![]() On February 24, 1969, the Court ruled 7-2 that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court ruled that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and school officials could not censor student speech unless it disrupted the educational process. Represented by the ACLU, five of the students and their families embarked on a four-year court battle that culminated in the landmark Supreme Court decision Tinker v. The students were suspended and told they could not return to school until they agreed to remove their armbands. When the students refused, they were sent home. When the students arrived at school on December 16, they were asked to remove the armband. The school board got wind of the protest and passed a preemptive ban. Tinker (15 years old), Mary Beth Tinker (13 years old), Hope Tinker (11 years old), Paul Tinker (8 years old) - wore black armbands to school to protest the war in Vietnam. 16, 1965, a group of students - including organizer Bruce Clark (17 years old), Christopher Eckhardt (16 years old), John F. L., students suffer without clear guidance regarding student free speech rights.Mary Beth and John Tinker display the black armbands that led them to being suspended from school. This Comment evaluates the substance of the Third Circuit’s decision, describes the Supreme Court’s eventual retort, and discusses why the Supreme Court’s ruling fails millions of public school students and their families. The Third Circuit’s argument that courts should use a bright-line rule in applying Tinker to off-campus speech is a compelling one. She challenged the decision in the courts, and when her case reached the Court of Appeals, the Third Circuit declined to use Tinker’s test in its decision, instead ruling that Tinker categorically does not apply to any off-campus speech. L., a Mahanoy Area School District student, was suspended from her cheerleading team after using vulgar language off-campus that made its way back to her coaches. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court reassured students that they do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Ever since then, the exact scope of students’ free speech rights has been unclear, but the high court has used Tinker’s substantial disruption test to clarify its scope in successive legal challenges. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |