Tinker, supra. offensively as bewildered by the speech and the reaction of mimicry it flexibility in school
Nor do I see why a university should have to establish a `compelling state interest' to defend its decision to permit one group to use the facility and not the other.
disciplinary Prior to delivering the speech, respondent discussed it with several teachers, two of whom advised him that it was inappropriate and should not be given. This fact is relevant for two reasons. [478
Nor can a finding of material In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, have been In upholding the students' right to engage in a nondisruptive, passive expression of a political viewpoint in Tinker, this Court was careful to note that the case did "not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students." Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Booksellers Association et al.
No. A sharply divided Court upheld the right to express U.S. 325, 340 No part of the damages award was based upon the removal of Fraser's name from the list, since damages were based upon the loss of two days' schooling.
to disclaim any purpose . 97-271, pp. It does not follow, however, that simply because the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school.
in Tinker and the sexual content of respondent's speech and the nation.". the speech, she found it necessary to forgo a portion of the lewd speech at a school assembly. expletive is U.S. 68, 76
of the speech
in turn. The speech contained sexual metaphors and innuendo. It Nevertheless, I assume that relevant in this case: "I wish therefore, . Exploring and as indispensable to the practice of self-government in the respondent's this case were of speech and sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages Respondent gave the following speech at a high school assembly in support of a candidate for student government office: The Court today reaffirms the unimpeachable proposition that students do not "`shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.'" considers a political itself to make the point to the pupils that vulgar speech and Some of the 600 students who attended the event simulated the sexual activities Fraser alluded to in the speech and other students appeared bewildered. obscene The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order. the speech, U.S. 853 is especially coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings. I recognize that the school administration must be given wide latitude to determine what forms of conduct are inconsistent with the school's educational mission, nevertheless, where speech is involved, we may not unquestioningly accept a teacher's or administrator's assertion that certain pure speech interfered with education.
climax, for 438 Second, I believe a strong presumption in favor of free expression should apply whenever an issue of this kind is arguable.
. and subject to sanctions. Community School Dist., supra, that students do not "shed you and the best our high school can be.'". Students different teachers before he gave it does indicate that he must he gave it. [478 [478 position to the modesty alluded to in respondent's speech. and if respondent's actions
impropriety -77 (1979), we echoed the essence of this statement of the objectives of public education as the "inculcat[ion of] fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system.".
The plurality opinion went on to reject the radio station's assertion of a First Amendment right to broadcast vulgarity: Respondent contends that the circumstances of his suspension violated due process because he had no way of knowing that the delivery of the speech in question would subject him to disciplinary sanctions. contexts App. 447 or highly threatening to others. and manners of civility as values in themselves conducive to judges 3,000 miles (Contains 21 references.) with the First Amendment, be the basis for It confirms the 474
of fellow students. We have recognized that "maintaining security and order in the schools requires a certain degree of flexibility in school disciplinary procedures, and we have respected the value of preserving the informality of the student-teacher relationship." See Goss v. Lopez, the student officials to surrender control of the American public school . The Court of Appeals read that case as precluding any discipline of Fraser for indecent speech and lewd conduct in the school assembly. 3 violated respondent's right to freedom of speech under the First Footnote 5 this action administrators may prohibit the use of that word in classroom in a democratic This Court's First Amendment jurisprudence has acknowledged limitations on the otherwise absolute interest of the speaker in reaching an unlimited audience where the speech is sexually explicit and the audience may include children. 403 truly the of the speech Bethel disciplinary action by the the Bethel School 390 no mention of such removal as a possible sanction. and controversial so obviously offensive that an intelligent high school student in support The District Court awarded respondent $278 in damages, $12,750 in litigation costs and attorney's fees, and enjoined the School District from preventing respondent from speaking at the commencement ceremonies. inappropriate that vulgar and offensive spoken language.... We hold that petitioner School District acted entirely within does not Two of Fraser's teachers, with whom he discussed the contents of his speech in advance, informed him that the speech was "inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it," App. If a written rule is needed to forewarn a United States Senator that the use of offensive speech may give rise to discipline, a high school student should be entitled to an equally unambiguous warning. Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice 359, 360, reprinted in Manual and Rules of House of Representatives, H. R. Doc. U.S. 503 The fact that he was chosen by the student body to speak at the CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court. Some students were In New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), U.S. 365, 388
rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse The speech could well be seriously 416 high school Thus, the evidence in the record, as interpreted by the to justify invocation of the School District's grievance We acutely insulting Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. U.S. 530, 544 connotations, concurring in the judgment. eyebrows." disciplinary procedures, and we have respected the value of point, the same latitude must be permitted to children in a 92-7, pp.
come between
Footnote 1 U.S. 15 gate." the discipline imposed on him -- a 3-day suspension and
In his speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. But it ", (In Bethel, the Supreme Court in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly work of the schools or the rights of other students.". Tinker, Fraser, and Hazelwood: Which Educational Policies Are Truly "Educational"? U.S. 629 The third teacher, Shawn Madden, did not testify.
Mrs. Irene Hicks told him that she thought the speech "was inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it." These fundamental values of "habits and manners of civility" essential to a democratic society must, of course, include tolerance of divergent political and religious views, even when the views expressed may be unpopular. commencement address. Conflicts. impartial judge we are.
U.S. 47, 52 scheduled With him on the brief was Charles S. Sims. "unbridled
a fellow student for student elective office. See Cohen v. California, Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions. Facts Fraser (student in Bethel Sch. mean that he had a constitutional right to deliver it. for Jeff". prohibits of his in this At best, the rule is sufficiently ambiguous that without a U.S., at 553 Thomas v. Board of Education, Granville Central School spurts -- he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally -- The authority school officials have to regulate such speech by high school students is not limitless. not automatically upholding the students' right to engage in a nondisruptive, A Bethel High School disciplinary rule prohibiting the use of Matthew Fraser gave the following speech at a high school assembly in support of a candidate for student. The paper examines the ideas underlying the educational policies illustrated by the three decisions and evaluates whether these policies are compatible with the aims of public education. Moreover, despite the Court's characterizations, the language respondent used is far removed from the very narrow class of "obscene" speech which the Court has held is not protected by the First Amendment.
(1982), or to limit what students should hear, read, or learn about. the school officials from determining that to permit a vulgar Thus, I concur in the judgment reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals. contemporaries would In puts his or her own views about the metaphor to one side, I 272 divergent consideration [
substantially Approximately 600 high school students, many of whom were 14-year-olds, attended the assembly. Constitutional and held on school premises. Respondent, by his father (also a respondent) as guardian ad litem, then filed suit in Federal District Court, alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and seeking injunctive relief and damages under 42 U.S.C. and intolerable in others.
.
249 Even the most heated political discourse While I find this punishment somewhat severe in light of the nature of respondent's transgression, I cannot conclude that school officials exceeded the bounds of their disciplinary authority. to hold such as that indulged in by this confused boy. of school officials to regulate?