In the course of discovery, the School Board members who voted to remove the books acknowledged that they had not read many of the books and that they removed them because they exposed students to the "religion of witchcraft." The ultimate questions: Do students have a right to read? Does book censorship violate the First Amendment and at the expense of who? As the final verdict on April 22, 2003, the Supreme Court ordered the return of the books back to library shelves. Background Information The Court cited the Tinker case and ruled that there was no evidence that reasonably showed substantial disruption or material interference with school activities if students were allowed unfettered access to the books.
He claimed that was another issue he had with the district. He filled a motion to release him from segregation. The district denied his motion stating that he was not segregated due to his religion, but due to several fights he had with prison guards in prior years. Copper argued the since prisoners are not permitted to attend religious services while in segregation, keeping him in segregation is a deprivation of his religious freedom. DECISION The Supreme Court reversed, holding that plaintiff Cooper’s complaint did state a cause of action.
Reasons given to these suspensions was that the school system did not allow for students to wear armbands in school. The parents filed a case against the Des Moines school system stating that they had violated the teenagers rights to peaceful protest and to freedom of speech. Tinker vs Des Moines reached the Supreme Court where they ruled in favor of Tinker saying that forcing them to stop a peaceful protest, that did not interrupt learning at the schools, by attempting to remove the armbands did infringe on the kids first and fourteenth amendment rights. Tinker V Des Moines outcome set precedent for future cases involving public school systems and First amendment rights, such as the Easton Area School District appeal to the US Supreme Court to uphold their ban on the "I Love Boobies" bracelets that many students in there schools were wearing. The board voted seven to one against the schools appeal stating that the students were wearing the bracelets for charity and that to ask them to remove them would violate
The Supreme Court ended up ruling that Phelps and his protesters were cleared and covered by the first amendment right (“Snyder vs. Phelps”). The Supreme Court’s decision was wrong because they should not be protected by the first amendment, the time, place and manner of their protest was inappropriate, Fred Phelps and Westboro violates Kant’s reversibility criterion. The first reason why Supreme Court was wrong is because Fred Phelps broke the first amendment. According to dictionary.com, the first amendment to the U.S. constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from interfering with freedom of religion, speech, assembly, or petition. However United States Supreme Court has recognized that the right to speak is not equal at all times and in all
The two parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses and in their religion states that you shall not have blood of another. So for the parents having the blood transfusion administered to their child was against their moral values, conscience, against their religion and also completely against their beliefs. So from the parents’ point of view they had the right not to administrate the transfusion. The transfusion was made anyway because the child welfare act states that a child in need of protection will be immediately be taking care of. The decision was made that the child was to be ward of the court.
"The Constitution forbids the state to exact religious conformity from a student as the price of attending her own high school graduation," the court said then. The ruling was viewed by many as a strong reaffirmation of the highest court's 1962 decision banning organized, officially sponsored prayers from public schools. But in 1993, the justices refused to review a federal appeals court ruling in a Texas case that allowed student-led prayers at graduation ceremonies. That appeals court ruling, which is binding law in Louisiana and Mississippi, conflicts with another federal appeals court's decision barring student-led graduation prayers in nine Western states. (Prayer in public school, 2010) In Colonial America the schools were mostly run by the
The Board of Education meant for the prayer to be non offensive and non denominational but the prayer began to receive negative attention. Parents of some of the students filed legal action and lost in lower court and continued on to file an appeal to the Supreme Court. The legal question that the Supreme Court faced was; does the use of this prayer violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment which was made applicable to the states by the 14th amendment? The Supreme Court upheld that yes; the prayer does violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. The Court defended its decision with a lengthy history of the importance of separation between church and state.
Schemmp still felt like this was still unfair and pursued the suing of Arbington School District. He said that the modifying of the law still does not change the law being unconstitutional. As a result of the changing
I feel this is a strong premise to support the conclusion that administrators censor what students write in their publications. The author also discusses an incident in which a principal would not allow a student’s photograph to be included in the schools yearbook because the student was dressed in a medieval costume and holding a prop sword. The principal claimed that the photo violated the no weapons policy of the school (Schools fail, 2007). This premise supports the conclusion, since even though the student was not directly breaking any rules and not causing harm to any other students, the principal still had the power to censor a harmless photograph. Included in the essay, the author also speaks about support in the direction of the students.
Steven Alvarado POL 100 Prof. Brown Assignment on Civil Liberties—Free Speech and the First Amendment (1) After reading the two articles I came to the conclusion that the student’s freedom of speech was violated. I don’t think she should’ve gotten into trouble for creating a Facebook page about a teacher, and her teaching methods. I think the only way someone can get in trouble for making a Facebook page is, if they planned to physically hurt someone or a business. This certain Facebook page didn’t even create a ‘disruption’ at school. The ‘disruption’ came from the school itself after suspending the student.