Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
First Amendment in Schools
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

First Amendment in Schools

1,364

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
7 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,364
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
7
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • ©2008 Merrill 02/11/10 First Amendment
  • Transcript

    • 1. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution William L. Merrill, Ph.D. Central Michigan University
    • 2. The First Amendment <ul><li>&quot;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.&quot; </li></ul>
    • 3. Calvin!
    • 4. Speech <ul><li>Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? </li></ul><ul><li>NO! </li></ul><ul><li>The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits. </li></ul><ul><li>Begin with the presumption that speech is protected </li></ul>
    • 5. Speech <ul><li>Courts decided that a few public interests override free speech </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National Security </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal Safety </li></ul></ul><ul><li>No simple rules to determine if speech is protected </li></ul><ul><li>Some general tests include: </li></ul>
    • 6. Limits to Free Speech <ul><li>Clear and Present Danger </li></ul><ul><li>“ Fighting Words” </li></ul><ul><li>Libel </li></ul><ul><li>Slander </li></ul><ul><li>Obscenity </li></ul><ul><li>Conflict with other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests </li></ul>
    • 7. Clear and Present Danger <ul><li>Speech that creates a Dangerous Situation </li></ul><ul><li>Uttered to Provoke Violence </li></ul><ul><li>Uttered to Incite Illegal Action </li></ul><ul><li>“ The question in every case is whether the words used in such circumstances are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” -- Justice Holmes </li></ul>
    • 8. Fighting Words <ul><li>Speech said Face-to-Face that Incites Immediate Violence </li></ul><ul><li>Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire [1942] </li></ul><ul><li>There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or &quot;fighting&quot; words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. </li></ul>
    • 9. Fighting Words <ul><li>Even though it reaffirms Chaplinsky, the Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since Chaplinsky! </li></ul><ul><li>The Court continues to narrow the Fighting Words Doctrine </li></ul><ul><li>R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul the Court said that Fighting Words sometimes have value as speech </li></ul>
    • 10. Libel <ul><li>Any false and malicious written or printed statement tending to expose a person to public ridicule, hatred, or contempt, or to injure a person’s reputation </li></ul>
    • 11. Slander <ul><li>Generally the same as Libel, only in spoken form </li></ul>
    • 12. Obscenity <ul><li>Miller v. California </li></ul><ul><li>Defined Obscenity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient interest? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value? </li></ul></ul>
    • 13. Obscenity <ul><li>Must distinguish between: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Obscene </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Indecent </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Obscene is not protected </li></ul><ul><li>Indecent is protected for Adults but not for Children. </li></ul>
    • 14. Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Issues <ul><li>Speech may be limited during specific times </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Heraldo Rivera </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Trial Gag Orders </li></ul></ul>
    • 15. Examples:
    • 16. Examples: <ul><li>&quot;The mud races may very well offer some resistance and that resistance will have to be destroyed,” -- Matt Hale </li></ul><ul><li>He is considered a martyr for free speech, because I think the reason that he did this is because of the persecution that he faced--and I faced--for simply exercising religious freedoms. -- Matt Hale on Benjamin Smith </li></ul>Matt Hale Benjamin Smith
    • 17. 1st Amendment & Schools <ul><li>Religion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Establishment Clause </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Schools must be “neutral” toward religion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Applies to Schools and Teachers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Does not apply to Students </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Schools may teach ABOUT religions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Schools may NOT teach religion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students MAY form religious clubs at school </li></ul></ul>
    • 18. 1st Amendment & Schools <ul><li>Speech </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Schools may limit student speech under: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Vulgar, lewd, obscene, and plainly offensive speech [Fraser] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>School sponsored speech [Hazelwood] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>All other student speech [Tinker] </li></ul></ul></ul>
    • 19. Tinker Standard <ul><li>Three students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War [1969] </li></ul><ul><li>Expelled students for fear the armbands would “create disturbances at school” </li></ul><ul><li>Supreme Court ruled against the school district but did establish the Tinker Standard for limiting student speech </li></ul>
    • 20. Tinker Standard <ul><li>School officials may not limit student expression because they dislike it </li></ul><ul><li>They must reasonably forecast, based upon evidence that student expression would lead to either: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ A substantial disruption of the school environment”, or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ An invasion of the rights of others” </li></ul></ul>
    • 21. Tinker Standard <ul><li>Morse v. Frederick (2007) </li></ul><ul><li>“ Bong Hits for Jesus” </li></ul><ul><li>Court Recognized new Exception to Tinker </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Speech that Advocates Illegal Drug Use </li></ul></ul>
    • 22. Fraser Standard <ul><li>High school student nominated a peer for student government office using: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Numerous sexual references </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lewd references </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Supreme Court ruled for the school district </li></ul><ul><li>“ The freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior.” </li></ul>
    • 23. Fraser Standard &quot;I know a man who is firm - he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm - but most [of] all, his belief in you the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts - he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally - he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end - even the climax, for each and every one of you. So please vote for Jeff Kuhlman, as he'll never come between us and the best our school can be.&quot; [Long pause after the word &quot;come&quot; on oral delivery, but no comma in the written version, according to Matthew N. Fraser]
    • 24. Fraser Standard <ul><li>“ DRUGS SUCK” T-Shirt </li></ul><ul><li>Supreme Court ruled for the school district </li></ul><ul><li>“ Teachers and administrators must have the authority to do what they reasonably believe is in the best interest in their educational responsibilities, as we cannot abandon our schools to the whims or proclivities of children. The Court finds that …School Officials had an interest in protecting their young students from exposure to vulgar and offensive language.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST” T-Shirt? </li></ul>
    • 25. Hazelwood Standard <ul><li>Principal censored two student articles in a student newspaper on pregnancy and divorce </li></ul><ul><li>Supreme Court ruled for the school district </li></ul><ul><li>“ Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” </li></ul>
    • 26. Schools May: <ul><li>Create and enforce speech codes on school grounds </li></ul><ul><li>Must be used to “create a nondiscriminatory, safe environment where all students are comfortable and free to learn” </li></ul><ul><li>Codes may extend beyond purpose to restrict religious or political opinions </li></ul>
    • 27. Teacher’s Speech <ul><li>Pre-1960’s: Teachers did not have many First Amendment protections </li></ul><ul><li>Loyalty Oaths </li></ul><ul><li>Pickering v. Board of Education [1968] </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Teacher fired for writing letter to editor in local newspaper </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supreme Court ruled for the teacher </li></ul></ul>
    • 28. Teacher’s Speech <ul><li>Interests of the Public School System v. Matter of Public Concern </li></ul><ul><li>Pickering: Expressed concern over the School Board’s spending practices </li></ul><ul><li>Sanguigni: Expressed concern over teacher morale [Sanguigni v. Pittsburgh Board of Public Education, 1992] </li></ul><ul><li>Speech reasonably fits within the curriculum </li></ul>
    • 29. Teacher’s Speech Teacher’s Speech Does touch on matter of public concern NO 1st Amendment protection MAY have 1st Amendment protection Does not touch on matter of public concern “ Court must balance the public school teacher’s interest in commenting upon a matter of public concern against the school officials’ interest in promoting an efficient workplace of public service.”
    • 30. Balancing Factors for Public Concern <ul><li>Whether the statement impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among coworkers </li></ul><ul><li>Whether the statement has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary </li></ul><ul><li>Whether the speech in question interferes with the normal operation of the employer’s business </li></ul>
    • 31. Schools: <ul><li>May establish teacher dress codes </li></ul><ul><li>May establish topics that many not be taught in school </li></ul>
    • 32. Teachers: <ul><li>Are not required to salute the flag during the Pledge of Allegiance </li></ul><ul><li>May wear “unobtrusive” religious jewelry in the classroom </li></ul><ul><li>May Not wear clothing, buttons, etc. with proselytizing messages [e.g. “Jesus Saves] </li></ul><ul><li>May not treat their classroom as a “Public Forum” [e.g. advertising banned books] </li></ul>
    • 33. Teachers: <ul><li>May not refuse to teach materials they feel infringes on personal beliefs [e.g. evolution] </li></ul><ul><li>May pray in schools but NOT in front of students [Establishment Clause] </li></ul><ul><li>May read religious books [e.g. Bible, Qur’an] but NOT in front of students [Establishment Clause] </li></ul>
    • 34. Remember, laws change all the time by way of COURT actions. Nothing in this presentation is set in stone since future court decisions may change how laws are interpreted. THE END

    ×