Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Question Presented
Have the first amendment rights been violated when students take a stand against gun control by selling t-shirts, even though at first their principle gave permission to sell the t-shirts to promote their protest on gun violence and then gave Kylie a suspension at the cost of a scholarship?
Short Answer
Yes. Under the Constitution, the First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech for Americans does not stop at the door for students if there is no disruption, vulgar speech, or displaying drugs on clothing.
Statement of Facts
Kylie Smith and the group of students were selling t-shirts with the saying on them ‘Thank you for your thoughts and prayers, but we need stricter gun laws.’ on the back it read ‘Harrison West does not want to be next!!!’. There are about 500 students in the school. Mrs. Jones oversaw the group and brought the proposal to principal Mr. Wyatt and he said it was fine to sell the shirts.
There were a group of students that were upset about the shirts and so Mr. Wyatt told the group to stop any more sales and to refund the ones that were already sold. He was unaware that they would be worn at the school.
Mr. Wyatt told the president and vice president of the group that they were in violation of the school handbook and gave them a two-day suspension. The reason he gave was that they were disrupting the school.
Due to the suspension, Kylie was unable to finish her school work and missed her volleyball game where a Harvard coach came to see her play but now the coach has decided not to retain her for their college.
Discussion
Kylie Smith has been issued a suspension from school for protesting on gun violence by her principle but under the First Amendment Kylies rights are in question. Under the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969), students keep up free discourse rights while at state-funded school including the privilege to articulation inside specific parameters.
Tinker is the trademark case for student rights, broadly proclaiming that understudies don’t ‘shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.’ Tinker, 393 U.S. at 506. In Tinker, understudies were suspended because they wore dark arm bans to challenge the Vietnam War. Id. at 504. The Court held the ‘Constitution . . . [did] not allow authorities of the State to preclude [the students’] structure from securing articulation.’ Id. at 514. 2 Because the understudies that wore arm bans occupied with ‘quiet, detached articulation of sentiment, unaccompanied by any turmoil or unsettling influence’ and they ‘neither intruded on school exercises nor looked to encroach in the school undertakings or the lives of others,’ the Court held that the understudies’ activities did not ascend to the dimension of a ‘considerable disturbance of or material obstruction with school exercises.’ Id. at 508, 514. The Court clarified that limitations on understudy articulation are just suitable to ‘maintain a strategic distance from material and significant obstruction with schoolwork or control.’ Id. at 514. Understudies’ rights in the government-funded school are not, in any case, coextensive with the privileges of grown-ups in different settings, and the educational committee has some specialist to decide ‘what way of discourse in the study hall or in a school get together is unseemly.’ Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682-83 (1986). After its choice in Tinker, the Supreme Court cut out three exemptions to the free discourse privileges of understudies. Vulgar discourse, Fraser, 478 U.S. at 485, discourse advancing illicit medication use, Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 403 (2007), and school-supported discourse, Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 272 73 (1988) are three classes of discourse that school authorities can blue pencil and confine.
Similarly, as government operators may not constrain understudies’ free discourse rights other than by the confinements talked about above, they additionally may not expect understudies to embrace a conviction or perspectives. The Constitution ‘secures the resident against the State itself and many of its creaturesBoards of Education not excepted,’ government funded instruction must not be ‘fanatic or foe of any class, ideology, gathering, or group.’ Id. at 637.
Id. at 642. Hence, councils and educational committees may not, without disregarding the Constitution, expect understudies to talk, accept, or receive any perspective.
Conclusion
Kylie Smiths case on protesting against gun violence while selling t-shirts does not violate Kylies First Amendment rights under the Constitution and Statute. Kylie is not violating any laws and is not being disruptive or promoting any drugs and there is no use of vulgar language.
The fact that she lost a scholarship just adds to Kylies case of what she could have accomplished in Kylies future endeavors.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.