Tinker v. Des Moines Argued November 12, 1968 Decided February 24, 1969
Three public school students wore black armbands in protest of the Government’s policy in the Vietnam war. When the principals found out about this, they created a new rule saying that students who wouldn’t remove their armbands, would be suspended. December 16 th , Mary Beth and Christopher, wore their black armbands to school and were suspended. John Tinker than wore his the following day and was also suspended.
Arguments of the plaintiff
wearing black armbands to school, was a quiet, undisruptive and peaceful form of protest.
It is within their constitutional rights to protest peacefully. In suspending the students, the board is violating the student’s constitutional rights.
Arguments of the accused
The school board argued that the protest was disrupted, and was stopping students from learning.
Supreme Court Decision
On February 24 th , the supreme court ruled that the students had the right to wear armbands to school, in protest of the Vietnam war. They ruled that it was the students right under the constitution to protest peacefully, as long as it is undisruptive. This case precedence's that, all public school students have the right to symbolic speech, as long as it does not disrupt the learning process.
Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier May 1983 Parties: Accused- Kulmeier Plaintiff- Hazelwood School
In May 1983, students in the Journalism II class at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis, Missouri had written an article that the principle had erased from the newspaper. The students went to court because they thought that their first amendment rights were violated. In the end they had gotten the result they were most pleased with.
Plaintiff: The principle thought that it wasn’t right for the 9 th grade students to be reading about sex and birth control.
Accused: The students thought it was their right to publish what they wanted, they had the 1 st amendment which included freedom of press.
The lower court had decided that is was not ok for the people who had written the article to publish the articles.
Displeased with the courts decision they went to the supreme court and they had ordered that the students 1 st amendment right had been violated.