Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Many a times schools & educational institutions exercise control in different affairs related to its curricula, extra curricular activities and even in-house publications. The administration however can not take this exception for granted and have to prove that their control does not blatantly impinge upon the rights given to students by the First & the Fourth amendment of the constitution.
First Amendment Right to Schools: Just like First amendment gives rights to the students similarly the same laws give rights to schools to promote particular student speech. They have the right to control "school sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school."
Analysis:
Case of Tinker is one of the most famous cases...
In fact, this one case became a torchbearer of sorts in terms of future lawsuit by students and parent and the decision taken by court. The judge in this case granted students the freedom of expression given to them by First Amendment. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas used these words in the case, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their rights at the schoolhouse gate... In our system, state-operated schools may not be the enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students." However, Supreme Court did not give this right to students in absolute terms mentioning that school can restrict certain aspects if they find them to disorder the normal functions of school and classroom life. Same happened when Hazelwood tried to control the publication with respect to sensitive issues.
What this amounted to was a reasonableness test. As long as an educator's actions were reasonable related to retaining order in school, then an educator could censor a school-sponsored publication. Reynolds had legitimate reasons for censoring the articles. He was concerned that anonymous sources would be identifiable from the context of one of the articles, and that could lead to disruptions in the classroom. He was also concerned about
The officials did not show any intent to allow indiscriminate use by student reporters, editors, or other students, and so were entitled to regulate the paper's contents in any reasonable manner (Hazelwood pp). The standard for determining when a school may punish student expression that occurs on school premises is not the standard for determining when a school may refuse to "lend its name and resources to the dissemination
D. joined the Majority. Justices Blackmun, H.A. And Powell, L.F. wrote a special and regular concurrence respectively. In addition to voting with the majority, O'Connor S.D. joined Powel's concurrence. Writing Dissenting Opinion(s): Stevens, J.P. filed a dissenting opinion in which Marshall, T. And Brennan, W.J joined. Brennan also filed a separate dissenting opinion in which Marshall T. joined. Case 5 Citation: Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (2000) Argued: March 29, 2000 Date
Here, the Plaintiff and all of the members of the God Squad were arrested and removed from school property by police. The police acted on probable cause that the group was inciting violence on school property after observing their offensive and disruptive behavior. Additionally, the Plaintiff was given an arraignment, charged with trespassing, disturbing the peace, and inciting a riot, and was released on bail to the custody of his parents.
The student journalists sued, citing the Tinker standard (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988). The issue in this case, while similar to those of Tinker and Fraser, differed in that the question was not about "obviously inappropriate" language, or about viewpoint discrimination. Instead, the issue was whether a school official had the right to censor school-sponsored publications if they believe the material is inappropriate for some students, or that the
Caselaw.findlaw.com);in Guiles v. Marineau (2006) (No. 05-0327 2nd Cir. Court) the Court of Appeals ruled that the school "violated a student's free speech" by disciplining him for wearing a T-shirt that criticized George W. Bush and used images of drugs and alcohol (www.NSBA.org);Roberts alluded to Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (No. 86-836) (484 U.S. 260) (1988), in which a student newspaper was censored because of an article on pregnancy, as justification for