Free Speech in Schools Essay

The reclaim to publish fabric on ones My Space internet page is a total unspoiled contained in the Bill of Rights. The right to un remedyze linguistic colloquy is contained indoors the first Amendment to the US g overning body one of the main Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The first Amendment provides as follows Congress sh on the whole work up no ratifiedity respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the exemption of bringing, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the political sympathies for a redress of grievances.Freedom of bringing is married to exemption of facial gesture and bring ins the right to macrocosmly express ones thoughts, ideas and opinions without fear of censoring and/or punishment. The right to free terminology however is non all encompassing and does withdraw its restrictions such(prenominal)(prenominal) as obscenity and defamation within the public broadcast arena. An early try on for restrictions on free saving was formulated in the cheek of Schenck v. United relegates. Although the circumstances of the right to license of patois arose during World War 1, the formulated test is applicable in an catch case.In the Schenck case, the appellant mailed flyers out to draftees urging that they do non submit to intimidation. The missive was taken to mean a direct attempt by Schenck to discourage and obstruct recruitment. Sir Oliver Wendall Holmes, in delivering the unhurt decision of the US Supreme appeal held that the point in all(prenominal) case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to construct a clear and present danger that they will bring around the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is against this background that freedom of speech in relation to restrictions on a trailchilds display of drug or gang related material on his or her My Space website.Generally, a restriction of a savants right to publish material such as the civilizes insurance policy against publishing drug or gang related material on his or her My Space website is a violation of their source Amendment free speech rights. However, as will be discussed, private shoals have no legal obligation to comply with the First Amendment and are at liberty to experience policies such as the no drug, no gang related online publications by the pupil body.Challenging Free Speech Restrictions/Plan Ordinarily, a take exception to an infringement of constitutional rights can be pursued through the national chat up system which has jurisdiction over all matters relating to the constitution. For reasons that will be discussed later, this might not be the appropriate avenue to pursue in respect of private works since they do not come under the federal Government and are not bound as the Government is in respect of preserving the integrity of t he US Constitution. Students wishing to challenge the teachs no drugs, no gang publications may pursue a bite of alternative courses of action.They can secure the assistance of the media and various Civil Rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union. The general idea is to promote the logical argument that a trail as a place for learning and maturity has a duty to teach scholars to respect the provisions of the US Constitution and any(prenominal) policy within a school system that contravenes a scholars constitutional rights contradicts the schools duty. However, this can be countered by the school arguing that it has a right to promote a trustworthy image of its moral code and that a students publication of what amounts to base principles is uneven with the schools image sure as shooting students can bugger kill a case challenging the schools hard stance against online publications containing drug and gang-related material. However, whether or not they will be successful is another matter entirely. It is therefore important to examine what constitutes infringement of freedom of speech with a view to identifying which school policies and practices constitute a violation of the First Amendment before pursuing media attention. At the end of the day, a private school has a right to set policies and principles for its students and can enforce them.The question of fairness within the private school system is not a matter for the courts as will be borne out in the following passages. Freedom of Speech in High schooltimes Whether or not the proposed restrictions on My Space websites constitutes a violation of the students right to free speech has already been indirectly determined by the national Courts. The US Federal Court system has decided on set offs of freedom of speech within the public school system. There have been tierce cases of significance to the first amendment and its application to public schools.They are Tinker v stilbe strol Moines Independent Community School District, Bethel School District no(prenominal) 403 v. Fraser, and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. In Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District 393 U. S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733 (1969) determined the issue of freedom of mental synthesis which is closely tied in with the principle of free speech. In this case, students in an expression of disenchantment with the Vietnamese war wore certain armbands to school. When they were asked to remove the armbands and repudiated to do so they were suspended. They were not permitted to return to school unless and until they remote their armbands.The students refused to subscribe to the demands and as a resolving were suspended for an indefinite period. In an action brought by some of the students involved, the court of first instance command in favor of the schools authorities. On appeal to the eight Circuit Court of Appeal the lower courts command was affirmed. The students appe aled to the US Supreme Court which held that it can hardly be argued that each students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Moreover, the US Supreme Court added that In our system, state-operated chools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism.School officials do not possess supreme authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are . persons under our Constitution. They possess fundamental rights which the State moldiness respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. Be that as it may, the US Supreme Court set boundaries which have afterward been upheld.The US Supreme Court set forth guidelines pertaining to a students right to freedom of speech in the following term- If he does so without . aterially and self-colouredly interfering with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the mental process of the school and without colliding with the righ ts of others. . . . Conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reasonwhether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial dis ordinance or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. The US Supreme Court therefore held that the conduce of the students involved was proper in all the circumstances.The court would only recognize and indorse restrictions on freedom of speech when the exonerate was potentially profligate by those participating in it. In Bethel v. Fraser however, the US Supreme Court held that rules and regulations prohibiting the use of obscene language would not prohibit a students First Amendment right to free speech.The US Supreme Court ruled that the schools, as instruments of the state, may determine that the essential lessons of civil, mature conduct cannot be conveyed in a school that tolerates lewd, indecent, or of fensive speech and conduct such as that indulged in by this confused son . . . A high gear school assembly or classroom is no place for a sexually explicit monologue directed towards an unsuspecting audience of teenage students. Accordingly, it was perfectly appropriate for the school to disassociate itself to make the point to the pupils that vulgar speech and lewd conduct is wholly inconsistent with the fundamental values of public school education. In Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier 484 U. S. 260, 108 S. Ct. 62 (1988) the US Supreme Court ruled that a school was at liberty to edit the content of a students speech appearing in a school sponsored publication, to wit a newspaper. In distinguishing this case from the Tinker decision, the US Supreme Court explained that the Tinker case was decided on the propriety of muting a student in his freedom of expression so to speak. Whereas, in the Hazelwood case, the Court was dealing with a school-sponsored newspaper which presupposes that it is p ublished with the schools approval.The court explained its attitude as follows- The standard articulated in Tinker for determining when a school may punish student expression need not similarly be the standard for determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemination of student expression. Instead, we hold that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to allow pedagogical concerns.In making a decision in Poling v. Murphy 872 F. 2d 757 (6th Cir. 1989) the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal reconciled the rationale asshole the three US Supreme Court decisions cited above. In this case, Poling, a student at Unicoi County High School in Tennessee delivered a campaign speech in support of his attempt to be elected president of the schools student council. The speech was given at the school s assembly at which student attendance was mandatory unless an excused absence was previously obtained.Prior to delivering the speech, Poling was required to submit the speech to stave members for approval. The faculty members reviewing the speech said that they would approve the speech provided Poling removed a conviction which referred to the schools iron grip. Poling did not do as sensible and in fact he revised the sentence in question in such a way that he added to it making comments in reference to an assistant principal that was described by the principal as inappropriate, disruptive of school discipline, and in bad taste. As a result the school removed Poling from the electorate slate of candidates and he took the matter to court.The court at first instance ruled in favor of the school govern and Poling appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal. The appellate court in referring to ruling in Tinkers case said that tt is true, to be sure, that students do not . shed t heir constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,. and . school officials do not possess haughty authority over their students.. . . It also remains true, however, that the Federal Constitution does not compel . teachers, parents, and elected school officials to surrender control of the American public school system to public school students.. . . . Limitations on speech that would be unconstitutional outside the schoolhouse are not necessarily unconstitutional within it. The 6th Circuit Appeals Court went on to state that had Poling been permitted to make his speech in the manner that he would have liked to it would have given rise to legitimate pedagogical concerns. ecause . the art of stating ones views without indulging in personalities and without unnecessarily hurting the feelings of others surely has a legitimate place in any high school curriculum. . . The general position here is that although the First Amendment is directly applicable in the public school system, the Federal Court System does permit public schools to restrict free speech among the student body when free speech flagellumens to undermine disciplinary and educational principles.Therefore private to whom the First Amendment do not halt will have even more leeway in curb a students online publications. A Students First Amendment Right to Free Speech and Online Publications Generally speaking a students off campus conduct is not a matter for school officials provided it does not fail the Tinker material disruption test. The publication must also be able to stand up to the Hazelwood test which will permit censorship if the material appears on a school sponsored website.However, in a private boarding school, students are rarely off campus and drawing the line can be difficult. As long as the student is in the care of the school he is subject to the schools regulations. In American Public School Law by Alexander and Alexander reference is made to th e case of Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School district. In this case, Beussink, a student published a personal webpage on his own computer where he referred to the schools authorities in vulgar terms. The webpage was somehow brought to the attention of the schools authorities and Beussink was by and by suspended.He challenged his suspension via the US District Court. It was held that the suspension was unconstitutional and contravened the students right to free speech. The presiding judge went on to say that the high schools authorities failed to demonstrate that the suspension was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always come with an unpopular viewpoint. It has been held that off-campus conferences via the internet that constituted a true threat can be disciplined by the school district.However, in order for the true threat to come under the schools jurisdiction it must have a nexus with the school itself. When an off campu s communication does not contain a threat but nevertheless has a nexus with the school, whether or not the school can restrict that communication will have to examined in the context of the Tinker decision viz. the communication will have to be materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.