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.
Addressing Teacher Speech
In essence, following employment, teachers in public schools still retain some aspects of their First Amendment rights to free expression despite being public employees. As a matter of fact, the courts have in the past affirmed this position. For instance, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the court was categorical that it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate (Ross, 2015). It would, however, be prudent to note that the freedom of speech is in this case not absolute.
In the presented scenario, the statement made by the teacher about the principal is not only potentially damaging to her reputation, but also false. It therefore follows that the said teacher could be deviating from the limits of freedom of speech. To a large extent, her comments now border on libel and slander. In instances whereby there is a collision between speech and the rights of other people, or in scenarios whereby there is a real risk of significant disruption to the operations of the institution, then there may be grounds for censoring the teachers freedom of speech. This appears to be one such instance. In as far as disruption to the operations of the institution is concerned, it would be prudent to note that in some instances, protections of the First Amendment have been trumped by the need for order. This was largely the case in Bethel School District v Fraser. Although the case involved a student, it could also be applied to teachers as the context is largely the same and largely relates to the limits to the freedom of speech.
In the present scenario, therefore, there are grounds for either asking the concerned teacher to desist from maligning the name of the principal, or instituting the relevant disciplinary measures in accordance with the rules and standards of the institution.
References
Ross, C.J. (2015). Lessons in Censorship. Harvard University Press.
"[T]here remains a distinction between autonomy, the ability to think for oneself, and self-expression, the communicating of one's thoughts to others. Both are important components of our interest in free speech" (Lichtenberg, 336). Still some believe that any infringement upon the media would diminish the amount of true information disseminated into society. Truth, though, is filled with ambiguity and is intangible -- the "truth" of the media story is based
Freedom of Speech History of Case Gitlow v. New York Gitlow v.New York was a decision that was made by the supreme court of the United States on June 8, 1925 which ruled that the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States extended the reach of limitations of the federal government authority that that had been set in the First amendment. The specific provisions were protection of freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is a human right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Yet, in the worlds of public and private employment, employers have some limited rights with regard to the things their employees can say. These generally differ for public and private employees. The main basis for this difference is the fact that public employees offer their services to the Government, which in turn is to act in
Freedom of Speech and Art "Freedom of speech' is a fundamental right of citizens of the United States. The constitution grants complete freedom of speech under the First Amendment which 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
Freedom of Speech In 1776, the United States Constitution was signed to protect the freedoms of every American and to solidify the rights that so many were currently fighting for. It was the government that implemented ways for everyone to have equal rights to express what ever they deemed appropriate without the fear of there being repercussions for their actions. That is no longer the case. The government now, instead of
Which is the better course of action, Lawrence might ask himself. Should we censor the Westboro Baptist Church and forbid them their right to free speech, or should we allow them to express their wacky, and perhaps injurious views, and fight back with words of compassion, caring, and support. Just because we would like to make a knee-jerk, reactionary law and censor them does not make it the right