Talk:Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
this was a very interesting case. it was the biggest case ever to deal with the rights included in the first ammendment for students. The supreme court voted it down 7 to 2. I do think this was interesting and interesting. but confusing at the same time.
szdvcazdcvvwn, but up. They voted 7-2 to say that students as well as teachers are person under our Constitution.
As a plaintiff in Tinker v Des Moines, I would refer you to John Tinker's website at schema-root.org. I am Christopher Paul Eckhardt. My website is www.r25288.com. John W Johnson has the best book on the case, "The Struggle for Student Rights, Tinker v Des Moines and the 1960's". The American Bar Association has an excellent website with John, Mary Beth, and my photos, along with our thoughts, under LawDay, under their site, along with our biographies. FYI
Who exactly is arguing that Fraser negates Tinker?
I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that Fraser at most limits Tinker with regards to obscenity. The article, however, currently says "there is debate" over Tinker's post-Fraser validity. Who's debating this? What is the nature of their argument? I'll do some research, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could answer this outright and edit the article accordingly. Lottelita 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I know, no one is arguing that. (Perhaps some wishful-thinking principals and school board members, I guess.) I rewrote that part of the section to conform with the current normative legal understanding of the situation. Junkmale 20:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
scratch notes for later
Background info on petitioners * John Frederick Tinker ** Born October 13, 1950 (according to several traffic citations retrieved from Iowa Courts Online) ** Attended North High School * Mary Beth Tinker ** Attended Warren Harding Junior High School * Christopher Eckhardt ** Attended Roosevelt High School -- Ted 18:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Would this decision mean that kids could wear, say, Nazi armbands to school. Wouldn't that take this decision a little too far? LCpl 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, this decision could not be used to uphold the right to wear Nazi armbands; Tinker did not uphold a right to wear armbands (or other accessories) generally; it's about weighing the student's right to self-expression against the interest of the school to prevent the educational process from being disrupted. It would be incredibly easy for a school prohibition to pass the Tinker test by arguing that Nazi regalia would sufficiently disrupt and threaten the educational environment. Postdlf 18:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- If there isn't a rule against it in the school handbook then it's alright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier...
Looking very briefly at the article for Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, I'm not sure I understand how the two rulings are in conflict. Tinker establishes that a student's individual right to expression cannot be denied unless it disrupts the educational environment. However, Hazelwood refers to school body newspapers, which are not individual in any way. Can anyone clarify this? --Curtmack 20:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
shouldn't this be included?
"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." that's a fairly well known quote, that I think should mentioned somewhere in this article. --184.108.40.206 16:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
No section about the actual case itself?
So there's a section about the background of the case. And there's a section about subsequent 1st amendment school related cases. But there's no section that describes the actual Tinker v Des Moines case, the decision, its findings, or the what the heck the "Tinker Test" actually is.