Tuesday, December 08, 2009

Tonight's HW 12/8/09

Here's your assignment for this evening. Please post your answers, instead of writing them by hand.

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.
  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?

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.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Michelle Rivera
Period 1

1) I don't think banning armbands was fair because it didn't really disturb anyone. It was just a symbol between students.

2)They ignored the rules of being suspended because wearing armbands wasn't really a bad thing. It was just for a good reason, to protest American involvement in the Vietnam War.

3)The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech because in the case of the Tinkers, wearing black armbands is a way of 'saying to Americans to stop getting involved in problems that don't concern you.'

4)They shouldn't be allowed to wear t-shirts like that because that is a distruption to other students and teachers in the school. It would be better if they could maybe sign a pettition.

Katherine E. said...

Katherine Eglezos
Period 1


Do you think that the school policy banning armbands was fair?

I don't this that the banning of the armbands were fair because every person in the U.S. deserves to havew freedom of speech.

Why do you think they ignored the rule?

I think that they ignored the rule because they beilved that they had fair freedom of speech like everybody else.

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 think that the supreame court did this because they didnt want anyone working there way out of getting on trouble, civil rights wise.

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'!"?

I think that they do have the right to do this because of freedom of speech, but since it is supporting something bad, then those students can get in trouble for it.

Anonymous said...

1. No, it affect student's rights to free speech.

2. To show that the students have avoice and say in this.

3. Because thse actions are constitutional. Yes they are valid.

4. Yes, because they nhave the right to free speech.

Diego Huerta 902

Anonymous said...

Alexandra K.
1.I think it was fair for the school to ban armbands because it could represent a gang symbol.
2.I think they ignored the rule because they wanted to express their opinion about American involvement in the Vietnam War.
3.The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech because some actions and verbal speech can threaten others.
4.Students should not be able to wear T-shirts with the logo “Up with ‘Butts’!” because it harms other students. This logo can encourage others to smoke which is a harmful thing to do. Therefore, they should not be worn in school cause schools should be a safe place.

Natalia Paschoalim said...

1. I think that the school policy banning armbands was unfair because the student has the right to free speach and wear whatever they want to wear.
2. 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 the student wanted to wear the wristband and because the school doesn't have the right to tell students what to and what not to wear.
3. I think the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech becuase people do stuff that is bad that doesn't just involve verbal speech.
4.I think they Should be allowed to protest by wearing T-shirts that read "Up with 'Butts'!" because its part of their rights they should be able to wear it because they are trying to make a point by protesting

Anonymous said...

Caroline Kanavatsas 3rd period

Do you think that the school policy banning armbands was fair? Why or why not?

No, because it doesnt make sence to ban armbands because of someones belief or view of the war.


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 its because the students wanted to express their beliefs.

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?

They should have the same protections because those reason effect one another, and I think that those reasons are 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?

Yes since they would be expressing idea, but it might also give the school a bad reputation.

Arianna Pincay said...

Arianna Pincay, First Period

-No I don't think that the school banning armbands was fair, because the students should be able to wear whatever they want, as long as they weren't speaking out and protesting, then its alright.

-I think they ignored the rule because they knew that by the first amendment, they had freedom of speech.

-I think they have because even the people aren't speaking out with voice, they're speaking out with their actions. These reasons are valid.

-Both yes and no. Yes because they should be allowed to wear what they want. And No because the t-shirts are offensive and directly protesting smoking.

Daniela :) said...

1. I think it wasn't fair because in the first amendment , it wasn't specific on how it should be handeled and it dsidn't say that the freedom of speech of students are not allowed so it wasn't fair to me.
2. I think they chose to wear the armbands to express how they felt. I think that they thought it was unfair they couldn't wear them to school so they decide to use they freedom of speech and chose to wear the armband.
3.I think congress made it that way so it can protect your actions as long as it doesn't go against the law. Yes i think these reasons are valid because in the first amendment it didn't say that she can't express how she feels by wearing a bandanna.
4. I personally wouldn't do that because im against smoking but if other students feel like putting on t-shirts like that to school. They do have the right to express themselves in a way they are comfortable in because there is no law thats against that.

Daniela S.
PD 1

David v. said...

1) No because it was an armband and wasn't racist, biast, or offensive to any religion or beliefs and didn't threaten any one it was freedom of speech.

2)They didn't want involvement in the Vietnam War and believed in what they did and said.

3)Because they don't want people saying stuff about peoples races religions and beliefs.The reasons are valid because then people could say racist things about Blacks, Whites, Spanish, Chinese, Jews Catholics Ethiasts and other races and religions.

4)Yes because it isn't mean it is simply informing people what smoking does and show their opinion on cigarettes and smoking.

Brittany said...

1.) No, I don't think it's fair that the schools banned the bracelets because the students have freedom of speech they could say and do whatever they want, as long as there not harming or putting anyone in danger.
2.) They ignored the rule because they knew that they were doing the right thing and were standing up for what the believed in, and they knew that the school was wrong for banning the armbands.
3.) Because of the students do something thats legal, but the school doesn't know that there allowed to do that thenthey could back themselves up by saying its freedom of speech im allowed to do this, it says so in the 1st ammendment.
4.) They should be allowed to wear them because of freedom of speech and theres just trying to ban smoking and ciggerrets.

Bianca.R said...

*I don't think that the school was fair to band armbands. They did not pose physical harm. They were just expressing a statement. Armbands are nothing compared to armed weapons so it wouldn't be as bad.
*I think they ignored the rule because they were only trying to make a bold statement. I don’t think they purposefully broke the rule just for no reason.
*The Supreme Court knows what'
s verbal. Verbal speech would be things like slogans, writing and even what we say. These reasons are pretty much valid because they are only words in the end.
*I don’t think that wearing a T-Shirt with that kind of writing would be appropriate because it only criticizes what smokers do. It doesn't influence them to stop. It can be offensive towards something that is legal.

Anonymous said...

-Chelsea Mesa
1) No, because i felt myself that their rights were violated, freedom of speech.
2) The reason why they ignored the rule was probably because they felt strong about it inside and they took war serious.
3) I wouldn't say, I understand that they sided the school officials because they want to prevent the disturbance of school activities but I certainly don't think it was that big of a deal.
4) I believe they should do whatever they feel is good for them if they support smoking then for all means let them support it.

-Chelsea Mesa period 3

Anonymous said...

Natalie Silva
Period 3

Do you think that the school policy banning armbands was fair? Why or why not?
No I od not think this policy was fair, because the students have every rights to express/ protest what they think is not right such as the war.

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?
Freedom of speech; I know that if i were in the same situation i would do the same thing only because it is not right for the school to tell me i can not take pat in a protest that was silent and would cause not disturbace.

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?
Because if these actions arnt intended to harm anyone just get a solid point across then they are speaking too.

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 so, because this is there own oppinion. Some students think that smoking should be allowed on school grounds and if they belive this so strongly and there shirts arent offencive then why not.

Anonymous said...

1.no i dont think it was right because its not like they meant it in the way for the vietnam war.
2.Maybe because they wanted to show that they have a right to do what they want and they wanted to show freedom to do what they want.
3. Yes because they think that people shouldnt say wahat ever they want.
4.I think they should because if they want to smoke out side the school they should be aloud because they arent on school property.

chris odriscoll 902
1st period