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 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.
The student’s parents sued the teacher and board for negligence as they failed to recognize the signs of suicide and failed to contact them. There are many laws that are associated with this case. First, in common law, teachers have a duty to act in loco parentis. They are expected to take the place of the parent and act in a careful and prudent manner. Ontario’s Education Act states that teachers owe a legal duty of care to their students.
“Bong Hits 4 Jesus” “Bong Hits for Jesus” is in reference to the 2002 freedom of speech case between Deborah Morse and Joseph Frederick. It all began when Morse, a high school principle, suspended 18-year-old Frederick after he displayed a banner that read “bong hits 4 Jesus” across the street from the school during the 2002 Olympic torch relay. As a result, Frederick sued, claiming that his constitutional right to freedom of speech was violated. His suit was dismissed by the federal district court, but on the appeal, the ninth circuit court reversed it, concluding that Frederick’s speech rights were violated. In the end, the court ruled in favor of Morse.
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.
The Schools are destroying Freedom of Speech According to the article written by John W. Whitehead, “The Schools are Destroying Freedom of Speech,” John W. Whitehead stated that teachers are hindering students from learning or being allowed to exercise their constitutional rights. Schools don’t have the right or authority to hinder students from not offend or cause harm to others. There were two occasions documented and went as far as to the Supreme Court, how teachers and administrations pulled the plug on several valedictorian students during graduations; while sharing a censored speech on their religion and their feelings, (John W. Whitehead, 2009). On occasions, teachers and administrators reviewed and had students to take out what they thought would affect the audience or what was against certain regulations of the school. However, the students felt the need to express their thoughts, ideas and feelings in the way they felt.
'Jesus Not Allowed': Anti-Faith Sentiment Sweeps US Angela Hildenbrand faced the very real possibility of going to jail for her faith. The trouble began when a federal judge ruled that no one at her Texas high school could pray or even use words like "prayer" or "amen" during the 2011 graduation ceremonies. As class valedictorian, Hildenbrand felt God deserved the praise, even if it meant jail for her. "I was definitely preparing myself to have to make that sort of tough decision and mentally prepare myself for what well could be coming next," she told CBN News. Hildenbrand's case is just one of more than 640 cases of religious hostility cited in a new report by the Liberty Institute.
An example of the previously stated assertion is in the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier case. A school principal censored a student newspaper by removing some of the articles prior to publication because he felt the some of the student’s body would feel uncomfortable and targeted by the topics. The students felt that the principal’s actions were unfair and violated their first amendment rights of freedom of speech and press. They took the case to court, and the decision was 5 to 3 with one jurier undecided in favor or the school district. This case shows how even though the students have freedom of speech and press if it will impact the audience or others negatively it isn’t allowed.
Prayer in the Public School System PHI 200 Instructor: March 21, 2011 The question of whether prayer should be allowed in the Public School System is a question that has been debated for many decades. The debate started in 1962 and runs still today. In this debate some have said that if all religions cannot be represented then none should be represented. Prayer in public schools became an issue in 1960: When Madalyn Murray O'Hair sued the Baltimore MD school system on behalf of her son William J Murray, because he was being forced to pray in school. Ultimately, her actions and the actions of the American Atheist Organization resulted in the Supreme Court ruling of 1962.
The first amendment in the Constitution of the United States encompasses many immutable rights of its people such as freedom of speech, assembly, press, and lastly, religion. In Engel v. Vitale for example, the Supreme court’s court unanimous decision is rooted in the establishment clause of the first amendment which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion.” In this pivotal case, aroused the anger of many parents who did not approve of prayer being recited by New York school children. Although it is not unconstitutional to pray in public schools, the Constitution does however forbid the encouragement of recitation in public schools. Therefore in an opinion delivered by Justice Hugo Black, the court reached a decision that encouragement