Supreme Court
Rights in Public Schools
Home
Corporations
Inheritance
Rights in Public Schools
Reagan Fascism vs the Warren Court
Roberts emerges as another Rehnquist
Second Amendment
Exclusionary Rule
Hudson vs MI, a Summary of the Exclusionary Rule
The Fifth Amendment
Right of Privacy
The Death Penalty
Contact Me

First Amendment Rights

Morse vs Frederick
BONG HITS 4 JESUS
banner advocated illegal drug use in violation of school policy
Roberts + Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito
Held: Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick.
 
Tinker vs Des Moines 1969  "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the schools" was the test, the standard
Bethel School District vs Fraser upheld suspension for a speech employing "an elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor" 1986
Principles
1 The constitutional rights of students in public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings"
2 Tinker's mode of analysis is not absolute, leaving out "substantial disruption"
Hazelwood School District vs Kuhlmeier 1988
"must be applied in light of the special circumstances of the school environment"
 
Thomas  overrule Tinker
Uncle Clarence thinks that public schools should be the same fascist dictatorships that he and I endured in parochial Catholic schools!
 
Alito limited this opinion to: hold a public school may restrict speech interpreted as advocating illegal drug useand provide no supposrt for any restiction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue...
 
Stevens + Souter, and Ginsburg
The message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressively advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to sutdents
Tinker
1 Censorship based on the content of speech, particularly censorship that depends on the viewpoint of the speaker, is subject to the most rigorous burden of justicifiation
2 Punishing someone for advocating illegal conduct is constitituional only when the advocacy is likely to provoke the harm the government seeks to avoid
Brandenburg vs OH 1969 (the Ku Klux Klan case)
 
Beyer
simply hold qualified immunity bars the sudent's claim for monetary damages and nothing more, especially on the First Amendment

In other words, the reactionaries are slowly abandoning Tinker for more excuses to violate First rights in public schools.  Note that Roberts keeps opening the door to more oppressive standards.  New Jersey vs GTO was an assult on Fourth rights, simolar to the lack of them I had in Catholic school.  In essence, the rights of students in public schools are in peril, because the Tinker standrd is ignored.  The fact that the majoirty asssumed that "Bong HIts 4 Jesus" was a promotion of illegal druge use goes with the old reactionaries in the begiing of the last century who allowed almost any kind of suppression of First rights regading the subject of Communism or Socialism.

supremecourt1967.jpg

My favorite Supreme Court from 1967, going the same way as above:
Chief Justice Earl Warren in center
Hugo Black to his right. (1937)
William O Douglas to his left (1939)
John Marshall Harlan right of Black (1955)
Willaim Brennan left of Douglas (1956)
Potter Stewart (1958)
Byron White (1962)
Abe Fortas (1965)
Thurgood Marshall (1967)
Although I'd prefer Arthur Goldberg instead of Fortas.