2. First Amendment in Schools TM

3. First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. TM

4. First Amendment Can you identify the five rights in the First Amendment? Can you identify the five rights in the First Amendment? TM

5. First Amendment The Five Rights The Five Rights Freedom of speech Freedom of speech Freedom of religion Freedom of religion Freedom of the press Freedom of the press Right to assemble peacefully Right to assemble peacefully Right to petition the government Right to petition the government TM

6. What is Speech? Anything that a person says or does that is intended to convey a message that could reasonably be expected to be understood by others. Anything that a person says or does that is intended to convey a message that could reasonably be expected to be understood by others. TM

7. What is Speech? Speech can be non-verbal, such as displaying a flag. Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931) Speech can be non-verbal, such as displaying a flag. Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931) Obscene speech is not protected. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) Obscene speech is not protected. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) The school environment is different from the public in that schools have the duty to fulfill their educational mission. Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) The school environment is different from the public in that schools have the duty to fulfill their educational mission. Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) TM

8. Prior Decisions Decisions of the US Supreme Court Case precedent and free speech TM

9. Stromberg v. California Stromberg was convicted of violating a California statute that prohibited the display of a red flag or banner in any public place or in any meeting place or public assembly Stromberg was convicted of violating a California statute that prohibited the display of a red flag or banner in any public place or in any meeting place or public assembly (1) as a sign, symbol or emblem of opposition to organized government; or (1) as a sign, symbol or emblem of opposition to organized government; or (2) as an invitation or stimulus to anarchistic action (i.e., overthrow of the government); or (2) as an invitation or stimulus to anarchistic action (i.e., overthrow of the government); or (3) as an aid to propaganda that is of a seditious (encouraging disorder, treasonous) character. (3) as an aid to propaganda that is of a seditious (encouraging disorder, treasonous) character. TM

10. Stromberg v. California Stromberg, a member of the Young Communist League, was a supervisor of a summer camp. Each day, a daily ceremony was held at the camp where the children raised a red flag and recited a pledge of allegiance to the workers red flag. Stromberg, a member of the Young Communist League, was a supervisor of a summer camp. Each day, a daily ceremony was held at the camp where the children raised a red flag and recited a pledge of allegiance to the workers red flag. Stromberg also possessed books and pamphlets which called for a violent uprising and a bloody, destructive war. Stromberg admitted ownership of Stromberg also possessed books and pamphlets which called for a violent uprising and a bloody, destructive war. Stromberg admitted ownership of some of these materials, but none of them were used in teaching at the camp. TM

11. Stromberg v. California Stromberg appealed her conviction to the state appellate court contending that the statute under which she was charged was invalid as an unwarranted limitation on the right of free speech. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. Stromberg appealed her conviction to the state appellate court contending that the statute under which she was charged was invalid as an unwarranted limitation on the right of free speech. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. The United States Supreme Court reversed. The Court held that the first clause of the statute (i.e., prohibiting the display of a flag as a sign, symbol or emblem of opposition to organized government) violated the First Amendment because it was broad enough to punish peaceful and orderly opposition to government by legal means. The United States Supreme Court reversed. The Court held that the first clause of the statute (i.e., prohibiting the display of a flag as a sign, symbol or emblem of opposition to organized government) violated the First Amendment because it was broad enough to punish peaceful and orderly opposition to government by legal means. TM

12. Miller v. California Miller conducted a mass mailing campaign of adult material. He sent five unsolicited advertising brochures through the mail to a restaurant. The manager of the restaurant and his mother opened the envelope containing the brochures and complained to the police. Miller conducted a mass mailing campaign of adult material. He sent five unsolicited advertising brochures through the mail to a restaurant. The manager of the restaurant and his mother opened the envelope containing the brochures and complained to the police. Miller was arrested and convicted of a state statute that prohibited knowing distribution of obscene material. Miller was arrested and convicted of a state statute that prohibited knowing distribution of obscene material. The appellate court affirmed Millers conviction. The appellate court affirmed Millers conviction. TM

13. Miller v. California The United States Supreme Court vacated Millers conviction and remanded. The Court held that The United States Supreme Court vacated Millers conviction and remanded. The Court held that [O]bscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment. [O]bscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment. Therefore, obscene material may be regulated by the states, but subject to certain safeguards. Therefore, obscene material may be regulated by the states, but subject to certain safeguards. What is obscene is to be determined by state community standards (i.e., what is obscene in Utah may not necessarily be obscene in New York state). What is obscene is to be determined by state community standards (i.e., what is obscene in Utah may not necessarily be obscene in New York state). The Supreme Court remanded the case so that the lower court could consider Millers case under these new standards. The Supreme Court remanded the case so that the lower court could consider Millers case under these new standards. TM

14. School vs. Public The Court has recognized that students do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter school. The Court has recognized that students do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter school. However, the Court has traditionally recognized that the educational mission of the school cannot be disrupted by the exercise of free speech. However, the Court has traditionally recognized that the educational mission of the school cannot be disrupted by the exercise of free speech. Speech rights at school differ from outside the school environment. Speech rights at school differ from outside the school environment. TM

15. Tinker v. Des Moines In 1968, three public school students came to class wearing black armbands. In 1968, three public school students came to class wearing black armbands. Fearing a disruption, the principals of the schools suspended them. Fearing a disruption, the principals of the schools suspended them. TM

16. Tinker v. Des Moines The students sought relief in US District Court for the southern district of Iowa asking for nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation banning the armbands. The students sought relief in US District Court for the southern district of Iowa asking for nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation banning the armbands. The petition was dismissed and on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the decision was affirmed with an equally divided court. Sitting en banc the decision was four to four. The petition was dismissed and on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the decision was affirmed with an equally divided court. Sitting en banc the decision was four to four. TM

17. Tinker v. Des Moines The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. The US Supreme Court held in a 7-2 decision that the wearing of the armbands was protected by the First Amendment. The US Supreme Court held in a 7-2 decision that the wearing of the armbands was protected by the First Amendment. TM

18. Tinker v. Des Moines Here are two clips from the oral argument in this case. Here are two clips from the oral argument in this case. TM

19. Bethel School Dist v. Fraser Student Matthew Fraser delivered a speech to 600 high school students in support of a friends campaign for student council during a school assembly. Student Matthew Fraser delivered a speech to 600 high school students in support of a friends campaign for student council during a school assembly. Frasers speech was described as being sexually suggestive using graphic and explicit sexual metaphor. Frasers speech was described as being sexually suggestive using graphic and explicit sexual metaphor. Several teachers noted that some students were embarrassed and bewildered in the audience. Several teachers noted that some students were embarrassed and bewildered in the audience. Many students hooted and yelled during the speech or mimicked the sexual activities alluded to in the speech. Many students hooted and yelled during the speech or mimicked the sexual activities alluded to in the speech. TM

20. Bethel School Dist. v. Fraser The next day, the principal suspended Fraser for violating the disruptive conduct rule which prohibited the use of obscene or profane language or gestures. The next day, the principal suspended Fraser for violating the disruptive conduct rule which prohibited the use of obscene or profane language or gestures. Fraser filed suit in Federal District Court alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and seeking injunctive relief and damages. Fraser filed suit in Federal District Court alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and seeking injunctive relief and damages. The District Court held that the schools sanctions violated the First Amendment and that the disruptive conduct rule was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The District Court held that the schools sanctions violated the First Amendment and that the disruptive conduct rule was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The Court of Appeals affirmed. TM

21. Bethel School Dist. v. Fraser The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the First Amendment prevents a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a vulgar or lewd speech at a school assembly. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the First Amendment prevents a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a vulgar or lewd speech at a school assembly. The Court held that the First Amendment did not prevent the School District from disciplining the respondent for giving the offensively lewd and indecent speech during the school assembly. The Court held that the First Amendment did not prevent the School District from disciplining the respondent for giving the offensively lewd and indecent speech during the school assembly. TM

22. Hazelwood S.D. v. Kuhlmeier The student editors of the Spectrum, a school newspaper, created an issue that included articles about student experiences with teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce. The student editors of the Spectrum, a school newspaper, created an issue that included articles about student experiences with teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce. TM

23. Hazelwood S.D. v. Kuhmeier The principal banned the articles from being published. The principal banned the articles from being published. The principal argued that the first article risked identifying the pregnant students and the content about sexual activity and birth control was not appropriate for younger students at the school. The second article contained comments from a student but did not allow the divorced parents to comment on their childs interview. The principal argued that the first article risked identifying the pregnant students and the content about sexual activity and birth control was not appropriate for younger students at the school. The second article contained comments from a student but did not allow the divorced parents to comment on their childs interview. TM

24. Hazelwood S.D. v. Kuhmeier The students filed suit alleging their First Amendment rights had been violated by the deletion of the articles. The students filed suit alleging their First Amendment rights had been violated by the deletion of the articles. The District Court held that no First Amendment violation had occurred. The Court of Appeals reversed. The District Court held that no First Amendment violation had occurred. The Court of Appeals reversed. The US Supreme Court held that no First Amendment violation had occurred. Schools need not tolerate speech that is inconsistent with its educational mission. The US Supreme Court held that no First Amendment violation had occurred. Schools need not tolerate speech that is inconsistent with its educational mission. TM

25. First Amendment Todays Case You will be the justices on the US Supreme Court to decide the First Amendment case presented today. TM

26. Morse v. Frederick Read the case materials provided and circle or highlight any and all important facts. Read the case materials provided and circle or highlight any and all important facts. TM

27. Morse v. Frederick What are the facts of the case? What are the facts of the case? What did the principal do? What did the principal do? TM

28. Morse v. Frederick Review US District Court and Ninth Circuit decisions. Review US District Court and Ninth Circuit decisions. US Supreme Court grants certiorari US Supreme Court grants certiorari Does the First Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal drugs at school-supervised events? Does the First Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal drugs at school-supervised events? TM

29. Supreme Court Conference Individually answer the question Yes (Rule in favor of the school) No (Rule in favor of the students) Give legal reasoning Group decisions TM

30. Morse v. Frederick Yes Yes The US Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit by a 5-4 decision ruling that school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use. The US Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit by a 5-4 decision ruling that school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use. The majority held that the message although cryptic was reasonably interpreted as promoting marijuana use. The majority held that the message although cryptic was reasonably interpreted as promoting marijuana use. TM

31. Morse v. Frederick Three dissenting justices concluded that the schools interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs. Three dissenting justices concluded that the schools interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs. TM

32. Morse v. Frederick The dissent believed that student speech is protected if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students, and concluded that Fredericks nonsense banner did neither. The dissent believed that student speech is protected if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students, and concluded that Fredericks nonsense banner did neither. Justice Breyer wrote separately and expressed his belief that the majority should not have addressed the First Amendment issue at all, but instead, resolved the case on alternative grounds. Justice Breyer wrote separately and expressed his belief that the majority should not have addressed the First Amendment issue at all, but instead, resolved the case on alternative grounds. TM

33. Morse v. Frederick Here is how the Court ruled: Here is how the Court ruled: Red voted with majority decision Red voted with majority decision Blue were dissenters (Justice Breyer for a different reason) Blue were dissenters (Justice Breyer for a different reason) TM