The First Amendment and Public Schools
-
Upload
steve-woodward -
Category
Education
-
view
849 -
download
1
description
Transcript of The First Amendment and Public Schools
![Page 1: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The First Amendment and Public Schools
Key Supreme Court Cases
Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969Bethel v. Fraser, 1986
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 1988Morse v. Frederick, 2007
![Page 2: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
![Page 3: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
In December 1965, Sen. Robert Kennedy called for a truce in the Vietnam War
![Page 4: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
Several students and their parentssupported the truce proposal.
![Page 5: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
The Tinkers were a family of peace activists
![Page 6: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
The students decidedto show support for the truce
by wearing...
![Page 7: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
![Page 8: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
The students setThursday, Dec. 16, 1965,as the day they would all
wear black armbandsin support of the truce
![Page 9: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
Getting wind of the plan,the district's secondary school principals
met on Tuesday, Dec. 14, andagreed to suspend any student
who refused to remove an armband
![Page 10: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
(Not the actual Des Moines principals)
![Page 11: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
Five students were suspended for wearing armbands.
Three of them took their case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court:
Christopher Eckhardt, 16 John Tinker, 15 Mary Beth Tinker, 13
![Page 13: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
The big question:
Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?
![Page 14: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
The court began by asking itself:
![Page 15: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
The court began by asking itself:
Were the black armbands a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment?
![Page 16: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
The answer:
Yes, the armbands were a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.
![Page 17: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
The court then asked itself:
Does a school have the power to restrict that speech in the interest of maintaining order?
![Page 18: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
The answer:
Yes, if that speech posed... “A material and substantial interference with
schoolwork or discipline” or An invasion of other people's rights
![Page 19: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
The court ruled that the armbands did NOT pose:
“A material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline” or
An invasion of other people's rights
![Page 20: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
Therefore, in 1969,the Supreme Court ruled 7-2
in favor of the students
![Page 21: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
“It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
– Justice Abe Fortas
Champion of children's rights
![Page 22: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Summarizing School Speech
“Tinker” still stands:Students are free to speak
unlessthe speech interferes substantially
with schoolwork or discipline.
![Page 23: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Summarizing School Speech
However...
![Page 24: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Summarizing School Speech
Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have eroded away some of Tinker's protections
![Page 25: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Bethel v. Fraser
![Page 26: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Bethel v. Fraser
The scene:
Bethel High School Spanaway, Wash., 1983 A 600-student assembly Matthew Fraser, a senior, nominated a fellow
student for student body vice president
![Page 27: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Bethel v. Fraser
The speech was filled with sexual innuendos
![Page 28: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Bethel v. Fraser
![Page 29: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Bethel v. Fraser
Fraser was disciplined for violatingthe school's “disruptive conduct rule”
![Page 30: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Bethel v. Fraser
Fraser's discipline consisted of the following: Three-day suspension Prohibition from speaking at graduation Removal from the ballot used to elect three
graduation speakers
![Page 31: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Bethel v. Fraser
The school defined “disruptive conduct”as conduct that substantially interferes
with the educational process,including the use of obscene,profane language or gestures.
![Page 32: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Bethel v. Fraser
Fraser filed a federal lawsuitagainst the Bethel School District,
alleging violation of hisFirst Amendment rights
![Page 33: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Bethel v. Fraser
The U.S. District Court in Seattle ruled in favor of Fraser.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in favor of Fraser.
Bethel School District appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
![Page 34: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Bethel v. Fraser
The big question:
Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly?
![Page 35: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Bethel v. Fraser
The court first asked itself:
Was Matthew Fraser's speech the highest form of protected speech?
That is, was it pure speech, mixed speech-and-action, or symbolic speech?
![Page 36: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Bethel v. Fraser
The answer:
No, it was lower-valued speech because of its profane, erotic content.
![Page 37: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Bethel v. Fraser
The answer:
No, it was lower-valued speech because of its profane, erotic content.
Lower-valued speech gets intermediate scrutiny from the court.
![Page 38: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Bethel v. Fraser
Intermediate scrutiny means:
The law furthers an important government interest. The government's interest is unrelated to
suppression of free expression. The restrictions imposed are no greater than
necessary.
![Page 39: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Bethel v. Fraser
In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2in favor of Bethel School District
![Page 40: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Bethel v. Fraser
The court ruled that:
Schools had an important interest in shielding younger children from vulgar and lewd speech.
Vulgar and lewd speech was inconsistent with the “fundamental values of public school education.”
![Page 41: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
![Page 42: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The scene:
Hazelwood East High School Hazelwood, Mo., 1983 The Spectrum, Hazelwood's student newspaper,
prepares to publish articles on teen pregnancy and divorce
The paper changed names of the quoted students to protect their identities
![Page 43: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
“Sixteen-year-old Sue had it all — good looks, good grades, a loving family and a
cute boyfriend. She also had a seven pound baby boy.”
![Page 44: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The school principal killed the articlesbefore they could be published,fearing the students could be identified
![Page 45: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The principal also felt that
younger students should not be
exposedto discussions of
birth controland that parents
should be allowedto respond to articles about
divorce
![Page 46: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Spectrum Editor Cathy Kuhlmeier andreporters Leslie Smart and Leanne Tippettfiled a federal lawsuit, alleging violation
of their First Amendment rights
![Page 47: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The U.S. District Court in St. Louis ruled against the students, saying that schools had a right to censor student speech if: The activities were “integral” to the school's
educational function, and The censorship has “a substantial and
reasonable basis”
![Page 48: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, also in St. Louis, overruled the district court in favor of the students.
![Page 49: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, also in St. Louis, overruled the district court.
The appeals court declared that The Spectrum was a public forum, “intended to be and operated as a conduit for student viewpoint”
![Page 50: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, also in St. Louis, overruled the district court.
The appeals court declared that The Spectrum was a public forum, “intended to be and operated as a conduit for student viewpoint”
Public forums require that courts use strict scrutiny when reviewing a law's constitutionality
![Page 51: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Strict scrutiny requires that the law be:
![Page 52: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Strict scrutiny requires that the law be: Necessary to achieve a compelling government
interest.
![Page 53: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Strict scrutiny requires that the law be: Necessary to achieve a compelling government
interest. Narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.
![Page 54: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The question for the Supreme Court:
Who was right: the district court, which supported the schools, or the appeals court, which supported the students?
![Page 55: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The court considered the Tinker decision:
Students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
![Page 56: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The court also considered the Bethel decision:
“A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission.”
![Page 57: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
To reach its decision, the court needed to answer the question at the heart of the case:
Was The Spectrum a “public forum”?
![Page 58: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
In other words,was The Spectrum considered
a place where studentsopenly exchanged viewpoints?
![Page 59: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
If The Spectrum was a public forum,the principal's censorship would have to pass
the highest standard of strict scrutiny
![Page 60: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The court's answer:
No, Hazelwood's student newspaper was NOT a “public forum.”
School-sponsored newspapers, theatrical productions and other school-sponsored expression was lower-valued speech, subject to restrictions.
![Page 61: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The court said that as long as...
![Page 62: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The court said that as long as... The activity is sponsored by the school
![Page 63: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The court said that as long as... The activity is sponsored by the school The school's actions are reasonably related to
legitimate “pedagogical” (educational) concerns, and
![Page 64: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The court said that as long as... The activity is sponsored by the school The school's actions are reasonably related to
legitimate “pedagogical” (educational) concerns, and
The activity or publication is not a public forum for student expression...
![Page 65: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Then...
![Page 66: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Schools can censor student speech that is... Ungrammatical Poorly written Inadequately researched Biased or prejudiced Vulgar or profane Unsuitable for immature audiences, or Advocates “conduct otherwise inconsistent with the
shared values of the civilized social order”
![Page 67: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The court's decision was 5-3
in favor of the school district
![Page 68: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Does the Hazelwood decisionapply to all schools?
![Page 69: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
No
“Hazelwood” does not apply to schools that let their student publications operate as public forums, in which students make all decisions about content.
![Page 70: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Public-forum publications can be censored...
ONLY
...if the school can show they will cause a “material and substantial disruption” of school activities
![Page 71: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Schools also cannot censor student publications published off-campus without school sponsorship
![Page 72: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
Morse v. Frederick
![Page 73: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Morse v. Frederick
The scene:
Juneau, Alaska, 2002 Olympic Torch Relay attended by Juneau-Douglas
High School students as a field trip Joseph Frederick, a senior, unfurled a banner saying
“Bong Hits 4 Jesus” The principal told Frederick to put away the banner.
He refused.
![Page 74: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Morse v. Frederick
The principal confiscated the banner and suspended Frederick for 10 days.
She said Frederick's actions violatedschool policy, which forbids advocating
the use of illegal drugs.
![Page 75: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
Morse v. Frederick
Frederick filed a federal lawsuit againstthe school principal, Deborah Morse.
![Page 76: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Morse v. Frederick
The question for the courts:
Can school authorities stop students from expressing views that may be interpreted as promoting illegal drug use?
![Page 77: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
Morse v. Frederick
The U.S. District Court in Alaska ruled in favor of Morse, the principal.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in favor of Frederick, the student.
The principal appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
![Page 78: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Once again, the court considered the Tinker decision:
Students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
![Page 79: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The court also considered the Bethel decision:
“A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission.”
![Page 80: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The court also considered the Kuhlmeier decision:
The rights of students are applied “in light of the special characteristics of the school environment”
![Page 81: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
Morse v. Frederick
In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3in favor of Morse, the school principal
![Page 82: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
Morse v. Frederick
The court's reasoning: The speech was not political in nature “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” reasonably could be
viewed as promoting illegal drug use The school had an “important” if not
“compelling” interest in prohibiting or punishing student speech that promotes illegal drug use
![Page 83: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
Morse v. Frederick
Justice Clarence Thomas further argued that “Tinker” should be overturned.
He said the First Amendment was not meant to protect student speech in public schools.
![Page 84: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Morse v. Frederick
Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito cautioned that the decision could be used to punish those advocating constitutionally permissible, but unpopular, political ideas, such as legalizing medical marijuana use.
![Page 85: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
Morse v. Frederick
Justice John Paul Stevens disagreed with the majority because: The school banned speech
based on its content. Frederick's banner was too
vague to assume it promoted illegal drug use.
![Page 86: The First Amendment and Public Schools](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070303/5498bcbcb479593b038b476d/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
Summarizing School Speech
“Tinker” still stands: Students are free to speak unless the speech interferes substantially with schoolwork or discipline – and except if the speech is: Lewd (“Bethel”) Takes place in a school-sponsored publication or
performance (“Hazelwood”) Promotes illegal drug use (“Morse”)