Supreme Court Case: J. S Vs. Bethlehem Area School

The third case, Daniel RR v. State Board of Education, was documented in United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit in June 12, 1989. This case discussed whether a child with disability is given a right to receive mainstream education.

This document supports limiting online student speech because the court ruled that even though it happened out of school, the school’s reason was strong enough to justify their actions toward K.K.

There is an increase in cyberbullying due to technology, the school has the right to protect their students, and it affects how teachers work. Numerous individuals trust that punishing students for what they say outside of school goes against the First Amendment, yet in the event that it disturbs the wellbeing of the student body, something should be done. At the point when students are included with cyberbullying, it unquestionably goes past the school's doors and influences not only the student, but the general population around

The case was argued to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 28, 1995. The court noted that the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, was extended via the Fourteenth Amendment to cover searches and seizures by state officers, including those at public schools. Since the collection and testing of urine under the school policy was a search and thus subject to the Fourth Amendment, the Court decided a reasonableness test would be required. As a result, the court stated that while school officials are technically agents of the state, because of their custodial relationship with their students, the school faculty have authority to act in-loco-parentis to make sure the children they are responsible for are kept safe. The court

Des Moines is an important case for free speech in the United States. It affirms that students don’t lose their rights when they go to school. However, it also affirmed that schools can limit speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). However, the Court has ruled that there are times that the school can limit speech. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bethel v. Fraser that students can be disciplined for using vulgar and offensive language in school (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p. 25). This case differed from Tinker v. Des Moines because that case was about political speech or expression. Another example of where school can limit the First Amendment is school sponsored newspapers. This was affirmed by the Court in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). That decision stated that schools can reasonably limit the content of school-sponsored newspapers (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p.

In summarizing the salient points of the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, it had to do with the respondent’s father who sued candidates, including a school region, affirming that the school locale's approach requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at his little girl's school damaged the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the father had standing and decided for the father. Certiorari was conceded to audit the standing and First Amendment issues.

Recently, the Oregon legislature passed Senate Bill 1555 (2012), amending the state’s statutes surrounding issues of harassment, intimidation, bullying and cyberbullying (Oregon Department of Education, 2016). Cyberbullying is “conduct that disrupts a student’s ability to learn and a school’s ability to educate its students in a safe environment” (30 ORS § 339.353). The Senate Bill amendments include increased accountability for public school districts, which include the mandatory adoption of a policy prohibiting acts such as harassment and cyberbullying. The policy must also include the requirement that a school employee report such an act of cyberbullying to the appropriate school administrator (Hinduja & Patchin, 2016). Resultantly, the first step in this case is to report this alleged cyberbullying to the school principal. Having examined the state statute requirements for a circumstance of

Narrator: In 1942 The West Virginia Board of Education requested all student enrolled in public school to salute to the American flag. If students refuse they will be sent to detention. Walter Barnette a Jehovah’s Witness refuse to.

Living now in the 21 century almost every student has a cell phone, computer, or some sort of access to the internet and technology and because the way we communicate has changed now, the way we bully is changing. Cyberbullying is turning into the new form of harassment as technology increases, and six middle school girls ages 12-13 thought to use this new method of online bullying to create a facebook page verbally assaulting teachers they did not like and they even called the facebook page “‘Attack-a-School Day.’” They even got other kids involved in the abuse. The young teens were charged with misdemeanor but they tried to argue to side of free speech(case 2). One hundred percent the first amendment in the constitution should be followed

Gregson, the vice principal at Northwest High School, accessed a video through his work computer of a transgender student’s locker being vandalized by members of the football team. (R. 18.) Gregson accessed the video using Principal Paul Fletcher’s username and password. (R. 18.) Gregson believed the player transgression was being covered up and he anonymously uploaded it on a social media website. (R. 18.) He then deleted the video from his computer and wiped his hard drive clean. (R. 18.) Returning

Many have researched to see if zero tolerance policies actually work. When looking at these policies we have to recognize the tough decisions made by teachers and school administers when it comes to school violence, but it is important to recognize the gaps that exist within these policies that negatively affect students and their communities. It is true that these policies aim to protect against intra-school violence, but the truth is that these policies often work in major punishment for trivial offences (Skiba and Knesting 2001). The implementation of these policies has become civil rights issues for both sides of the political spectrum, organizations like the ACLU and the Rutherford Institute have both criticized the policies and have defended students who are being negatively affected by this era of discipline. Still, defenders of the policy believe this will still be the one cure all for the growing trend in violence across America. Even though it is a common belief about zero tolerance, it has been around for a couple of decades now and the evidence does not support the common belief. With the question of: do zero tolerance policies make schools safer? The answer is not necessarily. There is this common misconception that booting “problem” students benefit the school. But it has been tested that with the increase of zero tolerance discipline such as suspension and expulsion does

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the exercise of an individual’s freedom of speech from infringement by government; the Fourteenth Amendment extends this protection to the States and local levels of government, including public schools and universities. The Supreme Court has held that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (Tinker). School officials have the authority to censor school-sponsored speech based on legitimate pedagogical concerns. The dean of students has not censored any editorials yet, but required that they be cleared by her before publication. The main issue in this case is whether there exists a legitimate reason on her

Cornell and Limber (2015) indicated that the increase in judicial and legislative attempts to deter bullying were a result of two major events in 1999, the Columbine High School shooting and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (p. 333). While the former is self-explanatory, the latter, like many legal cases, was not heavily discussed at the time. They clarified that this U.S. Supreme Court case decided that “schools could be liable for failure to stop student-to-student sexual harassment” and that it has been the basis for bullying being addressed

As the 21st century furthers, social media has expanded rapidly; this has become an ongoing issue because social media is often a tool used to cyberbully. Nowadays, school districts are unaware of handling these issue since it can, and will, for the most part take place at home. Many individuals believe that the district cannot be held responsible since these actions are not viewed by school administration. As academic years further, school districts are forced to update the code of conduct to provide the rights of students. Although, schools provide this code to ensure the safety of students, it often gets reversed on the district. It has been proven that many schools are being sued for not following the correct procedures when dealing with

Sixteen year old Emily Gibson made a short video on anti-bullying on her high school, Lebanon. Apparently the school administration board thought she was “inciting violence”, so the result was she got two days in school suspension because the principal Scott Walters “...took issue with the fact that the free-verse speech was recorded in a classroom without a teachers permission.” Her grandfather and guardian supports her decision on making the video, and is proud of her for expressing her opinion.