they might start an argument and by the school banning the wear of armbands it's protecting the students.
2.why do you think they ignored the rule?
--I think that the students ignored the rule because they probably thought it was stupid since it really isn't disturbing anyone and we all have freedom of speech. so we can practically do anything and we have a right to say no.
3.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?
--- well, because for example the tinker family decided not to listen and they still wore the armband, they have the right to choose whether or not they should wear that. and because freedom of speech is practically freedom of verbal speech since speech is talking and verbal is talking also.
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?
---i think that it would disrupt the education thats taking place in the school because so many people will be talking about the shirts and the right to smoke that it will kind of cause chaos, so i think its wrong for the students to wear shirts saying that but also every does what they want in their life and that is why people migrate to this country for freedom! so why cant we all have freedom and be able to wear those shirts that say "Up with 'Butts'!"
-----Angela Rivera_* 903
i think that the school banning the students from wearing armbands was not right , i feel thta it is a way for the students to express tfreedom of speech. i think they ignored the rule because they felt that wat they were doing wasnt doing anything wrong. i think thats is ok for our school to have a protest about smoking because they have the freedom of speech, but if they have t shirts with a person who is dying is a little to graphic and that they shouldnt be allowed to protest on anthony period 2
I think that it wasnt fair. I dont think it was fair because the two students were not harming anyone. It sais that you can express what you want to say as long as you are not hurting anyone. They were not hurting anyone while they were wearing the armbands. I thnk they ignored the rule becuase they knew that the constitution protected them. I think that because when they went to court they knew that.
-Christian Segura 9th grade
I do not think it was right for the school to ban the use of armbands because it isn't like they were hurting or distracting anyonbe and its called freedom of speech. I also think they ignored this rule because they wanted to proove a point and make a change. The reasons are completely valid because we should be able to do whatever we want, say whatever we want and act however they choose to do so. Lastly I think it would be the students choice and free will to protest the smoking ban even though I am highly against it, it would be there choice and it is not my, or the board of ed's place to judge.
-Shannon Doran 931
(Sorry it was late Mr. Tesler.)
Post a Comment