Free Speech 4 Students Rally

In 2002, Juneau-Douglas High School student Joseph Frederick and his friends unfurled a large banner that read "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" as the Olympic Torch passed his high school. When the principal of the high school asked the students to take down the banner, all complied except Frederick, who asserted his First Amendment rights. Morse grabbed and crumpled the banner and suspended Frederick. Frederick sued and initially lost, but then won in the 9th Circuit court. The school board has appealed the case to the Supreme Court, led by attorney Kenneth Starr (known primarily to the public for his role as special counsel in the Monica Lewinski case), who essentially argued for a drug exception to free speech right in public schools. Because a ruling against Frederick could have effectively banned all speech regarding drugs or drug policy, SSDP submitted an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of the student, and held a widely publicized student rally at the Supreme Court on March 19th.
video source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfCjfod8yuw

SSDP (Students for Sensible Drug Policy) states that is committed to providing education on harms caused by the War on Drugs, working to involve youth in the political process, pushing for sensible policies to achieve a safer and more just future, while fighting back against counterproductive Drug War policies, particularly those that directly harm students and youth.

40 Anniversary of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

On Febraury 24, 2009, The Student Press Law Center and high school students across the country celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Tinker v. Des Moines. The video show Mary Beth Tinker 40 years later. She discusses what motivated her to stand up for student free speech in 1965 and how she has continued to fight for social justice throughout her life.

video source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wjBoo1s8ik

MORSE v. FREDERICK (2007)

At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS,” which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down the banner. When one of the students who had brought the banner to the event—respondent Frederick—refused, Morse confiscated the banner and later suspended him. The school superintendent upheld the suspension, explaining, inter alia, that Frederick was disciplined because his banner appeared to advocate illegal drug use in violation of school policy. Petitioner school board also upheld the suspension. Frederick filed suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that the school board and Morse had violated his First Amendment rights. The District Court granted petitioners summary judgment, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that they had not infringed Frederick’s speech rights. The Ninth Circuit reversed. Accepting that Frederick acted during a school-authorized activity and that the banner expressed a positive sentiment about marijuana use, the court nonetheless found a First Amendment violation because the school punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption. It also concluded that Morse was not entitled to qualified immunity because Frederick’s right to display the banner was so clearly established that a reasonable principal in Morse’s position would have understood that her actions were unconstitutional. Frederick's argument that this is not a school speech case is rejected. However, the Court agrees with Morse that those who viewed the banner would interpret it as advocating or promoting illegal drug use, in violation of school policy. At least two interpretations of the banner's words--that they constitute an imperative encouraging viewers to smoke marijuana or, alternatively, that they celebrate drug use--demonstrate that the sign promoted such use. This pro-drug interpretation gains further plausibility from the paucity of alternative meanings the banner might bear.
source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-278

Top image: http://radicalcrossstitch.com/wiki/images/9/95/Bonghitsbanner.jpg
Bottom image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/Bong_Hits_4_Jesus_banner.jpg

Does it violate my First Amendment rights if a school official reads over my graduation speech before I give it?

I think if a school officials reads over a speech that you would like to read, isn’t violate your First Amendment. In my opinion, the right thing for a school official read the speech before you do because a school official could help you write your expression in a better way and also to make sure that you are using properly language. According to research, it states that it doesn’t violate a student First Amendment. The courts have said school officials may review a graduation speech before it is given. They may also censor parts of that speech as long as they can show it is reasonably related to a legitimate educational concern. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1985 case Bethel School District v. Fraser, asserted that “The determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board.” In its 1988 ruling in Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court wrote that “educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” Meanwhile, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case (Cole v. Oroville Union High Sch.) that dealt specifically with the issue of graduation speeches, issued an opinion in 2000 that stated in part, “The principal retains supervisory control over all aspects of the graduation, and has final authority to approve the content of student speeches.”
source: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/studentexpression/faqs.aspx?id=21259&#q21259

WESTSIDE COMMUNITY BD. OF ED. v. MERGENS (1990)

Westside High School, a public secondary school that receives federal financial assistance, permits its students to join, on a voluntary basis, a number of recognized groups and clubs, all of which meet after school hours on school premises. Citing the Establishment Clause and a School Board policy requiring clubs to have faculty sponsorship, petitioner school officials denied the request of respondent Mergens for permission to form a Christian club that would have the same privileges and meet on the same terms and conditions as other Westside student groups, except that it would have no faculty sponsor. After the Board voted to uphold the denial, respondents, current and former Westside students, brought suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They alleged, inter alia, that the refusal to permit the proposed club to meet at Westside violated the Equal Access Act, which prohibits public secondary schools that receive federal assistance and that maintain a "limited open forum" from denying "equal access" to students who wish to meet within the forum on the basis of the "religious, political, philosophical, or other content" of the speech at such meetings. In reversing the District Court's entry of judgment for petitioners, the Court of Appeals held that the Act applied to forbid discrimination against respondents' proposed club on the basis of its religious content, and that the Act did not violate the Establishment Clause.
source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=496&invol=226

image source:

http://ebooks-imgs.connect.com/product/400/000/000/000/000/107/453/400000000000000107453_s4.jpg

What rights to freedom of epression do student have?

I think that all students should have all rights to express themselves as long as they do it in a correct way, as such used proper language. According to the research, Public school students possess a range of free-expression rights under the First Amendment. Students can speak, write articles, assemble to form groups and even petition school officials on issues. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that students "do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate." However, there is a fundamental distinction between public and private school students under the First Amendment. Public school officials act as part of the government and are called state actors. As such, they must act according to the principles in the Bill of Rights. Private schools, however, aren’t arms of the government. Therefore, the First Amendment does not provide protection for students at private schools. Though public school students do possess First Amendment freedoms, the courts allow school officials to regulate certain types of student expression. For example, school officials may prohibit speech that substantially disrupts the school environment or that invades the rights of others. I feel that private school should have the same rights as a public school. The student that attends to private school could have a way of feeling and believing the same ways.
Source: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/faqs.aspx?faq=student_rights

What is Freedom of Expression?

Freedom of expression is to have the ability of an individual or a group of people to express their thoughts, beliefs, ideas, and emotions about issues free from government censorship. As everyone knows that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of individuals to freedom of speech, religion and press. Some scholars group several of those freedoms under the general term “freedom of expression.” Most state constitutions also contain provisions guaranteeing freedom of expression, and some provide even greater protection than the First Amendment. Freedom of expression is essential to individual liberty and contributes to what the Supreme Court has called the marketplace of ideas. The First Amendment assumes that the speaker, not the government, should decide the value of speech. In these courts cases show the amounts of students that used this freedom to express themselves on what they belief. The students protested by walking out, clothing wearing and writing down ideas or beliefs.
Source: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/faqs.aspx?id=31&#q31

Free Speech Movement 1964

The Free Movement (FSM) was a student protest which took place about the 1964-1965. It was located on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley. It was under the informal leadership of students Mario Savio, Brian Turner, Bettina Aptheker, Steve Weissman, Art Goldberg, Jackie Goldberg, and others. The students insisted that the university administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students' right to free speech.
On October 1, former graduate student Jack Weinberg was sitting at the CORE table. He refused to show his identification to the campus police and was arrested. There was a spontaneous movement of students to surround the police car in which he was to be transported. Weinberg did not leave the police car, nor did the car move for 32 hours. At one point, there may have been 3,000 students around the car. The car was used as a speaker's podium and a continuous public discussion was held which continued until the charges against Weinberg were dropped. Later on in a month, about 1,500 and 4,000 students went in to Sproul Hall as a last resort in order to re-open negotiations with the administration on the subject of restrictions on political speech and action on campus. Among other grievances was the fact that four of their leaders were being singled out for punishment.
In January 3, 1965, the new acting chancellor, Martin Meyerson, established provisional rules for political activity on the Berkeley campus, designating the Sproul Hall steps an open discussion area during certain hours of the day and permitting tables. This applied to the entire student political spectrum, not just the liberal elements that drove the FSM.

Image Source: http://home.att.net/~enfield/images/fsm_collage2.jpg

Are political messages on students’ clothing protected?

Most of the time political messages on students’ clothing are protected following by the dress-code as long they are not conveyed in a vulgar or lewd fashion. According to the court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that public school could wear black armbands to school. The black armbands was use to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam. The students were engaging in a form of symbolic speech that was “akin to pure speech.” Toward the last decision, the court had recognized that students have more protection when they engage in political expression. It is also very important how students use language to convey a political message on dressing. For example, in 1992 the federal court in Virginia had rejected a student’s First Amendment. She claims that she should not be punished for wearing a t-shirt that says “Drugs Suck” to class. Although, they feel that the message spoke about an important political tropic, but the court had determined that the word “sucks” was too vulgar and could prohibited.

SOurce: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/studentexpression/topic_faqs.aspx?topic=clothing_dress_codes_uniforms

Am I allowed to express my political views while I am at school?

Yes, a student is allow to express their political views while you at school. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of the press to all people, including students. In California, two special laws protect students' rights of freedom of speech and freedom of press in school. Section 48907 of the California Education Code gives a special guarantee that students have a right to express their political opinions. This includes, but is not limited to:
- wearing buttons, badges and other insignia (including
Armbands or message T-shirts)
- posting notices on school bulletin boards
- distributing petitions
- handing out other printed materials, such as leaflets
- Writing in public school newspapers and yearbooks
- Writing in "underground" (or unofficial) newspapers
The two special laws are Section 48907 and Section 48950 that applies to public school and private school protection over freedom of speech to students.

Source: http://www.aclunc.org/youth/publications/asset_upload_file631_3547.pdf

Since the Hazelwood ruling, how important is state law in determining the rights of student journalists?

It is very important. A state law in 1971 guaranteeing all students full protection under the First Amendment, every other state needed to make a decision after the ruling: Did they want to abide by the standard given in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, or did they want to pass a state law providing more protection for student expression? After the ruling, in July 1988, Massachusetts became the first state since California to pass a law strengthening the First Amendment rights of students. The law provides that "the right of students to freedom of expression in the public schools of the commonwealth shall not be abridged, provided that such right shall not cause any disruption or disorder within the school." The following states that followed the suit and passed so-called anti-Hazelwood laws were Kansas, Colorado, Iowa, and Arkansas. However, it was also introduction to other states as well. The constitutions of most states have language that supports, to varying degrees, free expression.
source: http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=13014

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Brief Summary: January 13,1988

Image Source: http://www.newseum.org/images/news/HAZ080114_md.jpg

Kathy Kuhlmeier and two other journalism students wrote articles on pregnancy and divorce for their school newspaper. Their teacher submitted page proofs to the principal for approval. The principal objected to the articles because he felt that the students described in the article on pregnancy, although not named, could be identified, and the father discussed in the article on divorce was not allowed to respond to the derogatory article.The principal also said that the language used was not appropriate for younger students. When the newspaper was printed, two pages containing the articles in question as well as four other articles approved by the principal were deleted. However, the Supreme Court had stated that Hazelwood School didn't violate the First Amendment right of the students. This case had gave schools the power to cenor newspapers as long as the school finances the activties and there are grounds for the cenorship.
Source: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Hazelwood/#op

I think it a good idea to write an article about teen’s pregnancy because it important for teens to know how every year teen’s pregnancy increases and how it affects society. It important for teens to read about teen’s pregnancy experience, so that they could think twice about having a baby.

May schools limit the time, place, and manner of student expression?

Yes, as long as the time, place, and manner regulations are reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that "laws regulating the time, place or manner of speech stand on a different footing than laws prohibiting speech altogether."1 First Amendment jurisprudence provides that time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are constitutional if (1) they are content neutral (i.e., they do not treat speech differently based on content); (2) they are narrowly tailored to serve a governmental interest; and (3) they leave open ample alternative means of expression.

Courts will generally grant even more deference to time, place, and manner restrictions in public schools because students do not possess the same level of rights as adults in a public forum. However, the time, place, and manner regulations must still be reasonable. This means that school officials could limit student distribution of material to certain locations and at certain times, but those regulations would need to be both reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

Source: http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12993

I agree that schools should limit the time, place, and manner of student expression because there would be always the right place and time for you to speak out your mind. A student should also have the right to speak out their mind but it should be in a respectful and manner way.

How do school officials and the courts apply free-speech court standards?

Most courts have divided students speech into three categories.

The Three categories are:

I. Vulgar, lewd, obscene, and plainly offensive speech (Fraser standard)

II. School-sponsored speech (Hazelwood standard)

III. All other student speech (Tinker standard)

These are some examples of how courts review the action of students and school official and how they apply to these court cases above.

Example #1:
If a student were disciplined for wearing a piece of Confederate flag clothing to school, a reviewing court would likely begin by applying the Tinker "substantial disruption" standard. Why? Because the speech is student initiated (not school sponsored) and is not lewd. Under Tinker, the court would have to determine whether the school officials could have reasonably forecasted a "substantial disruption" of the school environment, perhaps based on past incidents of racial tension, or if the school officials overreacted out of an "undifferentiated fear or apprehension."

Example #2

if a principal decides to change her school's "Johnny Reb" mascot because she has received complaints from members of the community, who believe the symbol to be racially insensitive. Now which standard should apply? A reviewing court would likely apply the Hazelwood standard because the mascot is a form of school-sponsored speech. In fact, in a decision based on these details, a federal appeals court reasoned that "a school mascot or symbol bears the stamp of approval of the school itself" and concluded that the principal "eliminated the symbol based on legitimate concerns.

Example #3
If a group of students published a story about the Confederate flag and how students viewed the symbol in a privately published, underground student newspaper. Which standard would apply here? In this case, the Tinker standard would apply, because the newspaper is student initiated, rather than school sponsored.

source: http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12992

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986)

This court case was about a high school student who stand in front of approximately 600 hundred students and made a speech in supporting a candidate for their student government office.

Facts of the Case:

• At a school assembly of approximately 600 high school students, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. In his speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. As part of its disciplinary code, Bethel High School enforced a rule prohibiting conduct which "substantially interferes with the educational process . . . including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." Fraser was suspended from school for two days.
  Source: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1667

Matthew Fraser Speech that was made on April 26, 1983:

• "I know a man who is firm -- he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm -- but most . . . of all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts -- he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally -- he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end -- even the climax, for each and every one of you. So vote for Jeff for A. S. B. vice-president -- he'll never come between you and the best our high school can be."
  Source: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/fraserspeech.html

However, the Supreme Court concluded that Fraser's speech could, consistent with the First Amendment, be the basis for disciplinary action by the the Bethel School District.

Does this case affect students in today society?

Court Case: Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri (1973)
I think this case hasn't affect students in today society because students are allow to express themselves freely but with appropriate writing. Students cannot be expelled just for writing down the way they feel. The first amendment backs up any students from expels. The first amendment tells use the rights as human being we have of freedom of press and speech.

This was the political cartoon that was on the cover of the newspaper. However,there are two parts to this cartoon on the upper part is just about what the cartton about and the lower part is the cartoon depicts policemen raping the Staute of Liberty and the Goddess of Justice but it wasn't able to be copy on the website. You could check out the whole picture on http://www.splc.org/images/papishcartoon.pdf .

Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri (1973)

Facts:

• A graduate student in the University of Missouri School of Journalism, was expelled for distributing on campus a newspaper "containing forms of indecent speech" in violation of a bylaw of the Board of Curators. The newspaper, the Free Press Underground, had been sold on this state university campus for more than four years pursuant to an authorization obtained from the University Business Office. The particular newspaper issue in question was found to be unacceptable for two reasons. First, on the front cover the publishers had reproduced a political cartoon previously printed in another newspaper depicting policemen raping the State of Liberty and the Goddess of Justice. The caption under the cartoon read: ". . . With Liberty and Justice for All." Secondly, the issue contained an article entitled "M --f -- Acquitted," which discussed the trial and acquittal on an assault charge of a New York City youth who was a member of an organization known as "Up Against the Wall, M --f --."
  
  Following a hearing, the Student Conduct Committee found that petitioner had violated Par. B of Art. V of the General Standards of Student Conduct which requires students "to observe generally accepted standards of conduct" and specifically prohibits "indecent conduct or speech." Her expulsion, after affirmance first by the Chancellor of the University and then by its Board of Curators, was made effective in the middle of the spring semester. Although she was then permitted to remain on campus until the end of the semester, she was not given credit for the one course in which she made a passing grade.

• Court case decision was made on March 19, 1973

Source : http://www.splc.org/law_library.asp?id=40

Was John Tinker rights were violated? & How did the First Amendent protects him?

In my opinion, I think that john tinker rights were violated. It was violated in a way that Mr. tinker was not given the right to self expression on how he felt. According to the first amendment that was established in 1789, they violated his rights.

The First Amendment clearly states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_1.htm

Image Source:

http://theflipsideofthecoin.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/first-amendment.jpg

Mary Beth and John Tinker pose with the armbands they wore to school in protest of the Vietnam War.

Image Source:
http://www.band-of-rights.org/bandimages/armbands.jpg

Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

Facts:
Des Moines school district students, John Tinker, his sister Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Echardt, decided along with their parents to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school during the Christmas holiday season. The principal of Des Moines School District, upon learning of their intentions, warned all students wearing armbands to remove them or be suspended from school. Regardless of the principal's request, the Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, and they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.
Decision:
When the petitioners were wearing armbands at school they remained quiet and passive. They were not disruptive, and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Further, First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. In addition, a prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Conclusion:
In this case, the wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. In the school environment, it is implied that there are limitations to free speech, but in this case the principal lacked reasoning for imposing the limitation. The principal had failed to show that the conduct of the students would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.
Source: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2499583/case_brief_tinker_v_des_moines_independent.html?cat=17

why I choose this topic?

The reason i choose this topic because it would be interested to found out if our rights as students are protected inside school. It would be interested to know what help us in protecting our rights and do we have limits when it comes to our rights. I think this topic is important to student because student should know what are their right went it comes to Political Speech in Schools.