HS student punished for saying " build the wall"

[Call Sign Chaos]

cabe su boca, kiddo.

No causing disturbances in school.

He didn't cause a disturbance. The latinos who objected to him giving his opinion caused the trouble. THINK

it's a school

YOu have no freedom of speech in school

Some one tells you to leave them alone...YOu leave them alone

WHat the fuck are you talking about, have you ever been in an American public school?

Just making noise period can get you punished, lol

You're dumber than a bag of fucking rocks:


Majority opinion Tinker v Des Moines
The court's 7–2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District - Wikipedia

"Teacher call sign chaos won't shut the fuck up, tell him to leave me alone"

"call sign chaos shut the fuck up or go talk to some one who wants to hear you"

"no fuck you bitch build the wall"

That's how you get punished. Even without the cuss words

It could be jsut for humming loudly. YOU HAVE NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN ANY SCHOOL IN THIS COUNTRY

edit - probably any country

The SCOTUS disagrees you illiterate fucking moron:

The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

 

[Juicin]

cabe su boca, kiddo.

No causing disturbances in school.

He didn't cause a disturbance. The latinos who objected to him giving his opinion caused the trouble. THINK

it's a school

YOu have no freedom of speech in school

Some one tells you to leave them alone...YOu leave them alone

WHat the fuck are you talking about, have you ever been in an American public school?

Just making noise period can get you punished, lol

You're dumber than a bag of fucking rocks:


Majority opinion Tinker v Des Moines
The court's 7–2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District - Wikipedia

"Teacher call sign chaos won't shut the fuck up, tell him to leave me alone"

"call sign chaos shut the fuck up or go talk to some one who wants to hear you"

"no fuck you bitch build the wall"

That's how you get punished. Even without the cuss words

It could be jsut for humming loudly. YOU HAVE NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN ANY SCHOOL IN THIS COUNTRY

edit - probably any country

The SCOTUS disagrees you illiterate fucking moron:

The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

That's jsut a quote out of context

Meaningless

What were you home schooled? lol

The last supreme court case was about bongs for jesus poster not even on school grounds. Student lost

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

He didn't cause a disturbance. The latinos who objected to him giving his opinion caused the trouble. THINK

it's a school

YOu have no freedom of speech in school

Some one tells you to leave them alone...YOu leave them alone

WHat the fuck are you talking about, have you ever been in an American public school?

Just making noise period can get you punished, lol

You're dumber than a bag of fucking rocks:


Majority opinion Tinker v Des Moines
The court's 7–2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District - Wikipedia

"Teacher call sign chaos won't shut the fuck up, tell him to leave me alone"

"call sign chaos shut the fuck up or go talk to some one who wants to hear you"

"no fuck you bitch build the wall"

That's how you get punished. Even without the cuss words

It could be jsut for humming loudly. YOU HAVE NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN ANY SCHOOL IN THIS COUNTRY

edit - probably any country

The SCOTUS disagrees you illiterate fucking moron:

The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

That's jsut a quote out of context

Meaningless

What were you home schooled? lol

The last surpeme court case was about bongs for jesus poster niot even on school grounds. Student lost

That was not out of context it was the majority opinion of the SCOTUS in a 7-2 decision which found unequivocally that freedom of speech does not end at the school house gates, go ahead put in a different context I'll wait. Morse v. Frederick (bong hits for Jesus) had to do with the promotion of illegal activity at school events it was a narrow decision with no bearing in the premises.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Tinker V. Des Moines


Opinion

FORTAS, J., Opinion of the Court

MR. JUSTICE FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner John F. Tinker, 15 years old, and petitioner Christopher Eckhardt, 16 years old, attended high schools in Des Moines, Iowa. Petitioner Mary Beth Tinker, John's sister, was a 13-year-old student in junior high school.

In December, 1965, a group of adults and students in Des Moines held a meeting at the Eckhardt home. The group determined to publicize their objections to the hostilities in Vietnam and their support for a truce by wearing black armbands during the holiday season and by fasting on December 16 and New Year's Eve. Petitioners and their parents had previously engaged in similar activities, and they decided to participate in the program.

The principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the plan to wear armbands. On December 14, 1965, they met and adopted a policy that any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it, and, if he refused, he would be suspended until he returned without the armband. Petitioners were aware of the regulation that the school authorities adopted.

On December 16, Mary Beth and Christopher wore black armbands to their schools. John Tinker wore his armband the next day. They were all sent home and suspended from school until they would come back without their armbands. They did not return to school until after the planned period for wearing armbands had expired -- that is, until after New Year's Day.

This complaint was filed in the United States District Court by petitioners, through their fathers, under § 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code. It prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent school officials and the respondent members of the board of directors of the school district from disciplining the petitioners, and it sought nominal damages. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court dismissed the complaint. It upheld [n1]

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered the case en banc. The court was equally divided, and the District Court's decision was accordingly affirmed without opinion. 383 F.2d 988 (1967). We granted certiorari.390 U.S. 942 (1968).

I

The District Court recognized that the wearing of an armband for the purpose of expressing certain views is the type of symbolic act that is within the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.See West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931). Cf. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940); Edwards v. South Carolina,372 U.S. 229 (1963); Brown v. Louisiana,383 U.S. 131 (1966). As we shall discuss, the wearing of armbands in the circumstances of this case was entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. It was closely akin to "pure speech" 379 U.S. 536, 555 (1965); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966).

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923), this Court, in opinions by Mr. Justice McReynolds, held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents States from forbidding the teaching of a foreign language to young students. Statutes to this effect, the Court held, unconstitutionally interfere with the liberty of teacher, student, and parent. [n2]See also Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 319 U.S. 624 (1943); McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195 (1952) (concurring opinion); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487 (1960); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967); Epperson v. Arkansas, ante, p. 97 (1968).

In West Virginia v. Barnette, supra, this Court held that, under the First Amendment, the student in public school may not be compelled to salute the flag. Speaking through Mr. Justice Jackson, the Court said:

The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures -- Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.

319 U.S. at 637. On the other hand, the Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools. See Epperson v. Arkansas, supra, at 104; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, at 402. Our problem lies in the area where students in the exercise of First Amendment rights collide with the rules of the school authorities.

II

The problem posed by the present case does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing, 337 U.S. 1 (1949); and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom -- this kind of openness -- that is [n3] [n4] It is revealing, in this respect, that the meeting at which the school principals decided to issue the contested regulation was called in response to a student's statement to the journalism teacher in one of the schools that he wanted to write an article on Vietnam and have it published in the school paper. (The student was dissuaded. [n5] )

It is also relevant that the school authorities did not purport to prohibit the wearing of all symbols of political or controversial significance. The record shows that students in some of the schools wore buttons relating to national political campaigns, and some even wore the Iron Cross, traditionally a symbol of Nazism. The order prohibiting the wearing of armbands did not extend to these. Instead, a particular symbol -- black armbands worn to exhibit opposition to this Nation's involvement 385 U.S. 589, 603, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, speaking for the Court, said:

"The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools."Shelton v. Tucker, [ 364 U.S. 479,] at 487. The classroom is peculiarly the "marketplace of ideas." The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth "out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection."

The principle of these cases is not confined to the supervised and ordained discussion which takes place in the classroom. The principal use to which the schools are dedicated is to accommodate students during prescribed hours for the purpose of certain types of activities. Among those activities is personal intercommunication among the students.[n6] This is not only an inevitable part of the process of attending school; it is also an important part of the educational process. A student's rights, therefore, do not embrace merely the classroom hours. When he is in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on [p513] the campus during the authorized hours, he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without "materially and substantially interfer[ing] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school" and without colliding with the rights of others.Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749. But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason -- whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior -- materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. Cf. Blackwell v. Issaquena County Board of Education., 363 F.2d 740 (C.A. 5th Cir.1966).

Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle, but not in fact. Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots. The Constitution says that Congress (and the States) may not abridge the right to free speech. This provision means what it says. We properly read it to permit reasonable regulation of speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances. But we do not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or to supervised and ordained discussion in a school classroom.

If a regulation were adopted by school officials forbidding discussion of the Vietnam conflict, or the expression by any student of opposition to it anywhere on school property except as part of a prescribed classroom exercise, it would be obvious that the regulation would violate the constitutional rights of students, at least if it could not be justified by a showing that the students' activities would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school. Cf. Hammond[p514] v. South Carolina State College, 272 F.Supp. 947 (D.C.S.C.1967) (orderly protest meeting on state college campus); Dickey v. Alabama State Board of Education, 273 F.Supp. 613 (D.C.M.D. Ala. 967) (expulsion of student editor of college newspaper). In the circumstances of the present case, the prohibition of the silent, passive "witness of the armbands," as one of the children called it, is no less offensive to the Constitution's guarantees.

As we have discussed, the record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbances or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred. These petitioners merely went about their ordained rounds in school. Their deviation consisted only in wearing on their sleeve a band of black cloth, not more than two inches wide. They wore it to exhibit their disapproval of the Vietnam hostilities and their advocacy of a truce, to make their views known, and, by their example, to influence others to adopt them. They neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder. In the circumstances, our Constitution does not permit officials of the State to deny their form of expression.

We express no opinion as to the form of relief which should be granted, this being a matter for the lower courts to determine. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

 

[Juicin]

That's wearing clothing

Not making noise

And totally not the context we're talking about. lol

Those students weren't telling the pro vietnam students things.

The kid wasn't wearing a build the wall t shirt. (and all the staff needs is a reason to think it will cause problems and they will force them to take it off, ever heard of public schools that enforce a white t only policy?)

I'll ask again

Were you home schooled?

What universe do you live in?

 

[JakeStarkey]

cabe su boca, kiddo.

No causing disturbances in school.

He didn't cause a disturbance. The latinos who objected to him giving his opinion caused the trouble. THINK

it's a school

YOu have no freedom of speech in school

Some one tells you to leave them alone...YOu leave them alone

WHat the fuck are you talking about, have you ever been in an American public school?

Just making noise period can get you punished, lol

You're dumber than a bag of fucking rocks:


Majority opinion Tinker v Des Moines
The court's 7–2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District - Wikipedia

This is not about discussion in the classroom but throughout the school premises at various times. Your cite does not cover disturbance of the educational process or the operations in the school. Nowhere in Des Moines can you show that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

cabe su boca, kiddo.

No causing disturbances in school.

He didn't cause a disturbance. The latinos who objected to him giving his opinion caused the trouble. THINK

it's a school

YOu have no freedom of speech in school

Some one tells you to leave them alone...YOu leave them alone

WHat the fuck are you talking about, have you ever been in an American public school?

Just making noise period can get you punished, lol

You're dumber than a bag of fucking rocks:


Majority opinion Tinker v Des Moines
The court's 7–2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District - Wikipedia

"Teacher call sign chaos won't shut the fuck up, tell him to leave me alone"

"call sign chaos shut the fuck up or go talk to some one who wants to hear you"

"no fuck you bitch build the wall"

That's how you get punished. Even without the cuss words

It could be jsut for humming loudly. YOU HAVE NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN ANY SCHOOL IN THIS COUNTRY

edit - probably any country

The SCOTUS disagrees you illiterate fucking moron:

The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

That is not what happened in this case. You cannot show that the particulars of this case fits Des Moines.

 

[jknowgood]

Wrong punishment for the little snowflake. Some of his peers should have roughed him up a bit instead.

SO, you support stifling opposing speech with thuggery. Noted.

I support people that are asking for it, getting it

Yep, and remember who has the guns.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

He didn't cause a disturbance. The latinos who objected to him giving his opinion caused the trouble. THINK

it's a school

YOu have no freedom of speech in school

Some one tells you to leave them alone...YOu leave them alone

WHat the fuck are you talking about, have you ever been in an American public school?

Just making noise period can get you punished, lol

You're dumber than a bag of fucking rocks:


Majority opinion Tinker v Des Moines
The court's 7–2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District - Wikipedia

"Teacher call sign chaos won't shut the fuck up, tell him to leave me alone"

"call sign chaos shut the fuck up or go talk to some one who wants to hear you"

"no fuck you bitch build the wall"

That's how you get punished. Even without the cuss words

It could be jsut for humming loudly. YOU HAVE NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN ANY SCHOOL IN THIS COUNTRY

edit - probably any country

The SCOTUS disagrees you illiterate fucking moron:

The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

That is not what happened in this case. You cannot show that the particulars of this case fits Des Moines.

What about the freedom of speech not ending at the schoolhouse gates is unclear to you fucking morons? He was expressing a political opinion and not advocating breaking the law it clearly falls under Tinker which found that free speech does not end at the schoolhouse gates and must meet the requirement of a substabtial disruption for it to be limited which this clearly does not.

This speech clearly passes the Tinker Test which is as follows:


The test, as set forth in the Tinker opinion, asks the question: Did the speech or expression of the student “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school?"

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

cabe su boca, kiddo.

No causing disturbances in school.

He didn't cause a disturbance. The latinos who objected to him giving his opinion caused the trouble. THINK

it's a school

YOu have no freedom of speech in school

Some one tells you to leave them alone...YOu leave them alone

WHat the fuck are you talking about, have you ever been in an American public school?

Just making noise period can get you punished, lol

You're dumber than a bag of fucking rocks:


Majority opinion Tinker v Des Moines
The court's 7–2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District - Wikipedia

This is not about discussion in the classroom but throughout the school premises at various times. Your cite does not cover disturbance of the educational process or the operations in the school. Nowhere in Des Moines can you show that.

The Tinker Test clearly states that the speech in order to be prohibited must "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," which saying "build the wall," does not in any way, shape, or form, in fact it is the stated policy of the POTUS, now if he was saying "fuck the spics," or something to that effect you would have a point but he didn't and you don't.

He didn't cause a disturbance. The latinos who objected to him giving his opinion caused the trouble. THINK

it's a school

YOu have no freedom of speech in school

Some one tells you to leave them alone...YOu leave them alone

WHat the fuck are you talking about, have you ever been in an American public school?

Just making noise period can get you punished, lol

You're dumber than a bag of fucking rocks:


Majority opinion Tinker v Des Moines
The court's 7–2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District - Wikipedia

"Teacher call sign chaos won't shut the fuck up, tell him to leave me alone"

"call sign chaos shut the fuck up or go talk to some one who wants to hear you"

"no fuck you bitch build the wall"

That's how you get punished. Even without the cuss words

It could be jsut for humming loudly. YOU HAVE NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN ANY SCHOOL IN THIS COUNTRY

edit - probably any country

The SCOTUS disagrees you illiterate fucking moron:

The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

That is not what happened in this case. You cannot show that the particulars of this case fits Des Moines.

What about the freedom of speech not ending at the schoolhouse gates is unclear to you fucking morons? He was expressing a political opinion and not advocating breaking the law it clearly falls under Tinker which found that free speech does not end at the schoolhouse gates and must meet the requirement of a substabtial disruption for it to be limited which this clearly does not.

This speech clearly passes the Tinker Test which is as follows:


The test, as set forth in the Tinker opinion, asks the question: Did the speech or expression of the student “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school?"

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Wrong punishment for the little snowflake. Some of his peers should have roughed him up a bit instead.

Dickhead.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

How to deal with dumb racists 101:

Ahh does it hurt your feelings knowing that there are people out there that don't love all races? Poor butthurt snowflake, there there it will be alright.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those who have problems with racialism, and nativism, and xenophobia -- all find a home with the Alt Right. The kid will have a home with the rest of the losers in America. Oh, the kid's case does not meed the Tinker Test. His case certainly does not merit the protections of Des Moines.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Are the school authorities aware of his reason for saying anything in the first place? Because if they are going to get after him and not whoever got the "conversation" going, then they are nothing, but a bunch of hypocrites. What did them other kids think would happen? If they didn't want grief from anyone else, they should've been more discreet if they just had to say anything at all.

God bless you and that boy always!!!

Holly

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Those who have problems with racialism, and nativism, and xenophobia -- all find a home with the Alt Right. The kid will have a home with the rest of the losers in America. Oh, the kid's case does not meed the Tinker Test. His case certainly does not merit the protections of Des Moines.

Why do you libs insist the Supreme Court has authority to rewrite the constitution.??? If you want to change the C, get an amendment passed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those who have problems with racialism, and nativism, and xenophobia -- all find a home with the Alt Right. The kid will have a home with the rest of the losers in America. Oh, the kid's case does not meed the Tinker Test. His case certainly does not merit the protections of Des Moines.

Why do you libs insist the Supreme Court has authority to rewrite the constitution.??? If you want to change the C, get an amendment passed.

THINK! You need to go to civics class again.