Student Speech
This case created the standard for restricting school speech: schools need to show that there is a material disruption (or a reasonable suspicion one will happen), and that the disturbance will be significant.
Tinker v. Des Moines
This case involved a very conservative church protesting a gay soldier's funeral. The court held that the protestors had a right to do this.
Snyder v. Phelps
This case held that the government giving money to religious private schools violates the First Amendment.
Bethel School District v. Fraiser
and
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
Example:
Both involve cases where the government can absolutely limit speech without proving distruption.
No, it does not violate their First Amendment rights. Its a real disturbance, and a big one.
0.5 Points
This case held that schools are allowed to restrict speech that they believe is "lewd and vulgar."
Bethel School District v. Fraiser
The case involved a scenario where a student created a rap song that accused school teachers of sexually harassing its students.
Bell v. Itawamba Country School Board
This case held that followers of the Amish religion can refuse to send their children to school. This is because they have the right to freely express their religion, which included educating their children at home.
Wisconsin v. Yoder
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
and
Virginia v. Black
These are our two cross burning cases.
No, the suspension should be allowed because of the student speech exception to the First Amendment. This case meets the Tinker Standard because there was a reasonable suspicion of a disturbance, and any disturbance that would occur is substantial. Just like with Castorinacase, the speech is really bad.
2 Points
This case held that disrespecting school staff (calling them "teacher gestapos") counts as a substantial disturbance, and can be restricted.
Smith v. Mount Pleasant High School
This was the case where the cross burning law was declared legal. The court held that because the law was specifically targeting "intimidation," they would allow it.
Virginia v. Black
This case held that prohibiting a religious club from entering school grounds violated the First Amendment. This is because it was discriminating against those people with religious convictions.
Good News Club v. Milford Central School
West Virginia v. Barnette
and
Engle v. Vitale
Can't force students to speak. Doesn't matter if it is patriotic or religious.
The school’s actions violated the First Amendment. Under the student speech exception, schools can restrict some speech. Tinker says that schools can censor students if they are causing a material disruption/there is a reasonable suspicion one will happen. Additionally, the disruption must be substantial. Here, the student was stopped from entering the school before anyone saw the offensive flag. Since no one saw it, the disruption couldn't’t have been material. Since no disruption happened, the school shouldn't have suspended Student X.
3 Points
This case held that causing immense emotional distress to a member of a school community counts as a "substantial disturbance."
J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District
Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter
This case declared that Native American/Indigenous religions did not receive First Amendment Protections
Employment Division v. Smith
Lemon v. Kurtzman
and
Zellman v. Simmons-Harris
Both cases involved the issue of whether money going to religious private schools violates the First Amendment.
I think the court would allow Student X to be suspended. This is because his speech can be restricted under the student speech exception. Under Tinker, disruptions need to be material, or the school needs a reasonable suspicion that it will occur. Here, I think there is a reasonable suspicion one will occur. We know that students are going to be upset about this flag based on the very disruptive conversations in class. Unlike the Nixon case we read about (the offensive shirt at school), the school actually knows that a disruption is likely to happen based on past events. Instead of a counselor seeing an offensive shirt and assuming a disruption will happen, the counselor is aware of past incidents where disruptions have occurred in relation to the confederate flag. As a result, there is at least a reasonable suspicion a disruption will occur. We also need to show that the disruption will be substantial. Since the conversations in class became very disruptive and upset a lot of students, I think that the court would find this to be substantial.
4 Points
This is the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case.
School District of Morse v. Fredrick
This case involved the KKK, and held that the state can only regulate disgusting speech if it creates of risk of "imminent violence."
Brandenburg v. Ohio
This case held that the state cannot create laws asking students to pray at school. Even if students have the option to refuse, the fact that the law exists still violates the First Amendment.
Engle v. Vitale
Castorina v. Madison County
and
Canady v. Bossier Parish School District
Both involved First Amendment restrictions on what students can wear.
The student should have been suspended. This is because the school is allowed to restrict student speech as an exception to the First Amendment. This is because under the Fraisercase, schools get to limit lewd and vulgar speech. The confederate flag strongly connected with slavery, and anyone who is wearing it would appear to be endorsing this practice. This is absolutely disgusting and offensive. The First Amendment does not exist for people to insult others and treat them like trash. Just like in the Smith case we read about, saying insulting things to others is not protected by the First Amendment. There, a student was allowed to be suspended because he insulted his teachers. Since the Court allowed the suspension there, it only makes sense that the flag in this case (which is WAY worse) should also be punished as well.