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