Name:
Per:
Bill of Rights: Court Cases
Anticipation Guide
Pre-Reading
Post-Reading
Agree/ Disagree
Agree/ Disagree
1. Schools can decide what speech may disrupt learning.
Did your answer change/stay the same? Why?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pre-Reading
Post-Reading
Agree/ Disagree
Agree/ Disagree
2. Schools are responsbile for student newspapers, and they have a right to
censor that content.
Did your answer change/stay the same? Why?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Year/Name of Case:
CONTEXT
Assenting Opinion:
Facts:
Issue/Question:
5 W’s
Dissenting Opinion:
What side won?
What side lost?
What did they say? What did they say?
What was the
court asked?
Outcome:
What was the
precedent set?
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
1968
Location: Des Moines Independent Community School District
Facts of the Case
At a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, students organized a silent protest against
the Vietnam War. Students planned to wear black armbands to school to protest the
fighting but the principal found out and told the students they would be suspended
if they wore the armbands. Despite the warning, 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt,
John, and Mary Beth Tinker, wore the armbands and were suspended. During their
Name:
Per:
suspension the students' parents sued the school for violating their children's right
to free speech.
Question
Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form
of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections
guaranteed by the First Amendment?
Conclusion
Decision: 7 votes for Tinker, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
The Supreme Court agreed that students' free rights should be protected and said,
"Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates." In order
to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that
the conduct in question would “materially and substantially interfere” with the
operation of the school. In this case, the school district’s actions evidently stemmed
from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference.
Justice Hugo L. Black and Justice John M. Harlan wrote a dissenting opinion in which
they argued that the First Amendment does not provide the right to express any
opinion at any time. Because the appearance of the armbands distracted students
from their work, they detracted from the ability of the school officials to perform
their duties, so the school district was well within its rights to discipline the
students. They also argued that school officials should be afforded wide authority to
maintain order unless their actions can be proven to stem from a motivation other
than a legitimate school interest.
Year/Name of Case:
Facts:
Issue/Question:
Assenting Opinion:
Dissenting Opinion:
Outcome:
Name:
Per:
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
1987
Location: Hazelwood East High School
Facts of the Case
Students enrolled in the Journalism II class at Hazelwood East High School
were responsible for writing and editing the school's paper The Spectrum. Two of
the articles submitted for publication in the final edition of the paper contained
stories on divorce and teenage pregnancy. The divorce article featured a story about
a girl who blamed her father's actions for her parents' divorce. The teenage
pregnancy article featured stories in which pregnant students at Hazelwood East
shared their experiences.
To ensure their privacy, the girls' names were changed in the article. The
school principal felt that the subjects of these two articles were inappropriate. He
concluded that journalistic fairness required that the father in the divorce article be
informed of the story and be given an opportunity to comment. He also stated his
concerns that simply changing the names of the girls in the teenage pregnancy
article may not be sufficient to protect their anonymity and that this topic may not
be suitable for the younger students. As a result, he prohibited these articles from
being published in the paper.
Because there was no time to edit the paper if it were to go to press before
the end of the school year, entire pages were eliminated. The student journalists
sued the school alleging that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech had
been violated.
Issue/Question
Does the decision of a principal to prohibit the publishing of certain
articles, which he deems inappropriate, in the school newspaper
violate the student journalists' First Amendment right of freedom of
speech?
Conclusion
Decision: 5 votes for Hazelwood School District, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the principal's actions did not violate the students'
free speech rights. The Court noted that the paper was sponsored by the school and,
as such, the school had a legitimate interest in preventing the publication of articles
that it deemed inappropriate. Specifically, the Court noted that the paper was not
intended as a public forum in which everyone could share views; rather, it was a
limited forum for journalism students to write articles pursuant to the requirements
of their Journalism II class, and subject to appropriate editing by the school.
Justice Brennan wrote the dissenting opinion. He argued, “when the young men and
women of Hazelwood East High School registered for Journalism II, they expected a
civics lesson. The newspaper "was not just a class exercise in which students
learned to prepare papers and hone writing skills, it was a . . . forum established to
Name:
Per:
give students an opportunity to express their views while gaining an appreciation of
their rights and responsibilities under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution . . . ."
Year/Name of Case:
Facts:
Issue/Question:
Assenting Opinion:
Dissenting Opinion:
Outcome:
Questions for the Socratic Seminar:
1.
2.
3.