1st ammendment
Kuvakäsikirjoitus Teksti
- LATER THAT DAYThe parents of both Mary Bath and John decided to meet with the Principle.
- 3:They where only wearing wristbands to share their opinion. It did not distract other students.
- 1:I seriously do not understand what the issue is here. 4:They should not be punished for sharing their opinions peacefully.
- 2:Your children were both being disruptive towards other students.
- LATER ON, IN COURTThe Tinker family decided to sue the school district after their children where suspended for expressing their opinions.
- Referring to the first amendment the armbands are a form of symbolic speech and did not disrupt any student from their learning. They are a silent protest so they do not disrupt the learning of others. Therefore the armbands should be allowed in school.
- In the classroom the free speech rules do not apply. The administrators have the power to make rules based on weather they maintain a productive learning space or not. Therefore the armbands should not be allowed in school.
- In the end the Supreme Court sided with the Tinkers in a 7-2 decision.
- This court case started what's called the ¨Tinker test¨ which is a guideline that is still used by courts today to see whether school officials can or can not prohibit certain things such as cyber bullying or hate speeches.
Yli 30 miljoonaa kuvakäsikirjoitusta luotu