(Keep a Breast). It is vitally important that the interest of students such as the plaintiffs in current affairs be encouraged whenever possible. Respondent Des Moines Independent Community School District . When the arm band regulation involved herein was promulgated, *973 debate over the Viet Nam war had become vehement in many localities. In response, the school district suspended the children, and their parents brought suit in federal district court, alleging that their suspension violated their First Amendment right to free speech. Some experts argue that the three individual cases each act independently of one another and govern different types of student speech. 1628 (1943); Stromberg v People of State of California, 283 U.S. 359, 51 S. Ct. 532, 75 L. Ed. The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, did not permit a public school to punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest, absent any evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. It Did not infringe on other students rights. See, e. g., Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 503, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. [1] Each of the plaintiffs testified that their purpose in wearing the arm bands was to mourn those who had died in the Viet Nam war and to support Senator Robert F. Kennedy's proposal that the truce proposed for Christmas Day, 1965, be extended indefinitely. The students were not given a fair trial for their defense, Schools don't stop students from wearing symbolic items. This case was the first time that the court set forth standards for safeguarding public school students' free speech rights. The question which now must be determined is whether the action of officials of the defendant school district forbidding the wearing of arm bands on school facilities deprived the plaintiffs of constitutional rights secured by the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment. This activity can Community School Dist. The students wore the armbands to several schools in the Des Moines Independent Community School District (North High School for John, Roosevelt High School for Christopher, Warren Harding Junior High School for Mary Beth, elementary school for Hope and Paul). school officials reasonably feared disruption and therefore took preemptive action to protect the learning environment of the students. In holding in one of the cases that the school regulation prohibiting the wearing of such buttons was not reasonable, the Court stated that school officials "cannot infringe on their students' right to free and unrestricted expression as guaranteed to them under the First Amendment to the Constitution, where the exercise of such rights in the school buildings and schoolrooms do not materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." [17] In Defoe v. Spiva, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that "racially hostile or contemptuous speech" can be restricted, even if it was not disruptive. In the past the school had allowed must balance the rights of individuals to free speech with other values The administration of a public school is an agent of the government. the society holds dear. Plaintiff's Arguments Defendant's Arguments Outcome Supreme Court said that wearing the armbands for expressing a view is covered by the first amendment.The First Amendment did not permit a public school to punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest. It was not unreasonable in this instance for school officials to anticipate that the wearing of arm bands would create some type of classroom disturbance. Black, who had long believed that disruptive "symbolic speech" was not constitutionally protected, wrote, "While I have always believed that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments neither the State nor the Federal Government has any authority to regulate or censor the content of speech, I have never believed that any person has a right to give speeches or engage in demonstrations where he pleases and when he pleases." (1969) case. Justice Fortas noted, "Only a few of the 18,000 students in the school system wore the black armbands. The following is a list of arguments in the Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) case. We apologize for any inconvenience, but hope that having only one Street Law account to remember will make your life easier. In the 1986 court case Bethel School District v. Fraser, the Supreme Court ruled that a high school student's sexual innuendo-laden speech during a school assembly was not constitutionally protected. Previous decisions, such as West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, had established that students did have some constitutional protections in public school. During the second week of that month, it came to the attention of certain school officials that several students intended to wear black arm bands for the purpose of expressing their beliefs relating to the war in Viet Nam. As part of this update, all LandmarkCases.org accounts have been taken out of service. These officials not only have a right, they have an obligation to prevent anything which might be disruptive of such an atmosphere. In this instance, however, it is the disciplined atmosphere of the classroom, not the plaintiffs' right to wear arm bands on school premises, which is entitled to the protection of the law. Sign in|Recent Site Activity|Report Abuse|Print Page|Powered By Google Sites. Lower court United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit . Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. v. Grumet, Arizona Christian Sch. [1] Christopher Eckhardt and John Tinker attended a protest the previous month against the Vietnam War in Washington, D.C.[2] The principals of the Des Moines schools learned of the plan and met before the incident occurred on December 16 to create a policy that stated that school children wearing an armband would be asked to remove it immediately. They are still free to wear arm bands off school premises. Decision Date: February 24, 1969 Background At a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, students planned to wear black armbands at school as a silent protest against the Vietnam War. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. 1950). [13] The court also cited Fraser, saying the bracelets were not lewd speech. [1] Plaintiff John F. Tinker, age 15, attended North High; plaintiff Mary Beth Tinker, age 13, attended Warren Harding Junior High; plaintiff Christopher Eckhardt, age 15, attended Roosevelt High; Paul and Hope Tinker, age 8 and 11 respectively, younger brother and sister of plaintiffs John and Mary Beth Tinker also wore arm bands to their respective schools. possibility for debate of controversial issues. United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association, West Virginia State Board of Ed. Tinker v. Des Moines Case Brief. 1137 (1951); Near v. State of Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. The Court ruled that First Amendment rights were not absolute, and could be withheld if there was a “carefully restricted circumstance.” Student speech that has the potential to cause disruption is not protected by Tinker.