WE’RE NUMBER ONE! FREE SPEECH, RELIGION, PRESS, ASSEMBLY, PETITION Created by the Ohio State Bar...

WE’RE NUMBER ONE!

FREE SPEECH, RELIGION, PRESS, ASSEMBLY, PETITION

Created by the Ohio State Bar Foundation

Relevant Free Speech Case

Evans v. Bayer (2010)


Background Story

• Senior Katherine Evans

• Facebook page rant against teacher

• Home computer – after school

• No disruption of school activities

Background Story

• Teacher never saw posting

• Principal did

• Page was removed

• Suspended Evans, an honor student

Background Story

• Dismissed from AP classes

• Evans sued

Background Story• First Amendment rights:

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.

Legal Problem

• Was Evans denied her right to free speech?

• Did her free speech pose a threat to the teacher?

Arguments in Favor of Evans

• Posted on a personal home computer

• No school disruption

• Page was not vulgar or threatening

• No illegal or dangerous behavior

• Stain on Evans’ academic record

Arguments in Favor of the Principal

• Cyber bullying/harassment toward a staff member

• Libelous and disruptive

• Principal protected personally from lawsuits

Outcome• Florida District Court

ruled rights were violated

• Protected speech: – off campus– no disruption – not vulgar or

threatening

Outcome

• No access at school

• Reach of the school was too great

• Groundbreaking case about social media

Outcome

• Schools can restrict some speech

• Deterring illegal drug use is important

• No political statement- no protected speech

WE’RE NUMBER ONE!



Relevant Free Speech Case

Morse v. Frederick (2007)


Background Story

• Olympic Torch Relay through Juneau

• Students watched historic event

Background Story

• Frederick would not comply friends held banner

• “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS”

Background Story

• Principal Morse ordered banner to be taken down

• Frederick would not comply

Background Story

• Frederick was suspended

• Appeal of suspension failed

• Sued principal

• Free speech was being denied

Legal problem

• Were his free speech rights violated?

• Does a school have the right to ban drug-related messages at school-sponsored events?

• Can a student be punished for displaying such a message?

Arguments in Favor of the School

• Advocating drug use- violation of school policy

• School-sponsored event

• Restrict student expression if it suggests illegal activity

• Frederick’s speech was not political

Arguments in Favor of Frederick

• Other interpretations of banner

• Meaningless and funny

• No disruption of school activity

• Off school grounds- watching a parade

Outcome• Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for

school

• Taking banner down was justified

• Event was part of school day

• School’s interpretation of banner was reasonable

Outcome

• Schools can restrict some speech

• Deterring illegal drug use is important

• No political statement- no protected speech

WE’RE NUMBER ONE!



Historical Free Speech Case

Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)


Background Story• Protested military action in

Vietnam

• John and Mary Beth Tinker wore black armbands to school

• Remove them or be suspended- new school policy

• Tinkers refused

Background Story

• Suspended and sent home

• Could not come back until armbands removed

• Tinkers sued in a U.S. District Court

• They lost

Background Story

• Tinkers appealed to the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

• Lost again

• Appealed to the Supreme Court

Legal Problem

• Does the First Amendment’s promise of free speech extend to the symbolic speech of public school students?

Arguments in Favor of the school

• School’s duty is to provide education

• Serious disruption of school activities

Arguments in Favor of the School• First Amendment does

not define what is protected speech

• Types of expressive actions are not specified

Arguments in Favor of the Tinkers

• Armband is not an attempt to disrupt

• First Amendment protects students too

• Anti-Vietnam message is only one being suppressed by policy

Outcome

• Supreme Court ruled 7-2 for Tinkers

• Wearing armbands was “pure speech”

• First Amendment applied to more than just verbal expression

Outcome

• Students are persons with rights

• Unpopular expression does not justify suppressing it

• Does not interfere with school discipline

WE’RE NUMBER ONE!



Historical Free Speech Case

Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser (1986)


Background Story

• Matthew Fraser’s speech at mandatory assembly

• Nominating a classmate for student body vice president

• Graphic sexual puns and double entendres

Background Story

• Some students were embarrassed

• Some students laughed and made rude gestures

Background Story

• Fraser broke rules against “obscene, profane language or gestures.”

• Suspended

• Could not speak at graduation

• Sued district

• Right to free speech

Legal Problem

• Did Fraser have a right to deliver a sexually graphic speech at a school assembly?

• Were his free speech rights violated?

• Does the First Amendment prevent a school from disciplining a student for giving a lewd speech at an assembly?


• Against school rules and disruptive

• School responsibility to teach appropriate behavior


• Vulgar speech against fundamental values

• Fraser had been forewarned

• Tinker v. Des Moines does not apply- not protected political speech

Arguments in Favor of Fraser

• No big threat to fundamental values- not disruptive

• Vulgar joking among teens is common-constitutionally protected outside of school

Arguments in Favor of Fraser

• Not an example of Tinker’s disruption standard

• Fraser had a right to say what he wanted

Outcome• Supreme Court ruled 7-2 for

school

• First Amendment not violated

• Student free speech rights not equal to adults

• Appropriate speech can be determined by schools

Outcome

• Fraser’s speech differed from political speech of Tinker

• Schools teach socially acceptable behavior

• Protect students from offensive language

Outcome

• School’s disciplinary policy does not need to be as descriptive as criminal code

• Fraser was warned

• Ruling important- schools have a right to expect students to behave

WE’RE NUMBER ONE!



Relevant Freedom of Religion Case

Board of Education v. Mergens

(1990)


Background Story

• Bridget Mergens wanted a Christian Bible study at school

• School said “No”

Background Story

• School cannot give preference to one religion

• No faculty sponsor

• Mergens and others sued

Legal Problem

• Are schools that permit other non-curriculum clubs in violation of the Constitution if they ban religious clubs?

• Does separation of church and state apply in this case?

Arguments in Favor of Mergens

• Equal Access Act of 1984 gives right to form clubs

• School violates First Amendment right to free exercise of religion without government interference


• School is part of state

• Separation of church and state

• Religious club violates separation

• Equal Access Act does not apply- unconstitutional

• Teachers cannot participate in student religious clubs

Outcome

• Supreme Court ruled 8-1 for Mergens

• Equal Access Act does not violate First Amendment

Outcome

• Equal Access Act protects students

• School not endorsing religion

WE’RE NUMBER ONE!



Historical Freedom of Religion Case

Wisconsin v. Yoder

(1972)


Background Story

• Some Amish do not send children to school after eighth grade

• Yoder and other parents broke Wisconsin compulsory education law

• Simple life apart from worldly influences

Background Story

• Amish parents were prosecuted

• James Yoder (parent) represented the Amish families in court

• Amish lost

• Fined $5 for breaking law

• Case appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court

Legal Problem

• Did Wisconsin’s compulsory attendance law violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise of religion clause?

• Were the Amish being punished for their religious beliefs?

Arguments in Favor of Yoder

• Attendance violates religious beliefs

• Religious beliefs are genuine

• High school life will undermine Amish beliefs

Arguments in Favor of Wisconsin• School prepares students to

become effective citizens

• School prepares students to be self-reliant

• Children have a right to education

• Children have a right to be emancipated

Outcome

• Supreme Court ruled 7-0 for Yoder

• Free exercise of religion more important than compulsory education

• Modern American values conflict with Amish values

Outcome

• Amish children are self-reliant

• No need for two more years

• Case is about freedom of religion, not children’s First Amendment rights

WE’RE NUMBER ONE!



Present Day Realities

Judging the First Amendment


Background

James Madison:

“Freedom is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom.”

Background

Needs that matter– First Amendment Rights

1. Worship as we please

2. Speak what we think

3. Get and exchange information via a free press

4. Assemble as we deem necessary

5. Petition our government to listen to us and to right any wrongs

First Amendment Questions

• Can a teenager research sexting on the internet in a public library?

• Does a cable company have the right to block your access to certain Websites?


• Can a DJ swear? Can the DJ get fired for speaking out against a certain religious or ethnic group?

• Can stores be restricted from selling violent video games to minors?


• Should musicians be allowed to sing songs with offensive lyrics in them?

• Should students be allowed to wear Confederate symbols to school even a Confederate flag dress to prom?


• Are dial-a-porn services legal?

• If the government is not supposed to prohibit speech, why does it prohibit some kinds of speech?


• Can a Nazi group demonstrate in a mostly Jewish neighborhood?

• Does a shopping mall have a right to ban gathering petitions on its premises?


• Can you pass out literature for or against a candidate or an issue anonymously?

• Do third party candidates have the right to participate in televised political debates even if they have little support and are hardly known?


• Should a blogger (non- traditional journalist) have equal access to the White House briefing room?

• Are you allowed to wear T-shirts with anti-war slogans printed on them when the President speaks to Congress?


• Should corporations and unions have the same freedom of speech rights as individuals do in supporting political candidates?


• Are religions that involve handling of poisonous snakes or that believe a man can have multiple wives protected?

• Should a Ten Commandments monument be allowed on government properties such as a state capitol? How about a nativity scene?


• Should students be allowed to display religious headwear when participating on teams with uniform requirements?

• Can religious people who believe only in faith and prayer refuse medical treatment for their children?


• Can a community petition to keep a mosque from building in its neighborhood?

• Can religious groups use illegal drugs during their religious practices?


• Should students be allowed to speak of their religious faith in classrooms or at public school events? Offer a prayer at events?

• Should Congress and the President participate in a national day of prayer?

First Amendment Questions• Should freedom of religion

be granted to extreme or fringe religious groups? Was it meant to?

• Should the United States be considered mostly a Christian nation whose values must be protected?

First Amendment QuestionsDoes the First Amendment go too far in protecting:

• Worshipping as we please

• Speaking what we think

• Getting and exchanging information via a free press

• Assembling as we deem necessary

• Petitioning our government to listen to us and to right any wrongs?

WE’RE NUMBER ONE! FREE SPEECH, RELIGION, PRESS, ASSEMBLY, PETITION Created by the Ohio State Bar...

Documents

Transcript of WE’RE NUMBER ONE! FREE SPEECH, RELIGION, PRESS, ASSEMBLY, PETITION Created by the Ohio State Bar...