DISSENT -- Part VII: Tinker vs. Des Moines School District (1969)

7. Dissent – if the case wasn’t decided 9-0, what did the justices who ruled against the majority think about their case?

Justice Black and Justice Harlan dissented.

According to bc.edu, Justice Black had said in an interview that the Tinkers and the one childhood friend involved in wearing the black arm bands were the only ones who refused to take them off when asked out of the 18,000 students who wore them. He felt that school officials had the right to think ahead of the problems that would occur if these students wore the black arm bands and that they were the authorities that had a say in what goes. He also mentioned that just because the black arm bands didn’t shout, used profane language, or were violent in any manner, does not mean that other students will not make fun of them and problems would occur. Justice Harlan agreed with Justice Black.

Works Cited:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21/

OPINION -- Part VI: Tinker vs. Des Moines School District (1969)

6. Your own argument. Did you agree or disagree with the ruling. Provide some authority for your argument.

In the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines School District, I believe that the Judges made the right decision to let these children wear the black arm bands. They did not cause any harm. It was also said that there were a few students that made rude remarks toward them outside of classrooms, but these students who wore the black arm bands did not act upon it. They were protesting silently and weren’t disturbing the peace. The Tinkers had every right to express their opinion and how they felt about the Vietnam War. If the Tinkers and others were causing a huge ruckus about the Vietnam War and were doing it on school property, then the school authorities had the right to set rules and regulations about suspending anyone who partook in the event. This case was clearly more than just setting rules and regulations about dress code and inappropriate things people say on school grounds, it was about freedom of speech and whether or not these brave students were protected under it. Girls who wear skirts that show their butt cheeks should be punished for wearing degrading material on school grounds because it could be offensive to others and it would cause a disruption. Wearing black arm bands and just carrying along with school like any normal day doesn’t do anything.

RULE OF LAW -- Part V: Tinker vs. Des Moines School District (1969)

5. Rule of law -- a concise summary of the main precedent established.

To summarize the entire case, three students in the Des Moines School district decided to wear black arm bands in protest against the Vietnam War. Upon hearing this news, the teachers and principals of the Des Moines School district made an assumption that this was clearly an act of rebellion and that students were going to create problems by wearing these. In hearing so, the school district decided that students were to get suspended if they showed up wearing these black armbands.

Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker, and one of their childhood friends decided to wear the black armbands anyways. They got suspended and were not allowed to come back on school property unless they showed up without these arm bands. Their father sued and took this to the Supreme Court. The main questions asked were, “does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections” (oyez.org)? In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court decided that the students did have a right to wear the black arm bands since they weren’t disruptive or caused harm to others while in school.

Works Cited:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21/

REASONING OF THE COURT -- Part IV: Tinker vs. Des Moines School District (1969)

4. Reasoning of the court -- analysis of the thinking process and logic used by previous judges.

Justice Abe Fortas was the Judge to write for the majority. The two judges who dissented were Justice Black and Justice Harlan. The other 7 judges who agreed that the wearing of the armbands was protected under the first amendment had said that there was no exact proof that the people who chose to wear the armbands disrupted class. The teachers had the right to make rules for the school that would lead to arguments and disruptive behavior, but in this case, the students did a silent protest and were not causing harm to anybody. “Outside the classrooms, a few students made hostile remarks to the children wearing armbands, but there were no threats or acts of violence on school premises” (bc.edu).

Works Cited:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21/

DECISION OF THE COURT -- PART III: Tinker vs. Des Moines School District (1969)

3. Decision of the court – how was the case decided, including an analysis of any concurring or dissenting opinions in previous case precedent.

“In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the students had the right to wear armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War” (infoplease.com). “The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression” (law.umkc.edu). The schools did have a right to be scared of problems that might have occurred, but according to law.umkc.edu, it cannot overcome the rights of freedom of speech. “In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint” (law.umkc.edu). Since there was no proof of disturbance toward the school (it was a silent protest, after all), the prohibition cannot be sustained. “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments” (bc.edu).

The District Court recognized that wearing of armbands for the purpose of expression views in a symbolic manner was within the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Abe Fortas wrote for the majority. He emphasized that the students have First Amendment rights, and while schools have the right to establish rules relating to clothing, the length of skirts, hairstyles, disruptive behavior… the Tinker vs. Des Moines case did not involve any of those issues. According to infoplease.com, Justice Abe Fortas said that this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students. “Justice Hugo Black dissented. He pointed out that the case involved a small number of students who refused to obey the instructions of school officials, and argued that allowing this behavior would have a negative effect on schools and on the country as a whole” (infoplease.com).

Works Cited:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/firstamendment/tinker.html
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html
http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar39.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

First Monday In October

Why is this film relevant? Is there still an issue with appointing a woman to the high court? What is your position on pornography? Are there issues in the film on adult content still relevant today with presence of the internet?

Today in class we watched a movie called “First Monday In October”. There were two different sides toward the Justices in the court. One side, Madam Justice, was more conservative than the other side, Justice Snow, where he was more liberal. Justice Snow did not want to see the film “The Naked Nymphomaniac” because he felt that Malone (the director of the film) had the right to show the film to whomever because it’s free speech. Madam Justice felt that Justice Snow should be excused from the case because he did not partake in the watching the film.

First of all, they do both agree that this film is “filth”. The argument here is whether or not Justice Snow should be allowed to express his opinion and be a part of the case because he did not see the film to see how it really is. I think that if someone were to make a judgment or a conclusion about anything, they should be there first hand to witness what really is going on. I believe that Justice Snow should excuse himself from the case because he’s not willing to comply in watching the film and with that, he should not pass judgment that Malone can do whatever he wants. Madam Justice brought up good points in the movie while she was interviewing “Malone” about how the law is there to protect minds of others. We do have the right to protect ourselves from seeing filth on television. Nowadays, they have devices and programs where you can block things that you do not want you or your children to see. I believe movie theaters have guidelines and regulations to what they have to include in the film and must have an appropriate rating. These are taken very seriously now. There are ways around is such as purchasing the “unrated” version of the film that was not shown in theater, but that would be done in the privacy of your own home.

According to the teacher, our only woman in the Supreme Court is sick and that they have to appoint a new Justice because she cannot perform her duties. President Obama is only accepting female applicants to become the new Justice. In my opinion, even as a woman, it’s not fair. They should appoint someone who is well qualified and shouldn’t be judged because of what gender they are. A man could do the same job as a woman and vice versa.

Pornography nowadays is pretty common. If you don’t have the proper spywares or pop-up blockers installed on your computer, there is a 100% chance that you are going to see a butt-hole with a penis inside of it just popped up in front of your face. If you don’t want to see the porn, then do something about it so that it doesn’t affect your computer. Porn doesn’t bother me when sold in public either. I used to work at Fry’s Electronics and I was actually in charge of the porn section of the videos. We have the area concealed so that if you walk by it, you cannot see the videos. Also, we have ropes and signs that say you must be 18 to enter. Sure people under 18 enter the area but it’s my job to tell them to leave. As long as it’s hidden and there is a clear warning that the area is for porn only, then it is okay. Also, there are so many types of genres of porn, it’s unbelievable. There porn that is for fetishes which I can’t stand just even hearing about them, but it’s my choice to not see or watch it.

Illicit

I was not able to make it class on Saturday, March 14th and was not able to see the film watched in class.

By reading other student’s posts, I have read that they are talking about the word and meaning behind the word “illicit” and if I have committed any acts of illicit behavior.

First, according to dictionary.com, illicit means, “not legally permitted or authorized; unlicensed; unlawful” (dictionary.com). Most of the student’s posts were pertaining to buying “knock-off” products and how buying these items were illicit behavior. I have to admit that I have bought “fake” items, especially when I travel to the Philippines. That place is fake stuff galore! Also, since the currency of the peso to a dollar is quite low in the Philippines (50 Pesos = $1.00 US Money, you can buy a meal at McDonald’s for under a dollar!), you can only imagine what kind of knick knacks you can buy. I can spend a ridiculous amount of money every time I visit and not feel guilty about spending too much. I have bought some knock-off purses, wallets, DVD’s, jewelry… and anything else you can think of in the Philippines for a very cheap price. I never realized how much it takes effect on our economy by doing so. A few years ago, I was able to buy these things and not worry about getting checked in customs at the Airport. Usually they will just let you go, but nowadays, they will check everything and take away anything fake that you have bought. It’s gotten pretty strict. It’s pretty impossible to sneak in fake items into America nowadays.

I can understand why it would cause such a big problem by buying things that are “knock-offs”. The real manufacturer that makes these items is losing money and is getting bad reputations for having lots and lots of their items being sold for a cheap price. People are probably saying, “why spend thousands of dollars when I can get a perfectly good one on the street for cheap?!” People don’t necessarily care about the quality of the product if they just want it for the fad (but there are some people who will refuse to buy a knock-off or a non-brand product). Yes, purchasing fake things is illicit, but how can you really stop it from happening. There are so many programs and software available online to download material to put onto your computer without having to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for the actual thing. There are so many vendors who sell fake name brand products (just go to Santi-Alley in L.A.!) that are still in business. There really is no way to stop it unless law enforcements can find a better way of stopping the distributers from making these fake things.

Works Cited:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illicit