6. My Argument

At first glance this case seems very simple and today most students or people for that matter probably don’t even understand why a case such as this went before the Supreme Court. What they fail to realize is that this case set the precedents which allows them or their children to express themselves in schools today. "A precedent is a court decision on which later courts rely in similar cases. In some instances, a court may be influenced by precedent; in others it may not.” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo Pg. 5) For example I see kids today in school with various stickers on their notebooks, some supporting the troops fighting for us in Iraq, some even with catchy slogans about how Bush sucks. The point is expressing our views and beliefs in such ways have become a common place occurrence in all levels of educational facilities across this country, and this is one of the ground breaking cases which allowed this to happen.”The effects of law are felt throughout society. Indeed, some aspects of the law apply to all persons, institutions, and organizations.” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo Pg. 3) Sure there has to be some common sense applied to such a ruling, obviously you can’t wear a t-shirt that displays any type of vulgar content or one that promotes disruption and violence. The hard part is always going to be how to know where to draw the line. That isn’t just the job of administrators and teachers; I believe it’s also the job of students and parents as well. “In our country, the principles and ideals that protect the individual liberty and freedom are incorporated in the Constitution of the United States (the federal Constitution) This historic document gives the federal government certain reasonable powers and, at the same time, clearly limits the use of those powers.” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo Pg. 4) Maybe we should go ahead and take a look at that first amendment:


Amendment I
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.
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti)

For me one of the key phrases in that fantastic statement above is “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. This is what I feel is the core issue with the Tinker V Des Moines case. For me anyone has the right to express any opinion they like in a PEACEFUL manner. That doesn’t involve or include slogans or clothing attire that invoke or promote violent behavior. Again it’s about common sense, I know that can be difficult for most people today, but honestly a parent should know what his or her son or daughter is wearing to school and whether or not it is appropriate. Clearly the parents of all the children involved in the Tinker V Des Moines case were well aware of what their children were attempting to do, and I tend to agree with them that it was a PEACEFUL way for them to express themselves.
During the delivery of the opinion of the court Mr. Justice Fortas Wrote:

“First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923), this Court, in opinions by Mr. Justice McReynolds, held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents States from forbidding the teaching of a foreign language to young students. Statutes to this effect, the Court held, unconstitutionally interfere with the liberty of teacher, student, and parent. [note 2] See also Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 [507] (1925); West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195 (1952) (concurring opinion); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487 (1960); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967); Epperson v. Arkansas, ante, p. 97 (1968).”
(http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html)

For me that clearly states that all students and teachers are protected by the constitution and all the rights therefore granted. So as long as the students’ peaceful protests do not infringe upon the rights of other individuals, then I cannot see how they could be punished under our current system of law.