Affirmative Rebuttal

I. The court correctly granted summary judgment for the School’s motion; as the Student’s First Amendment rights were not violated.

The case was heard by the Supreme Court on November 12th, 1968 to a packed court house. The main constitutional question at hand was if a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech and expression. Attorney Dan L. Johnson argued on the Tinker’s behalf, proclaiming that the students had the constitutional right, as per the 1st amendment freedom of speech and expression, to wear the black armbands as a form of symbolic speech. On the other hand, attorney Allan A. Herrick defended the school board’s actions, inciting that the prohibition of armbands was necessary to prevent and stifle any violence or disorder. The topic of discussion during the oral arguments centered largely upon whether Tinker’s protest was disruptive to the class environment. Johnson argued that the anti-Vietnam protest, although sparking some talk, was undisruptive to school, citing that there was no evidence of disruption in any of the classes. Herrick, conversely, argued that the Vietnam War was an inflammatory issue, and that armbands invoked violence, especially since a

The majority opinion says that the schools did not have the right to suspend the students

All around the world, the United States is known for its freedom and rights set up by the constitution. In “United States Supreme Court majority Opinion,” by Chief Justice Abe Fortas, “United States Supreme Court dissenting opinion,” by Justice Hugo Black, and a transcript radio interview with law professor Catherine Ross it explains that school children were suspended for peaceful protesting and their opinions on the outcome of the court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. While all the arguments were presented with evidence, the argument best presented was in the passage by Chief Justice Abe Fortas and in the the radio transcript. This is because of the use of ethos, logos, and pathos.

In this text, the case hinges on whether the students created a disturbance. There was a fear that they might create one, but since they never did, the court held that their self-expression was protected.

Justice Hugo L. Black argued against and gave a dissenting opinion from the majority. He argued the school had a right to maintain order and those armbands distracted students from schoolwork, ultimately detracting the abilities of school officials to perform duties. Additionally, concurring opinions arose from Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Byron R. White. Potter argued that students are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of the First Amendment rights, and White argued that distinction between communicated words and communicated actions are what drives the majority opinion (“Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District:”). In the “Tinker v. Des Moines School District” article it is written that Justice Abe Fortas famously wrote that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” giving way to students’ First Amendment rights in the school place (“Tinker v. Des Moines School District:”). In order for a student to lose such right, the school district would now have to prove this act interfered with other students, an issue that begins to surface throughout the remaining 20th

The 3 teenagers ended up filing a Civil Rights lawsuit in federal court through their fathers, asking the court to issue an injunction that would bar the school system from further disciplining students in the same situation as well nominal damages. The district court sided with the school board, deciding that the school’s fear of this protest causing disruptions of school discipline was within reason. The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this ruling on an evenly divided vote. The students ended up bringing their case to the Supreme Court after that.

The Tinker vs. Des Moines case helped determined and interpret legal rights of young citizens for the first time. A group of students made a decision to wear black armbands to school to support a peace establishing agreement during the Vietnam War. As a result, the participating students; Mary Beth Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and John Tinker got suspended for their actions (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District).The school outlawed and attempted to penalize petitioners for a “silent, passive expression of opinion”, that didn’t cause any commotion (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist). The parents decided to sue the school for disrespecting the student’s constitutional rights of expression.

Philip Malloy has been suspended from his school for singing the national anthem. Although this story does not sound scrupulous, we don’t know the undivided story, for example students are not allowed to sing during the national anthem “The students are supposed to stand in silence”. (Pg. 44) This is what one of the teachers said at the school Philip goes to, “‘Respect, silence, and attention,’ I think the rules read” (Pg. 44)This was also said by a teacher at the school who was quoting the school handbook. How this proves my thesis is this shows that you are not allowed to sing during the national anthem so Philip was wrong.

The decision in this case seems to have left public school students’ free speech rights in an ambiguous state. The Justices in support of the majority opinion—Justices Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia—were thus

My argument is in favor for the defendant in the case between Guiles V. Marineau. After a student continuously wears a controversial and extremely detailed t-shirt received at an anti war rally, the school district and family of the student take their discrepancy to court. I found multiple sources pulled from sources such as, FindLaw's United States Second Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.)., ProCon.org. (2017, November 15), Supreme Court Upholds Vermont Student's Free Speech Rights. (n.d.). and What are the Legal Rights of Children? (n.d.). In the following, the reader will be introduced to the case, the final decision, and my assessment of the case. I have drawn a conclusion, that the School system was in the right in this case and properly

The 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines court case attested the First Amendment privileges of understudies in school. The Court held that a school region abused the students’ freedom of speech rights when it singled out a type of typical discourse – black armbands worn in dissent of the Vietnam War – for denial, without demonstrating the armbands would bring about significant disturbance in class.

The District Court decided that the students who petitioned the Vietnam War sought nominal damages. Also the court believed what the school did was under its constitutional authority to prevent the disturbance of school discipline, 9258 F. Supp. 971 (1966). The case moved on to the Court of Appeals. The case was considered en banc, which means all the appellate judges were there to hear it. The court was equally divided on the case, so the District Courts decision was affirmed with no opinion from the Court of Appeals, 383 F.2d 988 (1967). The court recognized the action of the students wearing the armbands to protest the Vietnam War was protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. This case was so close to “pure speech”, which is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment. The District Court figured that it can’t be argued that neither teachers nor students should lose their constitutional rights when at school. The problem was that the students freedom of speech rights collide with the school authorities rules. There was no evidence showing that the protest disrupted any classes or work of the schools. The District Court came to their final conclusion after looking the case over again. They decided 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. In no way was the school authorities trying to deny the student’s constitutional rights. Although the students were suspended from school for protesting the Vietnam War, it was not because they weren’t protected by the First

“At what point do we take personal attacks, and permit those, as opposed to -- I fully accept you’re entitled, in some circumstances, to speak about any political issue you want. But where is the line between doing that, and creating hardship for an individual?” –Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In the case of Snyder V. Phelps, Two very passionate sides debated just that. The Snyder family accused Phelps, or Westboro, of the tort claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, after Westboro picketed Phelps’ son’s funeral. Westboro disputed this, claiming their protests were protected under The First Amendment.

I have located the following cases and statues that I believe can be used as Affirmative Defenses for our client, Anheuser-Bush in the case of Justin King. Further, I believe the statute of limitation has expired for filing this auto accident claim for negligence, the Plaintiff is more than 50% negligent in his own injuries, therefore, modified comparative negligence, further, the plaintiff failed to wear protective headgear as is required in his resident state of Missouri.