Annenberg Classroom - Speak Outs - Does the First Amendment protect students’ speech off of school grounds?

Speak Outs

Speak Out

Does the First Amendment protect students’ speech off of school grounds?

As Joseph Fredrick and his fellow classmates unraveled their controversial banner during a parade held off of school grounds in 2002, history was being made. What the banner said matters little, but the actions of the principal – confiscating the banner and suspending a student because of it – and the court cases that followed may determine the rights of students all over the nation.

This June, the United State Supreme Court will make a ruling on Morse v. Frederick, a case which could decide if school administration has the authority to suppress certain types of speech off of school grounds. The decision may have significant impact on how your First Amendment rights are interpreted (read about the First Amendment here).

Morse v. Frederick is not the first Supreme Court case dealing with students’ right to free speech. The case is being reviewed in the context of the groundbreaking Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), in which the court decided that students’ speech in school is protected by the First Amendment as long as it is not disruptive to the educational process.

With Tinker v. Des Moines as a backdrop, the Supreme Court is being asked, as quoted in the case’s brief, “whether the First Amendment allows public schools to punish students for displaying messages off school property?”

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

The Supreme Court case that is arguably one of the most important in defining students’ freedom of speech began in 1965, during the Vietnam War.

A group of students, led by John F. Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt, planned on protesting the war by wearing black armbands to school from December 16, 1965 until the New Year. The principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the plan, and on December 14, they adopted a policy that forbade the wearing of armbands in school and called for suspension of the students until they returned without the armbands.

On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were asked to remove them. They refused and did not return to school until after the planned period for wearing the armbands, after New Year’s Day.

The parents of Mary Beth and John Tinker filed a complaint with a federal judge and brought the Des Moines Independent Community School District to court on the grounds that the school’s infringed on their students’ First Amendment Rights.

The court case was argued throughout the federal court system, and in 1967, the case made its way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that the schools did infringe on the students’ First Amendment rights. The court found that students do have the right to freedom of speech, even in school, but that freedom does not include types of expression that may hinder the learning environment of others. Judge Hugo Black said in his court statement that:

“First, the Court concludes that the wearing of armbands is ‘symbolic speech’ which is ‘akin to ‘pure speech’’ and therefore protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Secondly, the Court decides that the public schools are an appropriate place to exercise ‘symbolic speech’ as long as normal school functions are not ‘unreasonably disrupted’.”

The Tinker v. Des Moines ruling defined parameters for school administrators to follow in order to protect students’ First Amendment rights while maintaining the school’s educational environment.

Morse v. Frederick

Observers suggest that the current case of Morse v. Frederick could be just as significant for students’ First Amendment rights, as the case looks at schools’ ability to punish students for actions that occur off of school grounds. Also being argued is whether the event was a school sponsored event or not.

In January, 2002, the Olympic Torch was being passed through the Alaskan city of Juneau and the city was having a parade to celebrate the event. The students of the Juneau-Douglas High School were dismissed early in order to attend the parade even though it was not an official school event and it was happening off of school grounds.

At the parade, Joseph Frederick, then 18, unveiled a 14-foot banner on a public sidewalk with the message “Bong hits 4 Jesus.” Principal Deborah Morse saw the banner, confiscated it, and suspended Frederick from school.

Frederick filed a suit against Morse on the grounds that she violated his First Amendment rights. She did not have the right to confiscate the banner and suspend him, Frederick argued, because he was not on school grounds and, therefore, not under her authority. A federal court in San Francisco agreed with Frederick and ruled that the school and principal did not have that authority and violated his First Amendment rights.

Upon the decision of the federal court, Morse protested the ruling and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The court took that case and aims to answer the question the case brings to light as reported in the court’s Respondent Brief:

“Whether the First Amendment allows public schools to punish students for displaying messages off school property, at events not sponsored by the school or supervised by the school when a school official deems the message contrary to school policy even though there is no disruption of the educational process.”

Upon hearing the arguments from both sides of the dispute, the Justices of the Court have begun to deliberate on the case. Justice David Souter said during the deliberations, “It's political speech, it seems to me. I don't see what it disrupts, unless disruption simply means any statement of disagreement with a position officially adopted by the school.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy disagrees, saying, “it was completely disruptive of the message, of the theme that the school wanted to promote.”

Another question being asked is whether the parade was a school sponsored event. If it was a school sponsored event, the court will look at the case under the precedence of Tinker v. Des Moines. If the court decides that the event cannot be considered a school sponsored event because it happened off of school grounds, then the case will be considered a purely First Amendment case.

Implications

With the Supreme Court’s decision not due until June, school administrators, students, and freedom of speech advocates all over the country are waiting to see how the court will rule.

If the Supreme Court rules on the side of Frederick, school principals will be extremely limited in their ability to suppress any type of expression off of school grounds. Students will most assuredly not be punished in school for an act of expression outside of school.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Morse, the court agrees that schools do have the right to limit students’ speech outside of school and if it is deemed ‘disruptive’ to the educational process, possibly granting administrations more latitude in enforcing punishment.

What do you think?

In the context of Tinker v. Des Moines, should speech off of school grounds be held to the same standard as speech in school? Under which circumstances should school administrations have the right to limit student speech? In the case of Morse v. Frederick, do you think the student’s First Amendment rights were violated or did the administrator exercise proper authority? Does an event that happens off of school grounds but sponsored by the school fall under the authority of the school administration? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!

Join the Discussion

Your First Name:
Your Teacher/School:
Your City/State:
Your Comment: limited to 2000 characters including spaces

Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs

Comments

5/2/2012
Porterville/CA

Mario
Smith/Monache
Student's speech rights should be protected under the first amendment however, it all depends on the situation. If a student's opinion is somehow hurtful or rude, then it shouldn't be allowed by school officials since it might cause harm to others. If the opinion isn't offensive to anyone directly (such as talking behind someone's back), then it shouldn't be inferred with. The first amendment does clearly state that one has the right of freedom of speech and these are forms of speech.

3/30/2012
belleville ny

michelle
miss colby
if your in school or not any student should be able to say what they want. i would understand if the kids got couldnt go back to school for a couble of days for saying threats or what not. if kids say that they dont like school or something they shouldnt get punished for it what kid does not like school.

2/16/2012
orange new jersey

chanel smith
ms.smith heywood avenue
i think that deanna simmons is very wrong

2/15/2012
bloomfield,new jersey

Deanna
ms. hoxha
i feel thaat students shoukld have the right to speak their minds and talk about their feelings because if you dont they feel lik their vioces are heard sooo they should not be punished for speaking their mind becuase they wanna tell how the feel -Deanna Simmons

1/8/2012
Montgomery Tx

JakeL
metzger/montgomery
i dont think that the students should have been punished. by the school punishing the students, their freedom of speech is being violated. the school has no right to punish them for something that they did not do at school.

10/19/2011
Sidney

Lizzy
Mr.Faulhaber/Sidney High Scool
I do not think that speech off of school grounds be held to the same standard as speech in school, it is not right we aren't on school grounds so the rules shouldn't apply. I don't think administration has a right at all, thanks to the First Amendment. I believe the the First Amendment was violated, it wasn't on school grounds, that the kid did this and he was suspended for it. In a way the event sponsored by the school fall does involve the administration, but like it said it was off of school grounds.

4/5/2010

Marrissa P6
Lorbeer MS, Dimond Bar, Ca
OK, we should be able to give speeches out in public it is the first amendment.

6/5/2009

Andrew
Trinity, Washington, PA
The bottom line is that administrators should not be allowed to limit speech of any kind unless its expression poses an imminent threat to students or supports illegal activities. Most of all, administrators should have no jurisdiction outside of school grounds.

5/28/2009

Elizabeth
Trinity High School, Washington, PA
The students should be allowed to speak their minds. Our founding fathers thought that right to free speech was important enough to be included in the First Amendment. I think that the administrator should follow our founding fathers precedent and not overstep his boundaries.

3/6/2009

C.J.D.
Greencastle-Antrim, Greencastle, PA
I feel that you should be able to speak how you feel not matter where you are. If you have something to say you should be allowed to say it without punishment. Although I do feel that if you don’t have anything nice to say, you shouldn’t say anything at all, but sometimes there is a need for honesty. I feel everyone should know the truth, and if it means to speak out loud about it, then so be it. I feel that the student’s First Amendment was violated and I feel that outside of school and school hours, you can not be punished for anything at all.

12/7/2007

JP
Trinity High School, Washington, PA
Our First Amendment says freedom of speech not freedom of speech only at school. So I think that we should be able to speak freely at all times.

10/29/2007

Aly
Trinity High School, Washington, PA
I believe that schools should not be allowed to punish a student for something they did off campus unless it personally involved the school, for example used a school name or had any reference it. If there was no direct connection to a school than I believe their involved would be a direct violation of our First Amendment.

6/11/2007

Hope L.
Chief Sealth High School, Seattle, Washington
Students have right to free speech in school. Students have the authority to say whatever they think is right for the community and their daily lives because of Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment gives us the right to speak out and have face no punishment.

6/11/2007

Hope L.
Chief Sealth High School, Seattle, Washington
Student have right to free speech on whatever they think is an adequate issue for their community and their daily life. This is protected by the First Amendment. I think school administrations have no right to enforce punishment on a student speech, except when this student has seriously ruined the reputation of the school by insulting the school and system.

5/26/2007

Kara Z.
Nimits High, Irving, TX
School authorities should only have the right to enforce punishment on a student's speech if the student says something inappropriate or disruptive in class. Authorities in school should have know right to punish students for there speech off of school grounds. There authority is limited to schools not the streets... that is a police officers job.

5/25/2007

Jessica W.
Nimitz, Irving, TX
I do not agree schools should be able to punish a student for what he/she has said off school grounds. They, as school administrators, have no right to tell a person what he/she can and cannot say when off school grounds. How would they feel if someone with more power told them they could not do or say certain things in their daily lives? They would not like that one bit.

5/24/2007

Katy
Trinity High School, Washington, PA
I feel that school administration has no right to dictate what students say and do outside of school time and off of school property. It should not and does not influence the actions of the student while in school.

5/23/2007

Josh
Nimitz HS, Irving, TX
I believe that the school administration should have no say in what students say or the manner in which they express themselves when not on school grounds. I agree that in school to keep disruption to a mimimum students First Amendment rights are rightfully infringed upon. However, for the school administration to try and extend it's hand into what we do and say outside of school is unacceptable.

5/15/2007

Dany L.
Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
I believe that you should not be punished for what you say off school grounds, unless of course it is endangering to others or it’s a threat to the school. Other than that the school should not have the right to intervene with a students form of expression. What is the point of having the undeniable rights of the first amendments if there is going to be such explicit exceptions as to where you have rights and where you don’t?

5/8/2007

David
Warren Area High School, Warren, PA
In school there should and always should be no cursing and such, so that no one gets offended. I think they should not have the law because some students can only express themselves through certain ways. But if they swear at a total stranger that should be illegal. But if you’re chatting with your friends and you curse a bit it should be ok.

5/8/2007

Taylor B
Warren Area High, Warren, PA
I think that the first amendment should be protected everywhere because out of all the pursuits of happiness in our country a person’s right to say what they want in reference to their opinions is the only one that cannot hurt anyone. Words do not cut or wound, they may offend but to protect a free society one must protect its free speech.

5/7/2007

Jason G.
WAHS, Warren, PA
The first ten amendments are meant to protect every citizen's rights. Children should be treated as equals in how their rights are upheld. The only time action should be taken against free speech is when the situation violates a law or another students rights. The opinions expressed by the students in the Tinker v. Des Moines case are not different from the adults of the same time.

5/7/2007

Ryan
Warren Area High School, Warren PA
I personally believe that you should not be able to be punished for what you say outside of school. The school system should have absolutely no control over what you do or say outside of school, with very limited exception. It is understandable that a school would obviously look into perhaps a threat made off of school grounds. But as long as what is being said is not dangerous or infringing upon someone else's rights, a school body should not be able to affect what a student can say outside of school.

5/7/2007

Courtney B.
Warren Area High School
I think that in the case of Frederick v. Morse, the student's First Amendment rights were violated. The student was not on school grounds and therefore was not disrupting the educational process. I do not think that the administrator should be the one to punish this student.

5/6/2007

Kyle M
Warren Area High School, Warren, PA
In this case I believe the student's rights were being violated. The principal holds the position of an authority figure only on school grounds and at school sponsored activities, otherwise he is simply another citizen. His rights extend only as far as those of the next man, and in this case he was infringing upon the student's rights to display the banner.

5/6/2007

Burt W.
Warren Area High School, Warren, PA
If an adult does something stupid, out of line, or illegal at a public event and his or her boss heard of it, that person could be fired. Similarly, students should be held to the same standards and morals at a public event that adults should be held up to. This particular student should have not tried to make a "show" out of this event. How someone acts in public reflects on them and can have consequences in their private life. Students' actions reflect upon the schools they attend and how people view the schools.

5/6/2007

Sophie D.
Warren Area High School, Warren, PA
If the parade was school sponsored, then the principal was justified in removing the banner. This sign could have caused a disruption in the school related event. However, if the parade was not school related, then the principal violated the first amendment. Furthermore, no police should be required as this person is expressing his opinion.

5/5/2007

Jerod H.
Warren High, Warren, PA
Administrators should have no right to dictate how you behave or speak outside of school. Schools and their employees have one job, and that is to teach, in school. If somebody from school(teacher, principal, etc.) sees a student committing foul play, then they should report what they saw to a parent or the authorities, but they should not, under any circumstances, take that matter into their own hands.

5/5/2007

Brian S.
Warren Area High School. Warren, PA
The administrator had no right to suppress the student. He wasn't on school property, and it seems he wasn't being vulgar towards the administrator. I can understand keeping vulgar language out of school, but off school property administrators and teachers are just other adults in the community. They have no special rights out of school. That is the only way to look at it. If theres a problem outside of school, thats what the police are there for.

5/4/2007

Mitch B.
Warren Area High School, Warren, PA
The student's First Amendment rights were without a doubt violated. He wasn't infringing upon anyone else's First Amendment rights. There should be no debate over this. Schools only have a say on what their students do or say while they are on either school property or at a school function. It shouldn't matter that he was promoting drugs, thats his choice and he shouldn't have to deal with the school when off school grounds. As stated by others its the parents or the police officers job to punish.

5/1/2007

Kara B.
Warren Area High School, Warren, PA
This student's right to Freedom of Speech was violated. Schools can punish their students for being inappropriate in or disrupting classes, but that does not give them the right to act as the child's parent. The principal didn't have the authority to punish the student, the only people who held that power would be the police or the student's guardians. I feel that this is just another case of an authority figure who let the power go to their head.

5/1/2007

Ashley V.
Warren HS, Warren, PA
Oh my goodness. Is it so bad that a principal was trying to keep the peace and enforce school policy? It’s what she’s used to doing. If something inappropriate happens at an event she’s helping to oversee then, yes, she’s going to act on it. I don’t think it was wrong of her at all. What I do think is wrong is the immaturity of the kid with the banner. He made this a huge publicized ordeal just because he was basically craving attention. I support the principal’s actions 100% in this situation. And anyways, what is our world coming to when signs promoting drugs are accepted and considered not harmful or disruptive to the people around? Just because we’re taking God out of our courts doesn’t mean we should take the morals out too.

4/30/2007

John S.
Warren Area High School, Warren, PA
The principal's actions were definitely out of place. In this instance, no educational process was being disrupted. The student was not on school grounds, nor at a school event. Therefore, he was not subject to school policy. The police force or perhaps city officials should have been the only groups to act in this instance.

4/27/2007

Yusuf
West High School, Columbus, OH
The First Amendment does not protect right of speech of the student. The school administrators make there own judgments to control the rights of the students.

4/26/2007

Glen B.
Nimitz, Irving, TX
School administrators are giving their own piece of jurisdiction and should not be extended even a foot outside the school grounds. What we do outside of school should be monitored by the cops and our guardians we do not need the school controlling what we can and cannot do off school grounds.

4/16/2007

Roshan S.
Nimitz, Irving
I don't think that the school has the right to stop you from carrying out your First Amendments right. Students should be able to have freedom of speech off of school grounds without getting in trouble from the school. The students were just sticking up for what they believed in, and tried not to get in trouble for that. The school may have just taken it in a wrong way. So i think their First Amendment rights were violated.

4/15/2007

Jordan T.
Nimitz HS Irving, TX
I believe that school administrator's authority should only be held on school grounds, or at school sponsored events. Punishing a student for any reason for actions committed outside of school cannot be seen as a proper exercise of authority. There is no reason why a student's First Amendment rights should be limited by a school official. If we allow these authorities to silence the students of our country, does it not undermine their privilege to dream, think, roll ideas, and inspire something inside themselves through the things they say? I say no, a student's right to free speech is a student's right to a free mind, and that should never be taken away.

4/13/2007

Jessica A.
Nimitz, Irving, TX
No, school administration has no right to limit our freedom of speech outside of school property. Outside of school, our life is our personal property, even our spoken words. The school official had no justifiable cause to suspend the student, the student was just exercising his constitutional right.

4/12/2007

Samuel F.
Nimitz, Irving
Yes, first of all a student’s activities off school grounds should not be regulated or associated with the school. A student’s life off grounds is in fact his life and last I checked the school was not a governing body. By limiting a student’s right to speech outside of school the school is infringing on a persons right to speak. If this trend continues who knows what else the school will try to regulate, maybe slavery?

4/12/2007

Ebony R
Nimitz Irving
I do not believe that school officials have the right to limit any behavior of a student outside of any school sponsored event or function. School officials’ jurisdiction begins and ends at the school. I believe that a student have the right to freedom of speech and expression anywhere outside of school as long as it does not put any else at risk. His first amendment rights were definitely violated. The administrator was the only one disrupting the learning environment by creating such a scene.

4/12/2007

Kendall
Nimitz, Irving, TX
I believe that the student was well within his rights to exercise his free speech. The fact that his principal suspended him for an act that did not take place on school property is not justifiable. That would be like a principal seeing you act inappropriately at the mall and then suspending you at school the next day. It is not punishable and unreasonable.

4/11/2007

Fredia
Nimitz, Irving, TX
No, students either on or off school, have the right to freedom of speech. I do believe that some speech on school grounds should be consider “disruptive” and should by means punishable, but off school’s ground are on free land of the U.S.A., and should express the thoughts as do any other citizens of the nation should.

4/11/2007

Kolby
Stroudsburg JH, Stroudsburg, PA
I think that the speech for Des Moines should have the First Amendment protecting her if its off of school grounds. The only time the school should have rights to limit freedom of speech is during school if it's something bad. In the case with the banner I think that the principle responded really badly because the kid wasn’t on school grounds so it isn’t making the school look bad and he should have never got suspended. He had the freedom to put whatever he wanted to put on that banner.

4/11/2007

April T.
SJHS, Stroudsburg PA
I really don’t think that the guy should be punished and have his First Amendment rights taken away because of what he did. I think that your rights limits in school shouldn’t effect how they are outside of school. Sure, the school did let them out early but it was not an official school event, this means the student wasn’t actually breaking the rules if he wasn’t even in school at the time. He should be considered at the function on his own because there were some students, I’m sure, that got out early and went home. He chose to be there so he can do what he wants. Plus the banner doesn’t even make complete sense so it can’t be that disruptive. I think that the school only has a right to limit your speech if you are in school or on an official school trip. I do not even like that idea really I don’t think they should limit it much. So I do think the student’s rights were violated and the school should not have been able to do anything about it, or at least the entire thing shouldn’t have gotten this out of hand.

4/11/2007

Krystle V.
SJHS, Stroudsburg, PA
I feel that he does have the same rights because the school was dismissed early and they were off of school grounds. He should not be in any trouble what so ever due to his sign. If he was in school and did something like that then maybe but he wasn’t so this shouldn’t matter. He is completely protected under the First Amendment with his freedom of speech. Also the school administrators had no right to say anything to him and they went completely overboard with this.

4/11/2007

Tyler M.
Stroudsburg Junior High School, Stroudsburg, PA
I think that the school did not have the right to pull down the poster and by doing so violate the student’s 1st Amendment rights. I also do not agree with what was written on the poster but he was only acting on his rights. I think that when school is in session or if the student was on school grounds that the issue would be in favor of the principle tearing down the poster. I think that his rights should be protected because he was not on school property and was not directly affecting anyone. I think that when we are in school or on school grounds that their rules out weigh a few of our rights. They are allowing us to learn in their school and we should at least respect their rules. I think that the boy’s rights will be protected because he was not in school or even on school property.

4/11/2007

Danielle
SJHS, Stroudsburg, PA
I don’t think the teachers had the right to tell the kids what they were doing was wrong. They weren’t on school grounds and the First Amendment gives you the right to free speech. It was not disturbing the learning process because they were at an outside activity. In the case with armbands, I don’t think they did anything wrong either, they were just sticking up for what they believed in there is nothing wrong with that. The authorities of the schools think they have the power to control all the kids in the schools and they don’t. What the kids did was fine and he shouldn’t have gotten suspended. I hope he wins the case to prove to everyone that what he did was innocent and the principle does not have the Wright to rip down the sign. I hope that authority stops trying to take away their rights because they think it’s wrong.

4/11/2007

Carly S.
Stroudsburg Jr. High School, Stroudsburg, PA
I believe that what the student had said was not right in any means. Yes, it is violating his first amendment right to freedom of speech; yet he still should not have written such a suggestive thing on the banner just to get attention. I believe that if students are on school property, the school rules apply to them at all times, and so does punishment. If he was on the school’s property, I would fully agree with him being suspended for what he had written on the banner, but since he was not, it is still his right to freedom of speech. I am in the middle of decision with this debate and I can not agree or disagree. Yes, what he said was wrong and he should be disciplined for what he had written on the banner, but still, it is violating his freedom of speech.

4/11/2007

Nate K
Stroudsburg Junior High School, Stroudsburg, PA
I think that students should be able to say what they want out of school without punishment from the school district. What a student does out of school is not any of the schools business. The school should not be allowed to interfere with any activities that a student does out of the curriculum. I also think that the First Amendment should still apply but unfortunately it doesn’t.

4/11/2007

Taylor S.
Stroudsburg Junior High, Stroudsburg, PA
I think that in the cases Morse v. Frederick and Tinker v. Des Moines, the student’s rights were violated. Frederick was not on school grounds when he showed his sign and it was not even an official school event. The sign was just a way to get on television and he meant nothing serious by what he wrote. Therefore, I think that the principal was wrong to tear down the sign and suspend him. Since Frederick was not in school that day, it was not the principal’s responsibility to punish him. Also, because he was not in school, I do not think that he should be blamed for promoting something that the school did not agree with. In the Tinker v. Des Moines case, I do not think that the students were harming anybody by wearing the black armbands. They were just expressing their opinion, which is exactly what the amendment allows them to do. I do not think that the school should have interfered with that and it was not fair for them to have to miss a month of school just to protest the war the way they wanted to.

4/11/2007

Samantha D.
SJHS, Stroudsburg, PA
I think that the school should be able to do anything about it or even get into it because they were off of school property when they took out the banner and showed it. So if they were going to suspend everyone who did something bad off school grounds then they would pretty much be suspending the whole school. The school might even argue that it was during school hours but it wouldn’t matter because the kid wasn’t in school that whole day anyway so they can’t say that because he didn’t even go that day. But it says in the first amendment that he has the right to write whatever he wrote even know he shouldn’t have wrote it.

4/11/2007

Matt M
SJHS, Stroudsburg, PA
I think the Supreme Court should rule in favor of Fredericks. If what the banner was that lewd and offensive then the authorities should deal with it, otherwise school officials should be left with discipline within school grounds. What Fredericks had to say on that banner was not school related, directed towards school, or on school property. I think this won’t extremely limit school principals’ authority of off school activities. Though actions outside of school should not be disciplined within school, it should be dealt with by the authorities if deemed necessary.

4/11/2007

Kilee C.
SJHS, Stroudsburg, PA
I feel that the school went over board on it. I think they should let it go. They should let it go because of the First Amendment. I feel that they should let the case go. They weren’t on school grounds. That’s why I feel this way about this case.

4/11/2007

Shelby K.
Stroudsburg Junior High, Stroudsburg, PA
I think that we should be able to have the right to free speech in school. When it comes to the case concerning Morse v. Frederick, I feel that since Frederick was not on school grounds, that Morse did not have the right to punish him. His First Amendment rights were violated because he also wasn't at an official school activity or outing. Of course he said something that was drug-related, but because it was his right to say or state his opinion, then he should not be punished for doing so. Yes, I know we are in school and we have limited rights, but why should we be limited in doing something that we think. He was on the sidewalk with this banner. A sidewalk is a public area and it had little to do with the fact that the school was beside the sidewalk. He wasn’t in violation of the law; he was only exercising his first amendment right.

4/11/2007

Andrew M.
SJHS, Stroudsburg, PA
I think that the First Amendment does protect students’ speech off school grounds because they have the right to say whatever they want. It is unfair if a teacher suspends a student for saying something that is inappropriate for school when school is not even in session. In the case of Morse v. Frederick, it was wrong for the administrator to suspend the student for saying something when school wasn’t in session. It was supposed to be up to the government if the student should be punished or not. This is what I think of this case.

4/11/2007

Meagan
SJHS, Stroudsburg, PA
I believe that his First Amendment rights were violated. Honestly, if a student is outside of a store smoking or doing something that they shouldn’t be doing, than the teachers shouldn’t be able to punish them in school. The teachers have absolutely no authority over the students out side of school. He is 18 years old, he is old enough to know what he did was wrong. He didn’t go to school that day and he wasn’t on school property so the principle can not do anything about it. She was probably just looking out for the school reputation but it sounds like she took what the sign said personally. She took it in to her own hands. I feel that is was very unjust the teachers should have no say in anything the student do or say outside of school grounds.

4/11/2007

Mike C.
SJHS, Stroudsburg, PA
I think that kids should not get in trouble for stuff out side of school. Because what kids do out side on school is there own business not the schools. The only reason teachers should be in kids’ lives outside of school is if the kid is talking about hurting a teacher or causing destruction in or to the school. In the Morse v. Frederick case Frederick had his rights taken form him. He had all the rights to make that banner and not be in trouble. So I believe that Morse should have to pay Frederick for the banner she ripped down.

4/11/2007

Francisco R.
Stroudsburg Jr. High School, Stroudsburg, PA
I think that the First Amendment dose protect the students right to freedom of speech off school property. This is because you have the right to do what ever you want as long as it is not breaking the law. Schools don’t have the right to punish if you do something on your street. What is next thing they will do? It is getting harder and harder to be a kid that makes mistakes once and a while.

4/11/2007

Dee T.
Stroudsburg Junior High School, Stroudsburg, PA
No I don’t believe that speeches off of school ground should be handled the same way as speeches in school. When they are off the school ground, they have the right to say anything that they want to say, they shouldn’t get in trouble for that. I think that the only time they should limit a students’ speech is when a student threatens to hurt someone or says something that might hurt someone. It’s kind of hard because the teacher was right because that statement could have led into something even worse, but at the same time, he was out of school and he had the right to say anything he wanted to say as long as it wasn’t extreme to the point where someone was going to get hurt by the statement he had wrote.

4/11/2007

Melissa N.
SJHS, Stroudsburg, PA
It is not a good idea for students to be told that they aren’t allowed to have a freedom of speech. But at the same time some things should not be allowed because it could cause harm to other students or people. So I can’t decide on this topic. When the students are off school property the school should not be worried or control the students because they have no right. But also the students should control themselves.

4/11/2007

Chandler K.
Stroudsburg Jr. High, Stroudsburg, PA
No, I don’t think standards of freedom of speech should be held on the same standards in and out of school. The motive for limiting freedom of speech in school is mainly attributed to the potential disruption to the learning process. Only on a trip for educational purposes, where students will be learning, should the same standards apply. In this particular case this exiting of the school to witness the passing of the torch was not educational but more for entertainment purposes. I believe rights of everyday citizens, which are complete freedom of speech, should be applied to this situation. The student was not on an educational trip so therefore there was no education to disrupt, not even considering the fact that he did not even cause a disruption. Because of this I feel the Principle was violating the student’s rights when she confiscated the banner and suspended him.

4/11/2007

Jessica B.
Stoudsburg, PA
I think that speech on school grounds should be different to speech off school grounds. I think when you are on school grounds or at something hosted by the school like a field trip you should have to abide by what the school rules and I think that wearing an armband because of a disagreement in a war is okay. It doesn’t disrupt anyone. It’s just a belief and they should have the right to voice there opinion. I think that off of school grounds they should be able to do anything as long as it abides by the state/national laws. I think that teachers should be able to confiscate stuff on school grounds that promote illegal activity, such as wearing a t-shirt to school that promotes marijuana. I think they should get in trouble but I think that if they only do it once they should just have to change the shirt, if it were to become something that happened a lot then they should be in trouble with further punishment. In the case of Morse v. Frederick I think his First Amendment rights were violated because he wasn’t on school ground and it is free speech. I think that the teacher went too far with the punishment. I don’t think she should have been able to suspend him. I also think that she shouldn’t have been able to take it down. She should have approached it differently like politely asking to take it down.

4/11/2007

Giulienne B.
SJHS, Stroudsburg, PA
I think that depending on where an incident happens, different people should handle the situation. The First Amendment protects students’ speech anywhere and everywhere, including in school and off of school grounds. If an incident happens on school property, the administrative figures of the school should deal with the situation. If it happens off of school grounds, then the police or security of that area should handle the problem. In the case of Morse v. Frederick, I think that Joseph Frederick’s First Amendment rights were violated. Considering that the banner was held by Frederick and his friends off of school grounds and not during school hours, he should not have been punished for it. I also agree with what Justice David Souter said, which was basically that the banner wasn’t disruptive, but disruption was made when the school felt the need to disagree. I believe that the administration decided to cause the scene, and then punish the student for it; this is unfair.

4/11/2007

Ebony S.
Bodine, Philadelphia, PA
I think the freedom of speech pertaining to students should cover students even when they are off of school premises. Because when the forefathers wrote the Constitution, they did not specify when you had freedom of speech and when it was limited so they shouldn't now.

4/11/2007

I'Kiyyah
Bodine, Philadelphia, PA
In my opinion, no because law enforcement is quick to say something to a student when he or she says something they feel is wrong or they don't agree with.

4/11/2007

Andrew
Nimitz, Irving, TX
I think that the First Amendment does protect students. They have the right to express their opinions and I think that the school shouldn't suspend them just because they are voicing their opinions.

4/11/2007

Amolee C.
Nimitz, Irving, TX
I am a big promoter of the First Amendment, but a situation like this calls for more attention to the specifics. Had the parade been school sponsored, I think that the school would have been justified in suspending the student. However, if the event was not school sponsored, then the principal had no right to seize the banner and suspend the student. It was simply bad judgment for the principal to give the student permission to be out of class. I hope that the case is ruled in favor of the girl, because if it isn’t, there will be school districts all over that will try to override even more of a student’s First Amendment right.

4/11/2007

Moises S.
Bodine, Philadelphia, PA
I feel that off of school grounds the school does not have the authority to limit children's' speech. Although it may not be appropriate but they still have the rite to speak the way that they feel. The school should not be allowed to punish a child for cursing of using inappropriate language off of school grounds that would be unruly and unconstitutional.

4/10/2007

Tilu
Nimitz, Irving, TX
The First Amendment does not really qualify to students. When in school, we are given no rights, what the school says goes or the students will be punished. But what happens at school should stay at school and what happens outside of the school is no doesn’t matter to anyone but the student. He was no violating anything on school grounds, he was outside and he should not be charged for that. What happens outside of the school premise is no one’s concern. Its people’s rights as citizens of the United States to be allowed to have the freedom of speech, and if it’s not at school then let them do as they wish.

4/10/2007

Korin Z.
Nimitz High School, Irving,TX
I believe that the school went over its power. It was not done on any grounds but on the sidewalk, in a peacefully assembly. The 1st Amendment clearly states that this could not be prohibited as long as it is peaceful, which it clearly was.

4/10/2007

Sarah
Nimitz, Irving, TX
True, the First Amendment states our freedom of speech, but every action has a reaction. Upon school grounds, I think that the school has a right to allow certain speeches and prohibit others if the speech disrupts learning. Off campus, however, is another story. When students are not at school, they are on their own. Whatever they do is their business and does not concern the school in the least bit.

4/10/2007

Lisa
Nimitz, Irving, TX
First off, the First Amendment doesn’t even apply at school. School administrations have their own sets of rules that we, as students, have to abide by. A school having the authority to suppress certain types of speech off of school grounds is even more ridiculous. What’s the good of freedom if we can’t even exercise it? The school administration went beyond what was needed, and the student was not violating any law. What students want to do or say off of school campus is their decision; schools have no right to punish students for living their lives.

4/10/2007

Jared
Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
I believe that a school administration does not hold the same powers off of school grounds and outside of school functions. They do hold power as being an adult and citizen of the United States, and can call the police if any law is broken. However, any special school rule should not apply to students outside of school grounds. Will I have to tuck in my shirt and not wear jeans with holes in them while I am going to a movie or sitting at home? I believe that the decision in Tinker v. Des Moines was a very wise decision. Students should be able to have some free speech in school, disruptive behavior aside, and by no means should anyone try to limit free speech outside of school. That's just un-American.

4/9/2007

Rita D.
Northgate MCHS, Seattle, WA
I think that every person should be treated equally, even students and minors. The First Amendment is for everyone in the country, nobody should take away our right to say what we want. After school hours and off school grounds the staff at school should not even think that they can regulate what we say. I think this case shouldn't even have happened and it shouldn't take long for a decision. Youth are the future of this country and people need to acknowledge that and treat us with the respect we are due. No matter how old people are, if they are over 13 years of age they know what they are doing and should be allowed to say what they want without someone telling them not to. In my opinion, this is a bogus case and some people should just get off whatever power trip they are on and let the youth do what they do as long as it isn't breaking any laws.

4/9/2007

Angel
Northgate MCHS, Seattle, WA
I think that when children leave school, the administration should not worry about what their students have to say. We have the right to free speech. I think that when the students are not on school grounds that school officials should not worry about what they have to say. I don't think that we, as students, should worry about our freedom of speech even while we are on school grounds as long as we are not offending anyone. Perhaps if someone does get offended then they can offer their own opinion.

4/9/2007

Eric
MCHS, Seattle, WA
I think it's ridiculous for schools to be able to enforce what is said by a student outside of school. If these rights weren't violated in the first place, we wouldn't have to enact so many laws.

4/7/2007

Edwin E.
Nimitz, Irving, TX
The First Amendment is already violated at school, so why should they have a jurisdiction on what the student does away from school? What a student does away from school is up to the student or the parent and absolutely none of the school's business.

4/5/2007

Lee
Nimitz, Irving, TX
First Amendment rights should be protected away from school. What a student says away from school should not affect the way he is treated at school.

4/5/2007

Bonnie
Nimitz, Irving
I'm not so sure about this case, but I think the First Amendment is something that should be used with caution. Yes, the First Amendment allows free speech, but free speech does not come without a reaction. You can say what ever you want to say, but others can and will react how ever they want to react. Freedom is good but some things are better unsaid.

4/5/2007

Matthew
Nimitz, Irving
The school administration is in violation of the First Amendment by punishing a student for a speech done off of school grounds. The school's jurisdiction already violates the Constitution on its grounds for the "preservation of the educational process," but does it have to right to extend its Constitution-violating powers past its walls? It’s like getting punished for sleeping in school, which is an acceptable punishment, and then getting punished again by the administration for sleeping at home.

4/5/2007

Mia
Nimitz, Irving, TX
It's one thing if the student is on campus during school hours where, basically, our rights are eliminated. We have very limited free speech and other rights. But on the other hand, this student was off school grounds automatically regaining his freedom of speech. He was not hurting anyone but just expressing his opinion. I do believe that the student's First Amendment rights were violated in this case. The principal had no right to confiscate the banner and suspend the student because of the fact that they were not on school grounds. And since the school was dismissed early, they weren't even together during school hours. The principal had no right to take away his freedom of speech like that.

4/5/2007

Lizzy
Nimitz, Irving, TX
The rules are, if in or on school grounds, the school has the right to create standards the students have to abide by. The freedom of speech is no different. On school grounds it is not permitted to use curse words or provocative language. Although I do believe that if a student is not on school property then the rules do not apply. The First Amendment gives them the right to say what they want to whom they want, as long as it is off school property.

4/5/2007

Michelle
Northgate MCHS
The right to free speech should not be tempered just because we are students! It is not up to the administration of any school to watch what comes out of our mouths everyday. Their job is to teach us how to speak properly and be considerate but what we say and do outside of school is our problem. If we do speak without thinking and say something awful that causes a fight or what have you, the mess is ours and we will never learn how to be independent and vibrant human beings if we are constantly coddled and taken care of every minute of everyday!

4/5/2007

J
Northgate MCHS, Seattle, Wa.
I do not believe that any school should have the right to decide what goes on in the lives of students outside of school. When students are on campus, there are rules and regulations that need to be followed. Off campus, however, has nothing to do with school and is an obvious intrusion to students’ lives and with how their parents wish to raise them. Leave off campus regulation to the parents and the police. Schools need to take care of schools and that's it.

4/5/2007

Pinky
Nimitz, Irving, TX
In Tinker v. Des Moines, students had every right to wear black armbands in protest to the war. Seeing as how the learning process of other students was not hindered, and the Tinker siblings assembled peaceably, the siblings’ behavior is protected by the First Amendment. These students chose an appropriate way to voice their opinions, which requires their protection by the first amendment. Students have rights protected by the First Amendment; schools have rules and regulations that protect these rights to the extent of the safety of the remainder of the student body. In the case of Morse v. Frederick, the school board allows students to take half of the day off providing they attend the parade. Although this event is not school sponsored, it might as well have been considered so. Frederick ought to have known better than to violate school rules in a situation that might as well be considered a school event. Schools have the right to limit free speech that may seem inappropriate in any and all school sponsored or school related events. Schools had the right in Morse v. Frederick, whereas in Tinker v. Des Moines they did not have that right.