FirstAmendmentinSchoolsHomeLCSSharepointSite在學(xué)校家庭LCSSharePoint網(wǎng)站第一修正案課件

1、First Amendment“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.”TM第1頁，共31頁。

2、First AmendmentCan you identify the five rights in the First Amendment?TM第2頁，共31頁。First AmendmentThe Five RightsFreedom of speechFreedom of religionFreedom of the pressRight to assemble peacefullyRight to petition the governmentTM第3頁，共31頁。What is Speech?Anything that a person says or does that is in

3、tended to convey a message that could reasonably be expected to be understood by others.TM第4頁，共31頁。What is Speech?Speech can be non-verbal, such as displaying a flag. Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931)Obscene speech is not protected. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)The school envir

4、onment is different from the public in that schools have the duty to fulfill their educational mission.Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)TM第5頁，共31頁。Prior Decisions Decisions of the US Supreme CourtCase precedent and free speech TM第6頁，共31頁。Stromberg v. CaliforniaStromberg was convicted of viol

5、ating a California statute that prohibited the display of a red flag or banner in any public place or in any meeting place or public assembly (1) as a sign, symbol or emblem of opposition to organized government; or (2) as an invitation or stimulus to anarchistic action (i.e., overthrow of the gover

6、nment); or (3) as an aid to propaganda that is of a seditious (encouraging disorder, treasonous) character.TM第7頁，共31頁。Stromberg v. CaliforniaStromberg, a member of the Young Communist League, was a supervisor of a summer camp. Each day, a daily ceremony was held at the camp where the children raised

7、 a red flag and recited a pledge of allegiance to “the workers red flag.”Stromberg also possessed books and pamphlets which called for a violent uprising and a “bloody, destructive” war. Stromberg admitted ownership of some of these materials, but none of them were used in teaching at the camp.TM第8頁

8、，共31頁。Stromberg v. CaliforniaStromberg appealed her conviction to the state appellate court contending that the statute under which she was charged was invalid as “an unwarranted limitation on the right of free speech.” The appellate court affirmed the conviction.The United States Supreme Court reve

9、rsed. The Court held that the first clause of the statute (i.e., prohibiting the display of a flag as a sign, symbol or emblem of opposition to organized government) violated the First Amendment because it was broad enough to punish peaceful and orderly opposition to government by legal means.TM第9頁，

10、共31頁。Miller v. CaliforniaMiller conducted a mass mailing campaign of “adult material.” He sent five unsolicited advertising brochures through the mail to a restaurant. The manager of the restaurant and his mother opened the envelope containing the brochures and complained to the police.Miller was ar

11、rested and convicted of a state statute that prohibited knowing distribution of obscene material. The appellate court affirmed Millers conviction.TM第10頁，共31頁。Miller v. CaliforniaThe United States Supreme Court vacated Millers conviction and remanded. The Court held that“Obscene material is unprotect

12、ed by the First Amendment.”Therefore, obscene material may be regulated by the states, but subject to certain safeguards.What is obscene is to be determined by state community standards (i.e., what is obscene in Utah may not necessarily be obscene in New York state).The Supreme Court remanded the ca

13、se so that the lower court could consider Millers case under these new standards. TM第11頁，共31頁。School vs. PublicThe Court has recognized that students do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter school.However, the Court has traditionally recognized that the educational mission of the sch

14、ool cannot be disrupted by the exercise of free speech.Speech rights at school differ from outside the school environment.TM第12頁，共31頁。Tinker v. Des MoinesIn 1968, three public school students came to class wearing black armbands.Fearing a disruption, the principals of the schools suspended them.TM第1

15、3頁，共31頁。Tinker v. Des MoinesThe students sought relief in US District Court for the southern district of Iowa asking for nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation banning the armbands.The petition was dismissed and on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the decisio

16、n was affirmed with an equally divided court. Sitting en banc the decision was four to four.TM第14頁，共31頁。Tinker v. Des MoinesThe United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. The US Supreme Court held in a 7-2 decision that the wearing of the armbands was protected by the First Amendment.TM第15頁，共31

17、頁。Tinker v. Des MoinesHere are two clips from the oral argument in this case.TM第16頁，共31頁。Bethel School Dist v. FraserStudent Matthew Fraser delivered a speech to 600 high school students in support of a friends campaign for student council during a school assembly.Frasers speech was described as bei

18、ng sexually suggestive using graphic and explicit sexual metaphor.Several teachers noted that some students were embarrassed and bewildered in the audience.Many students hooted and yelled during the speech or mimicked the sexual activities alluded to in the speech.TM第17頁，共31頁。Bethel School Dist. v.

19、FraserThe next day, the principal suspended Fraser for violating the disruptive conduct rule which prohibited the use of obscene or profane language or gestures.Fraser filed suit in Federal District Court alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and seeking injunctive r

20、elief and damages.The District Court held that the schools sanctions violated the First Amendment and that the disruptive conduct rule was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The Court of Appeals affirmed.TM第18頁，共31頁。Bethel School Dist. v. FraserThe U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decid

21、e whether the First Amendment prevents a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a vulgar or lewd speech at a school assembly.The Court held that the First Amendment did not prevent the School District from disciplining the respondent for giving the offensively lewd and in

22、decent speech during the school assembly.TM第19頁，共31頁。Hazelwood S.D. v. KuhlmeierThe student editors of the Spectrum, a school newspaper, created an issue that included articles about student experiences with teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce. TM第20頁，共31頁。Hazelwood S.D. v. KuhmeierThe principa

23、l banned the articles from being published.The principal argued that the first article risked identifying the pregnant students and the content about sexual activity and birth control was not appropriate for younger students at the school. The second article contained comments from a student but did

24、 not allow the divorced parents to comment on their childs interview.TM第21頁，共31頁。Hazelwood S.D. v. KuhmeierThe students filed suit alleging their First Amendment rights had been violated by the deletion of the articles.The District Court held that no First Amendment violation had occurred. The Court

25、 of Appeals reversed.The US Supreme Court held that no First Amendment violation had occurred. Schools need not tolerate speech that is inconsistent with its educational mission.TM第22頁，共31頁。First AmendmentTodays CaseYou will be the justices on the US Supreme Court to decide the First Amendment case

26、presented today. TM第23頁，共31頁。Morse v. FrederickRead the case materials provided and circle or highlight any and all important facts.TM第24頁，共31頁。Morse v. FrederickWhat are the facts of the case?What did the principal do?TM第25頁，共31頁。Morse v. FrederickReview US District Court and Ninth Circuit decision

27、s.US Supreme Court grants certiorariDoes the First Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal drugs at school-supervised events?TM第26頁，共31頁。Supreme Court ConferenceIndividually answer the questionYes (Rule in favor of the school)No (Rule

28、 in favor of the students)Give legal reasoningGroup decisions TM第27頁，共31頁。Morse v. FrederickYesThe US Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit by a 5-4 decision ruling that school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use. The majority held that the message although cryptic was reasonably interpreted as promoting marijuana use.TM第28頁，共31頁。Morse v. FrederickThree dissentin