Fraser's Speech: Bethel School District Vs. Fraser 1986
Bethel School District Vs. Fraser 1986 is about an ASB President of a school who used sexual innuendos during a speech in front of the school, in order to try and help his friend become ASB Vice President in the upcoming year, and therefor got suspended. Seventeen years earlier Tinker vs. Des Moines 1969 is about siblings who wore armbands to protest the Vietnam War. They were sent home and were told they couldn't come back until they agreed to remove the armbands. These two compare well because both are about students who attended public school, and one was about someone who exercised their free speech, got suspended, went to the supreme court and lost, while the other is about a pair of students who exercised their free speech, got suspended,
…show more content…
The question was whether or not Fraser's freedom of speech was violated when he was punished for what he said in front of the school during his speech, since he didn't feel he had "adequate warning". The argument was that he negatively affected the school environment by insulting the girls of the school, and nearly traumatizing the younger students. So, the court decided punishment was within the school's full right, since Fraser's actions had to largely impacted the common good, and ultimate goal of the school, saying "The school disciplinary rule proscribing 'obscene' language and the prespeech admonitions of teachers gave adequate warning to Fraser that his lewd speech could subject him to sanctions." Meaning he knew that he could get in trouble for what he did and did it …show more content…
The Tinker's didn't do anything to effectively mess with the learning in the school, so they didn't stop the school from doing their job, and they were able to maintain their rights. In the Fraser case, Fraser openly made sexual jokes in front of the whole school, as their representative. He did so in a way that was hard for the school to justify that what he did was too inappropriate for the school. His goal was to be funny, without real justification for what he was doing. The Supreme Court decided that what he did, did prevent the school from doing their job. Therefor he had his free speech largely effected in school, while common good was thought to be improved with this decision. Fraser in order to prevent anything like his situation again they made it obvious that free speech in school can be restrained in order to keep the learning environment. In the Tinker case the judges left the case open for discipline on students who "interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students." Which means that they narrowed the spectrum onto where the schools can interfere with individual rights, and where they can't. In the Fraser case, these same principals are applied, saying "The First Amendment does not prevent the school officials from determining that to permit a vulgar and lewd speech, such as respondents would undermine the school's basic educational mission." Fraser's speech was thought
The question was whether or not Fraser's freedom of speech was violated when he was punished for what he said in front of the school during his speech, since he didn't feel he had "adequate warning". The argument was that he negatively affected the school environment by insulting the girls of the school, and nearly traumatizing the younger students. So, the court decided punishment was within the school's full right, since Fraser's actions had to largely impacted the common good, and ultimate goal of the school, saying "The school disciplinary rule proscribing 'obscene' language and the prespeech admonitions of teachers gave adequate warning to Fraser that his lewd speech could subject him to sanctions." Meaning he knew that he could get in trouble for what he did and did it …show more content…
The Tinker's didn't do anything to effectively mess with the learning in the school, so they didn't stop the school from doing their job, and they were able to maintain their rights. In the Fraser case, Fraser openly made sexual jokes in front of the whole school, as their representative. He did so in a way that was hard for the school to justify that what he did was too inappropriate for the school. His goal was to be funny, without real justification for what he was doing. The Supreme Court decided that what he did, did prevent the school from doing their job. Therefor he had his free speech largely effected in school, while common good was thought to be improved with this decision. Fraser in order to prevent anything like his situation again they made it obvious that free speech in school can be restrained in order to keep the learning environment. In the Tinker case the judges left the case open for discipline on students who "interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students." Which means that they narrowed the spectrum onto where the schools can interfere with individual rights, and where they can't. In the Fraser case, these same principals are applied, saying "The First Amendment does not prevent the school officials from determining that to permit a vulgar and lewd speech, such as respondents would undermine the school's basic educational mission." Fraser's speech was thought