Summer+Kennedy

=Guiding Research Question: Is Limiting Speech Among Students and Teachers in Schools Constitutional?= -Individuality -Given right || -Controversy -Risk of chaos and drama -Increased bullying rates -Increase of aggression -Risk of distracting other students from learning || __**Court Cases**__
 * Pro freedom of speech and expression in public schools || Anti freedom of speech in public schools ||
 * -Self expression

In December of 1965, Mary Beth, John F. Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt wore black wristbands in protest against the Vietnam War. The school had already made it clear that students were not to wear these wrist bands, and after the children disobeyed they were sent home and suspended. The case was later taken to district court by parents after they became aware of the situation. The court ruled that the students were, in fact, guilty or breaking a school rule and the school had not violated the Constitution by holding the students accountable. The case was later taken to supreme court and it was concluded that the students were well within their rights to wear the wristbands in protest. The students were not disruptive and did not cause harm to any other students, therefore, the school had no right to punish them for choosing to protest. "John F. TINKER and Mary Beth Tinker, Minors, Etc., Et Al., Petitioners, v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Et Al."//LII//. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2012.
 * Tinker vs Del Moines 1969:**

Matthew N. Fraser, a student of Bethel High School in Washington State, delivered a speech in April of 1986 concerning electing a fellow classmate for office. Fraser’s speech was full of sexual implications and language deemed highly inappropriate for the audience it was presented to. Because of the fact that Fraser’s speech was a clear violation of Bethel High School’s disciplinary code, Fraser was suspended from school for a number of days. The case, later taken to court in //Bethel// //School District No. 403 v. Fraser//,was attributable to the school’s infringement upon Fraser’s right to the first amendment. The case was founded on one question: Is Fraser’s speech, although crude, protected by the first amendment? The Supreme Court ruled that because Fraser’s speech was visibly unsuitable for an audience of high school students, the school was within their jurisdiction to punish Fraser as they saw fit. "Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser." //- Law Library//. Student Press Law Center, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2012.
 * Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser:**

In 1987, former high school members of the school newspaper in Hazelwood School District presented a case to the district court concerning the removal of their articles from the school newspaper. The articles contained passages regarding several students’ personal stories and experiences with pregnancy and anecdotes centered on the effects of divorce on students. After taking the articles to the principal to be approved before publishing the school’s newspaper, the students learned that their work was not to be released due to the objection of the principal. The principle believed that although the students did not include names in the article pertaining to pregnancy, the students that provided stories for the article would be recognizable. The principal also denied the article about effects of divorce on children because a student was acknowledged by name and made statements about her father’s poor behavior during his divorce and he believed her father should have been given the right to refute her arguments and approve what would be published about him. Furthermore, the principal found the discussion of birth control and sexually explicit topic to be inappropriate for an audience of high schoolers, some of those as young as fourteen years old. After the district court ruled that none of the student’s rights had been violated, the case was taken to the Supreme Court in retaliation. Unlike //Tinker v. Des Moines,// the Supreme Court ruled that the principal was within his power to force the deletion of the articles from the school newspaper due to the fact that he made his decision with the interest of the children being exposed in mind. "Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser." //- Law Library//. Student Press Law Center, n.d. Web.
 * Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier:**
 * Works Cited: **

"Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)." //Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)//. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2012.

"Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier." //Legal Information Institute//. Cornell University Law School, 13 Oct. 1987. Web. 03 Dec. 2012.

As an American, my right to freedom of speech an expression is something that I take very seriously and am extremely thankful for. I feel extremely blessed to have been born in a country where brave men and women fight everyday so that citizens of the United States can be granted rights. With that being said, I do not believe that teachers and students should be limited in what they can say simply because they enter school grounds. No matter how controversial the topic may be, I believe that both students and teachers should be allowed to discus these issues as long as it is done in a respectable, and calm manner. In fact, I believe that school is the perfect place for students to learn to accept others ideas and opinions, even if they differ from their own. Students can hardly be expected to live in a country where the practice and free speech and expression is accepted if they are never taught how to deal with differing beliefs. Limiting the rights of students and teachers for the fear of controversy and and chaos is not only unconstitutional, but it is also a contradiction to the foundation in which America was built; freedom.
 * What I think: **