First Amendment rights to freedom of speech are regulated in various ways in many different variations of institutions. For instance, public school administrations have broad standards created by the Supreme Court to use when there is a need to suppress student speech believed too distracting, offensive, presenting a harmful image for the school, or even promoting illegal drug use. Though broad, a few cases do provide guidance when looking at student speech, and how there are times when the regulation content is deemed constitutional.
A. TINKER V. DES MOINES SCHOOL DISTRICT (1969) In 1965, the Tinker family protested the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands. The children wore the armbands to school as well. The principle set in place a policy which made wearing armbands liable for suspension. Due to the Tinker children wearing the armband, the principle suspended the kids indefinitely, or until they removed the armbands (393 U. S. 503). Through the parents, the Tinker family sued the school district for violating the students First Amendment right to freedom of expression. The case was dismissed, upholding the school’s decision.
The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit also ffirmed the decision. The question asked was, whether or not wearing the armband was protected by the First Amendment (393 U. S. 503)? In a seven-to-two decision, the court found that wearing the armband was protected by the First Amendment. The Majority written by Justice Fortas, ruled that the armbands are close to pure speech, and passive. He further stated that the First Amendment does not stop when going into school and that the armbands posed no real disruption. Finally, the Court decided that student speech may only be disciplined when school administrations assume the speech to elicit “… ubstantial disruption of or material interference with school activities” (393 U. S. 514). In a dissenting opinion, Justice Black argued that the First Amendment does not apply to school, and that the decision should be based upon school judgement (393 U. S. 503).
B. BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403 V. FRASER (1986) During a school assembly with an audience of around 600 students, Matthew Fraser announced the nomination for a fellow student for an elected position within the school student body. Inlayed throughout his speech were sexually graphic metaphors that were used to help promote his classmate for he elected position. As a result, Bethel High School enforced their policy of prohibiting behavior that is deemed to be obscene or vulgar. Mathew Fraser was suspended for two days (478 U. S. 675). The question being reviewed was, whether or not there is a right through the First Amendment to allow the prevention of a school district from conducting disciplinary action against a high school student due to the student exhibiting lewd speech at a high school assembly (478 U. S. 675)? In a seven to two decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the school district could prohibit obscene and vulgar language.
In the majority opinion by Chief Justice Burger, it was established that an exemption to Tinker be put in place to allow the action taken by the school district, even though the behavior presented by Frasier did not elicit any disruption. Because of Frasier, the Court recognized a new model: that speech conflicting with the “fundamental values” of public school education by ways of being obscene and offensive may be banned (478 U. S. 675).
C. HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT V. KUHLMEIER (1988) At Hazelwood East High School, a school-sponsored newspaper called The Spectrum, was run by students. The school’s principle, upon receiving proofs for the upcoming month’s issue, removed two articles due to the content being inappropriate for publication. As a result, three members from the newspaper filed suit basing their argument on prior restraint due to the principle not being a part of the paper (484 U. S. 260). The question asked by the Supreme Court was, whether or not the actions by the principle to remove two articles from the newspaper violated the students’ First Amendment rights (484 U. S. 260)? In a five to three decision, the court ruled in favor of the principle.
The majority, written by Justice White, affirmed that the school paper could publish content that could challenge school functions. However, student rights are different than regular press. The opinion includes Tinker, but states that the situation is different because the issue is curriculum and not political views. Furthermore, the principle only needs good judgement since the paper is not a public forum. His job is to set reasonable standards, not compelling interests. Thus, the Court established a new standard allowing student speech to be regulated when the speech is issued through the school (484 U. S. 260).
D. MORSE V. FREDERICK (2007) During a school-supervised event, Joseph Frederick made a banner and held it during the event. The banner read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” and was suspended for ten days. The justification given by the principle was based on the banner promoting illegal drugs. As a result, Frederick filed suit stating his First Amendment rights had been violated. The first proceeding, the District court ruled in favor of the principal, sighting no violation of Frederick’s First Amendment rights. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the ruling, citing Tinker, where
First Amendment rights are protected, however, there are exception such as when the speech disrupts school functions. However, because the banner was proclaiming a message, the speech was not deemed a disturbance, thus the punishment was ruled unconstitutional (551 U. S. 393). The question asked by the Supreme Court was, whether the banner was protected by the First Amendment (551 U. S. 393)? In a five-to-four decision, the court ruled in favor of the punishment.
The majority, written by Chief Justice Roberts, states that the banner and its message are still considered school speech and the event was still school anctioned, despite being off-campus. The majority further stated that at some level, the banner was advocating for drug use and as a result, the principle had the right to restrict the speech. Chief Justice Roberts sighted Tinker, writing that Tinker was different as the case did not elicit disruption and that the high standards brought from the case do not always apply. The majority continued by reiterating that students do not have the same rights when in school, and that the school as well as the state had a compelling interest whereas there was peer- pressure and pro-drug speech (551 U. S. 393).
In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas stated that he believes there are no First Amendment rights for students and that Tinker should be overturned. In another concurring opinion, Justice Alito was fine with prohibiting the message, but stressed that the decision only coincided with pro-drug speech and not the broader spectrum of political speech (551 U. S. 393). Overall, the decisions within these four cases by the Supreme Court elicit four standards on how to regulate student speech on public school campuses. When looking at Tinker, the Court ushered in a riterion where school administrations have the right to control student’s First Amendment rights for free speech, when the speech has the potential to cause a disruption or interference towards class learning and events (393 U. S. 503). Under Frasier, an exception was introduced that would allow school administrations to control student speech if the content was deemed to be obscene and vulgar thus being offensive to the student body and staff. Ultimately, the exception is allowed without there being an explicit disruption from the speech content (478 U. S. 675).
The decision in Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court’s decision officiated a new standard that would allow regulation of student speech if the administration viewed the content as representing the school (484 U. S. 260). Lastly, in Morse, the Supreme Court held that student speech could be restricted if the content has the effect of endorsing illegal drug use (551 U. S. 393). Thus, there are at least four standards that the Supreme Court may use when considering student speech when dealing with public school, however, the same rules do not always apply to college campuses.
