“Neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” - Justice Abe Fortas (1)
For this case, the Tinker family and friends chose Dan L. Johnston. A firm believer of the right of free speech, Johnston argued that the students had done nothing wrong. (2) He explained to the court that there was no evidence of a disturbance during the time John, Mary Beth, and Christopher wore their armbands, that the school board did not ban all political or controversial items in school, and that a school was a place for learning and expression of one's self. During the case, Johnston focused on these ideas to prove that the students had committed no wrong. (3)
While there was no evidence that the armbands had caused any disturbance, the three students explained how some students and faculty members treated them with disrespect. Christopher Eckhardt explained to the Court that the football captain told him to take his armband off or he would take it off for him and how the nurse refused to treat him after he had been beat up by a group of students during the school. (4) During the case, Mary Beth spoke out against the school district and explained to the Court how a couple of years earlier, the High School principals had allowed students to wear black armbands that had the Nazi symbol on them. She also reminded the Court how earlier in the year (1965), the school had allowed students to wear black clothing to mourn the loss of american lives in Vietnam. (5)
The case came down to a fundamental question, "Do the First Amendment rights of free speech extend to symbolic speech by students in public schools? And, if so, in what circumstances is that symbolic speech protected? The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." The Fourteenth Amendment extends this rule to state governments as well, of which school systems are a part. The First Amendment, however, does not identify which kinds of speech are protected." (6)
For starters, neither Amendment specifies what types of expressive actions should be considered as speech. Yet, as American citizens, each person is supposed to have their rights no matter what age the are. (7) Johnston argued that the founding fathers drafted this Constitution for everyone and not just for adults. Since there was no proof that said other wise, the First Amendment should extend to everyone. First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It cannot be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. (8) A school is place of expression and should not violate the First Amendment under any case. (9)
"Although I agree with much of what is said in the Court's opinion, and with its judgment in this case, I cannot share the Court's uncritical assumption that, school discipline aside, the First Amendment rights of children are co-extensive with those of adults. Indeed, I had thought the Court decided otherwise just last Term in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629. I continue to hold the view I expressed in that case: "State may permissibly determine that, at least in some precisely delineated areas, a child--like someone in a captive audience--is not possessed of that full capacity for individual choice which is the presupposition of First Amendment guarantees." "- Justice Stewert (10)
(1) - Justice Abe Fortas, as quoted in, Education for Freedom, Lesson plans for teaching the First Amendment, Case Summary: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , 2007 , http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricular/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L08-CasesSummaryTinker.htm'
(2) - YouTube.com , "40th Anniversary of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District." , 24 Feb. 2009 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wjBoo1s8ik'
(3) - Ibid
(4) - U.S Supreme Court, "Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)." , 1968. Case (21) (Boston College N.p., 12 Nov. 1968.
(5) - Ibid
(6) - Ibid
(7) - Landmark cases of the Supreme Court, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)Student Speech, Symbolic Speech , http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/tinker_v_des_moines
(8) - U.S Supreme Court, "Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)." , 1968. Case (21) (Boston College N.p., 12 Nov. 1968.
(9) - Landmark cases of the Supreme Court, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)Student Speech, Symbolic Speech , http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/tinker_v_des_moines
(10) - U.S Supreme Court, "Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)." , 1968. Case (21) (Boston College N.p., 12 Nov. 1968.
For this case, the Tinker family and friends chose Dan L. Johnston. A firm believer of the right of free speech, Johnston argued that the students had done nothing wrong. (2) He explained to the court that there was no evidence of a disturbance during the time John, Mary Beth, and Christopher wore their armbands, that the school board did not ban all political or controversial items in school, and that a school was a place for learning and expression of one's self. During the case, Johnston focused on these ideas to prove that the students had committed no wrong. (3)
While there was no evidence that the armbands had caused any disturbance, the three students explained how some students and faculty members treated them with disrespect. Christopher Eckhardt explained to the Court that the football captain told him to take his armband off or he would take it off for him and how the nurse refused to treat him after he had been beat up by a group of students during the school. (4) During the case, Mary Beth spoke out against the school district and explained to the Court how a couple of years earlier, the High School principals had allowed students to wear black armbands that had the Nazi symbol on them. She also reminded the Court how earlier in the year (1965), the school had allowed students to wear black clothing to mourn the loss of american lives in Vietnam. (5)
The case came down to a fundamental question, "Do the First Amendment rights of free speech extend to symbolic speech by students in public schools? And, if so, in what circumstances is that symbolic speech protected? The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." The Fourteenth Amendment extends this rule to state governments as well, of which school systems are a part. The First Amendment, however, does not identify which kinds of speech are protected." (6)
For starters, neither Amendment specifies what types of expressive actions should be considered as speech. Yet, as American citizens, each person is supposed to have their rights no matter what age the are. (7) Johnston argued that the founding fathers drafted this Constitution for everyone and not just for adults. Since there was no proof that said other wise, the First Amendment should extend to everyone. First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It cannot be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. (8) A school is place of expression and should not violate the First Amendment under any case. (9)
"Although I agree with much of what is said in the Court's opinion, and with its judgment in this case, I cannot share the Court's uncritical assumption that, school discipline aside, the First Amendment rights of children are co-extensive with those of adults. Indeed, I had thought the Court decided otherwise just last Term in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629. I continue to hold the view I expressed in that case: "State may permissibly determine that, at least in some precisely delineated areas, a child--like someone in a captive audience--is not possessed of that full capacity for individual choice which is the presupposition of First Amendment guarantees." "- Justice Stewert (10)
(1) - Justice Abe Fortas, as quoted in, Education for Freedom, Lesson plans for teaching the First Amendment, Case Summary: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , 2007 , http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricular/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L08-CasesSummaryTinker.htm'
(2) - YouTube.com , "40th Anniversary of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District." , 24 Feb. 2009 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wjBoo1s8ik'
(3) - Ibid
(4) - U.S Supreme Court, "Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)." , 1968. Case (21) (Boston College N.p., 12 Nov. 1968.
(5) - Ibid
(6) - Ibid
(7) - Landmark cases of the Supreme Court, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)Student Speech, Symbolic Speech , http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/tinker_v_des_moines
(8) - U.S Supreme Court, "Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)." , 1968. Case (21) (Boston College N.p., 12 Nov. 1968.
(9) - Landmark cases of the Supreme Court, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)Student Speech, Symbolic Speech , http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/tinker_v_des_moines
(10) - U.S Supreme Court, "Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)." , 1968. Case (21) (Boston College N.p., 12 Nov. 1968.