What is your reaction to the Tinker V. Des Moines case? Do you agree with the school for suspending the students? Do you agree with the Court's decision to allow the students to wear the armbands? Are armbands an example of "speech?"
I don't think such a case is big enough to be put in the Court at the beginning, and I regard it as a random conflict between students and school authority that could happen everywhere. However, the Tinker V. Des Moines case did matter the freedom of speech and it served as a good example of the issue from schools. I don't agree with the school for suspending students and I favor the Court's decision. Students have their right to express themselves, and it's their choice to wear the armband--a certain silent way to spread their voice and thoughts. School can't forbid the action for its own plausible reasons such as sustaining the school rules and order that every student should act or behave in a certain way that followed by the same rules. It sort of restrain students thoughts as well as their development. No one is supposed to be like any other person. Students are all independent individuals that can freely express their ideas as long as they don't violate others' rights. However, the petitioners didn't cause a great bad impact on school or others. If the school argued that some students had been distracted, then it was their business which cause by their curiosity and there was nothing to do with the petitioners. Indeed, the actions didn't make any "materially and substantially" disrupt of the school. Also, wearing the armbands is absolutely a way of "speech" since it acts as a medium for students to share information and show their ideas and attitude on other issue, in spite of the silent way.
I disagree with the school's decision to suspend the students for wearing arm bands. Those students have a right to have their opinion be known whether it'd be through wearing the armbands or just speaking their opinion. Both could still result in disruption of class and if a school suspended a student every time someone said something that the majority didn't believe and caused an a verbal uprising/distraction then people would constantly be suspended. I believe that the court's decision was right because the school made their decision based on an assumption. One thing that Mr. Justice Black agreed with the expression "children are to be seen not heard" as well as he said that "taxpayers send children to school on the premise that at their age they need to learn, not teach." Learning from others is unavoidable whether you learn from another adult or a student, a child, even a baby! I do not think that the purpose of the armbands was to "teach" the school their opinion about troops in the Vietnam war but just for people to recognize it. I completely disagree with Mr. Justice Black on that..
I understand that the school was worried about problems that might stem from kids wearing the black arm bands. I do not believe the school took the proper action when on "December 14, 1965, they met and adopted a policy that any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it, and if he refused he would be suspended until he returned without the armband". The school jumped to the conclusion that the arm bands would cause a problem and in less than two weeks adopted the policy mentioned above. I feel they should have reminded the students to ensure they behaved appropriately while wearing the bands or taken a similar action that could have aided in diffusing the situation. Instead, they assumed that issues might arise with the band and they then tried to take a shortcut to cut off the issue entirely. I see this action by the principals of the school as them trying the wiggle out of, in their eyes, a potentially difficult predicament. I do agree with the Court's decision to allow the students to wear the arm bands. I agree because I see the arm bands as a method of speaking and voicing something symbolically. Thus, they should be allowed tonwear they because of freedom of speech. The arm bands are the way of saying that whoever wears them believes in something, stands for something, and wants to visually show their support.
I feel that the school was completely wrong in telling the students that the would be suspended for wearing the armbands. To me, this is an expression of ideas, which no one should be able to regulate. Although I tend to think of speech as something spoken, this also classifies as speech. It is he way that the students are expressing their ideas. However they choose to do so should be considered speech. Because of this label, the should be protected from being forced to do anything. The school has no right to tell the students whether they are allowed to wear the armbands. The courts were absolutely right to allow the students to wear the armbands. If schools, or any other governing body, could restrict what we can wear, what could happen next? Will the school tell the students what they're allowed to write about? Are they going to restrict what the students say? Those armbands are definitely considered speech, and I'm glad that the courts did the right thing and allowed them to wear the armbands.
I don't think the school had the right to not allow the students to wear the armbands. It was stated that only a few of the 18,000 schoolchildren in the district system wore the armbands. This is a clear indication that the school officials were targeting a certain population of the children. I can understand if these armbands were heinously offensive, but according to the piece on the case, only a few hostile remarks were made, and were never followed by violence (at least on school property). While I don't think of black armbands when I think of freedom of speech, I do think the fit under a sort of umbrella of ideas within this section of the Constitution. If a person is given the right to be a Catholic or an Atheist, should they not be given the right to voice their opinions, minus the voice? These children simply wore the armbands - they did not parade around school trying to gather followers. I find it hard to believe that a simple armband could be a distraction for any student. Thus, I agree with the Tinkers in their right to wear the armbands, and that the school board made a ludicrous decision in targeting a small, specific group.
I highly disagree with the schools decision to suspend the students. I believe that they should have that right if the armbands were offensive, but they were symbols of peace, support for a truce in the Vietnam War. The students are protected under the first amendment because the armbands are a form of speech. They express the ideas and emotions the students wanted to convey, and isn't that what all forms of speech and language do. The court made the right decision of allowing the students to peacefully express themselves. The school should be ashamed of their actions because they were constitutionally and morally unfair. Did the school suspend someone every time they peacefully and maturely expressed their opinion on a certain topic? It's like if CA suspended everyone who supported the day of silence. I would be extremely shocked, and I understand why they took this case to court; the students' constitutional rights were being violated.
I disagree with the school's decision to suspend the students. The children wearing the armbands weren't causing a major disruption; they were simply showing their opinion on the war. The school officials banned the armbands because they were nervous something would happen as a result of students wearing them, but nothing major occurred. The armbands are an example of speech. They are silent messages displaying the beliefs of the students wearing them. I agree with the court's decision to let students wear the black armbands, because the first amendment gives people freedom of speech. You shouldn't lose that right the moment you walk into school. However, there are still rules in schools today that limit what things people can wear on shirts so that people don't get offended, which goes against the first amendment. It is difficult to decide exactly how much freedom people should have.
I kind of understand the school; however school’s decision to suspend students with armband is too offensive and unreasonable. School should consider about the amendments before they command students. Everyone has right, even a young kid. Armband was their unusual way of expressing their opinions. It is just a matter of media, the ideas and opinions still were somehow expressed. If the armband caused disputes between students, that could be a problem, therefore school has evidence to warn those students. However school just suddenly made up the policy even before anything happened. The school not only invaded one’s private life, but also completely ignored the freedom of speech. The school should have thought more, just because students are younger doesn’t mean students don’t have any right to speak or students are under control of the school.
It is totally wrong idea that school gave suspension to students who wore armband. The school made decision because of fear of disturbance which is not reasonable. "children are to be seen not heard" is a reason that I think. School is a little community that makes us prepare for social after graduation. Therefore, school has to be contained same idea such as freedom of speech to make us prepare. Disturbance by other's opinion is common phenomenon in our society. To make us figure out our own idea among several ideas by critical thought is job that school has to teach to their student independently.
The students in this article were definitely suspended for wrong reasons. I understand where the school is coming from since the student were supporting something contrary to what the United States was involved in at the time. Although that may be the case, it does not make it right to take away a freedom that is so plain of day that it is written in the constitution. They have the freedom to support whatever cause they want as long as it is not violent or disturbs anyone. Wearing something as simple as an armband is not going to disturb or hurt anyone. The school was expecting this to turn into something disturbing but speculation does not mean it is going to happen. I think the school underestimated the students will and beliefs in this case.
My first reaction to this article was kinda shocked but also upset for the kids. Only five of them wore the arm bands and it did not cause a disturbance so why suspend them? I definitely did not agree that the school suspended the kids from school. I think they should have gotten all their information together and really thought more about this before suspending them. The court made all valid points that there was no reason to suspend them because one, only five of them wore it, two, it was not causing any disturbances during class, and three, the armband did represent an example of speech and that gets protection under the first amendment for freedom of speech. So I think the school looked into this in a wrong way and didn't look at all the aspects of this case.
I feel shocked that the school doesn't allow students to wear the black armbands, or the students will be suspended as a punishment. I don't agree with the school's action, they have no rights to suspend students from their own choice of whether wear he armband or not or not; I kind of understand wearing the armband could be offensive, but I don't think the school is making the right decision to students either. The court has made the decision to let the students wear it but do no t cause disturb the classes; which is more reasonable and fair. Although students don't have the entire rights to choose ; school still has the rights to control, but that gives students more freedom to pick. An the other hand, this case relates to the freedom of speech, at first, students don't have any right to make their own choices in certain extant, however, later according to the court's decision, students have more rights to make their own decisions and have more freedom of speech.
I was very shocked to hear that a school would kick out students for wearing a wristband. The wristbands didn't cause any problems the students were just stating their opinions in a way that they felt necessary. The school should have taken a different approach to the students and handled it differently. Everyone. Is giving the right to freedom of speech which the school denied those five students who got suspended. Since they got suspended the studens should be mad and argue the school and explain there position in the wearing the wristband
I think it's kind of awful for the the school to suspend the kids. I don't feel it's a goodough reason to stifle a students voice for suspect something may happen. If that could happen all the time we would I've in oppression. I think that the district court's decision to upold the schools decision makes sense logically, but I don't think that it's right. These kids were stifled from expressing themselves. Especially at a young age, we need I express ourselves and live in an open environment and the school didn't provide that. I also think that the armbands are a form of speech. The students are expressing something through a symbol and expressing ones self is a for, of speech.
I don't think such a case is big enough to be put in the Court at the beginning, and I regard it as a random conflict between students and school authority that could happen everywhere. However, the Tinker V. Des Moines case did matter the freedom of speech and it served as a good example of the issue from schools. I don't agree with the school for suspending students and I favor the Court's decision. Students have their right to express themselves, and it's their choice to wear the armband--a certain silent way to spread their voice and thoughts. School can't forbid the action for its own plausible reasons such as sustaining the school rules and order that every student should act or behave in a certain way that followed by the same rules. It sort of restrain students thoughts as well as their development. No one is supposed to be like any other person. Students are all independent individuals that can freely express their ideas as long as they don't violate others' rights. However, the petitioners didn't cause a great bad impact on school or others. If the school argued that some students had been distracted, then it was their business which cause by their curiosity and there was nothing to do with the petitioners. Indeed, the actions didn't make any "materially and substantially" disrupt of the school. Also, wearing the armbands is absolutely a way of "speech" since it acts as a medium for students to share information and show their ideas and attitude on other issue, in spite of the silent way.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the school's decision to suspend the students for wearing arm bands. Those students have a right to have their opinion be known whether it'd be through wearing the armbands or just speaking their opinion. Both could still result in disruption of class and if a school suspended a student every time someone said something that the majority didn't believe and caused an a verbal uprising/distraction then people would constantly be suspended. I believe that the court's decision was right because the school made their decision based on an assumption. One thing that Mr. Justice Black agreed with the expression "children are to be seen not heard" as well as he said that "taxpayers send children to school on the premise that at their age they need to learn, not teach." Learning from others is unavoidable whether you learn from another adult or a student, a child, even a baby! I do not think that the purpose of the armbands was to "teach" the school their opinion about troops in the Vietnam war but just for people to recognize it. I completely disagree with Mr. Justice Black on that..
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI understand that the school was worried about problems that might stem from kids wearing the black arm bands. I do not believe the school took the proper action when on "December 14, 1965, they met and adopted a policy that any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it, and if he refused he would be suspended until he returned without the armband". The school jumped to the conclusion that the arm bands would cause a problem and in less than two weeks adopted the policy mentioned above. I feel they should have reminded the students to ensure they behaved appropriately while wearing the bands or taken a similar action that could have aided in diffusing the situation. Instead, they assumed that issues might arise with the band and they then tried to take a shortcut to cut off the issue entirely. I see this action by the principals of the school as them trying the wiggle out of, in their eyes, a potentially difficult predicament. I do agree with the Court's decision to allow the students to wear the arm bands. I agree because I see the arm bands as a method of speaking and voicing something symbolically. Thus, they should be allowed tonwear they because of freedom of speech. The arm bands are the way of saying that whoever wears them believes in something, stands for something, and wants to visually show their support.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the school was completely wrong in telling the students that the would be suspended for wearing the armbands. To me, this is an expression of ideas, which no one should be able to regulate. Although I tend to think of speech as something spoken, this also classifies as speech. It is he way that the students are expressing their ideas. However they choose to do so should be considered speech. Because of this label, the should be protected from being forced to do anything. The school has no right to tell the students whether they are allowed to wear the armbands. The courts were absolutely right to allow the students to wear the armbands. If schools, or any other governing body, could restrict what we can wear, what could happen next? Will the school tell the students what they're allowed to write about? Are they going to restrict what the students say? Those armbands are definitely considered speech, and I'm glad that the courts did the right thing and allowed them to wear the armbands.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the school had the right to not allow the students to wear the armbands. It was stated that only a few of the 18,000 schoolchildren in the district system wore the armbands. This is a clear indication that the school officials were targeting a certain population of the children. I can understand if these armbands were heinously offensive, but according to the piece on the case, only a few hostile remarks were made, and were never followed by violence (at least on school property). While I don't think of black armbands when I think of freedom of speech, I do think the fit under a sort of umbrella of ideas within this section of the Constitution. If a person is given the right to be a Catholic or an Atheist, should they not be given the right to voice their opinions, minus the voice? These children simply wore the armbands - they did not parade around school trying to gather followers. I find it hard to believe that a simple armband could be a distraction for any student. Thus, I agree with the Tinkers in their right to wear the armbands, and that the school board made a ludicrous decision in targeting a small, specific group.
ReplyDeleteI highly disagree with the schools decision to suspend the students. I believe that they should have that right if the armbands were offensive, but they were symbols of peace, support for a truce in the Vietnam War. The students are protected under the first amendment because the armbands are a form of speech. They express the ideas and emotions the students wanted to convey, and isn't that what all forms of speech and language do. The court made the right decision of allowing the students to peacefully express themselves. The school should be ashamed of their actions because they were constitutionally and morally unfair. Did the school suspend someone every time they peacefully and maturely expressed their opinion on a certain topic? It's like if CA suspended everyone who supported the day of silence. I would be extremely shocked, and I understand why they took this case to court; the students' constitutional rights were being violated.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the school's decision to suspend the students. The children wearing the armbands weren't causing a major disruption; they were simply showing their opinion on the war. The school officials banned the armbands because they were nervous something would happen as a result of students wearing them, but nothing major occurred. The armbands are an example of speech. They are silent messages displaying the beliefs of the students wearing them. I agree with the court's decision to let students wear the black armbands, because the first amendment gives people freedom of speech. You shouldn't lose that right the moment you walk into school. However, there are still rules in schools today that limit what things people can wear on shirts so that people don't get offended, which goes against the first amendment. It is difficult to decide exactly how much freedom people should have.
ReplyDeleteI kind of understand the school; however school’s decision to suspend students with armband is too offensive and unreasonable. School should consider about the amendments before they command students. Everyone has right, even a young kid. Armband was their unusual way of expressing their opinions. It is just a matter of media, the ideas and opinions still were somehow expressed. If the armband caused disputes between students, that could be a problem, therefore school has evidence to warn those students. However school just suddenly made up the policy even before anything happened. The school not only invaded one’s private life, but also completely ignored the freedom of speech. The school should have thought more, just because students are younger doesn’t mean students don’t have any right to speak or students are under control of the school.
ReplyDeleteIt is totally wrong idea that school gave suspension to students who wore armband. The school made decision because of fear of disturbance which is not reasonable. "children are to be seen not heard" is a reason that I think. School is a little community that makes us prepare for social after graduation. Therefore, school has to be contained same idea such as freedom of speech to make us prepare. Disturbance by other's opinion is common phenomenon in our society. To make us figure out our own idea among several ideas by critical thought is job that school has to teach to their student independently.
ReplyDeleteThe students in this article were definitely suspended for wrong reasons. I understand where the school is coming from since the student were supporting something contrary to what the United States was involved in at the time. Although that may be the case, it does not make it right to take away a freedom that is so plain of day that it is written in the constitution. They have the freedom to support whatever cause they want as long as it is not violent or disturbs anyone. Wearing something as simple as an armband is not going to disturb or hurt anyone. The school was expecting this to turn into something disturbing but speculation does not mean it is going to happen. I think the school underestimated the students will and beliefs in this case.
ReplyDeleteMy first reaction to this article was kinda shocked but also upset for the kids. Only five of them wore the arm bands and it did not cause a disturbance so why suspend them? I definitely did not agree that the school suspended the kids from school. I think they should have gotten all their information together and really thought more about this before suspending them. The court made all valid points that there was no reason to suspend them because one, only five of them wore it, two, it was not causing any disturbances during class, and three, the armband did represent an example of speech and that gets protection under the first amendment for freedom of speech. So I think the school looked into this in a wrong way and didn't look at all the aspects of this case.
ReplyDeleteI feel shocked that the school doesn't allow students to wear the black armbands, or the students will be suspended as a punishment. I don't agree with the school's action, they have no rights to suspend students from their own choice of whether wear he armband or not or not; I kind of understand wearing the armband could be offensive, but I don't think the school is making the right decision to students either. The court has made the decision to let the students wear it but do no t cause disturb the classes; which is more reasonable and fair. Although students don't have the entire rights to choose ; school still has the rights to control, but that gives students more freedom to pick. An the other hand, this case relates to the freedom of speech, at first, students don't have any right to make their own choices in certain extant, however, later according to the court's decision, students have more rights to make their own decisions and have more freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteI was very shocked to hear that a school would kick out students for wearing a wristband. The wristbands didn't cause any problems the students were just stating their opinions in a way that they felt necessary. The school should have taken a different approach to the students and handled it differently. Everyone. Is giving the right to freedom of speech which the school denied those five students who got suspended. Since they got suspended the studens should be mad and argue the school and explain there position in the wearing the wristband
ReplyDeleteI think it's kind of awful for the the school to suspend the kids. I don't feel it's a goodough reason to stifle a students voice for suspect something may happen. If that could happen all the time we would I've in oppression. I think that the district court's decision to upold the schools decision makes sense logically, but I don't think that it's right. These kids were stifled from expressing themselves. Especially at a young age, we need I express ourselves and live in an open environment and the school didn't provide that. I also think that the armbands are a form of speech. The students are expressing something through a symbol and expressing ones self is a for, of speech.
ReplyDelete