flex
10-21-2002, 01:36 AM
John Vint
SS US Court Research
Sites:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/firstamendment/bethel.html (Bethel)
Background:
April 26, 1986 Matthew Fraser made a speech to his peers in Bethel High School in Washington in regard to an election for the school. He was to make a speech for the nomination of a fellow student into office. It is said that there was about 600 people large number where 14 but other then that it was a requirement to be at the assembly.
In his speech he talked about his candidate with sexual slurs and improper language. As said in the first amendment he went ahead making the speech with the protection of freedom of speech but there were and still are many objections.
Prosecutor’s Arguments:
Prior to his speech he was warned by two of his teachers. They told him if he were to say what he wrote down he would be held responsible and would be punished. They told him that his words were, "inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it" (Bethel). He went ahead to make the speech. During the speech it was observed that reactions by some were excitement, cheering him on and embracing his words, but from others, younger student, some were very confused. Unsure about what he was saying. Many didn’t understand it and argued that they shouldn’t have heard it at that age. Because of the speech, it was discovered, one or more teachers had to prolong her planned lesson to explain the terms and sexual innuendo he stated. "Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures"(Bethel). This is a rule in Bethel High School, which was determined violated after Fraser’s speech.
The role and purpose of the American public school system were well described by two historians, who stated: "[Public] education must prepare pupils for citizenship in the Republic. . . . It must inculcate (implies persistent or repeated efforts to impress on the mind) the habits and manners of civility as values in themselves conducive to happiness and as indispensable to the practice of self-government in the community and the nation."(Bethel)
That meaning that if there was interference in the learning process and or the process to be better people in a school the then the cause should be reprimanded. Students as well as teachers are role models. The older students from day one look up to the upper classmen. And if some student wouldn’t use the sexual statements and or profanity then listing to the speech will entice them to use those words.
Defendants (Fraser’s) Argument:
In the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District it was said that students does not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."(Bethel) Meaning that students have the right of the first amendment to speak their mind no matter the words. Also, his statements were necessary because what he said was needed to be said to get his point across for his candidate. Trough much review it was observed that what he said doesn’t “concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students"(Bethel). The First Amendment allows freedom of speech, and the schools can no determine what is vulgar or acceptable to be said in classes or around school.
"I wish therefore, . . . to disclaim any purpose . . . to hold that the Federal Constitution compels the teachers, parents, and elected school officials to surrender control of the American public school system to public school students."(Bethel)
Students should determine what each other should know, not a teacher or an official. All of what he said was relevant to the election. For what he said could have had a difference on a victory or a loss.
Conclusion:
As reviewed from both sides there is reason for moderation in the speech of other students but at the same time a freedom of speech. Nevertheless students are held responsible for the actions. Fraser was suspended for two days returning on the third and fought the decisions of the school against him.
SS US Court Research
Sites:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/firstamendment/bethel.html (Bethel)
Background:
April 26, 1986 Matthew Fraser made a speech to his peers in Bethel High School in Washington in regard to an election for the school. He was to make a speech for the nomination of a fellow student into office. It is said that there was about 600 people large number where 14 but other then that it was a requirement to be at the assembly.
In his speech he talked about his candidate with sexual slurs and improper language. As said in the first amendment he went ahead making the speech with the protection of freedom of speech but there were and still are many objections.
Prosecutor’s Arguments:
Prior to his speech he was warned by two of his teachers. They told him if he were to say what he wrote down he would be held responsible and would be punished. They told him that his words were, "inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it" (Bethel). He went ahead to make the speech. During the speech it was observed that reactions by some were excitement, cheering him on and embracing his words, but from others, younger student, some were very confused. Unsure about what he was saying. Many didn’t understand it and argued that they shouldn’t have heard it at that age. Because of the speech, it was discovered, one or more teachers had to prolong her planned lesson to explain the terms and sexual innuendo he stated. "Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures"(Bethel). This is a rule in Bethel High School, which was determined violated after Fraser’s speech.
The role and purpose of the American public school system were well described by two historians, who stated: "[Public] education must prepare pupils for citizenship in the Republic. . . . It must inculcate (implies persistent or repeated efforts to impress on the mind) the habits and manners of civility as values in themselves conducive to happiness and as indispensable to the practice of self-government in the community and the nation."(Bethel)
That meaning that if there was interference in the learning process and or the process to be better people in a school the then the cause should be reprimanded. Students as well as teachers are role models. The older students from day one look up to the upper classmen. And if some student wouldn’t use the sexual statements and or profanity then listing to the speech will entice them to use those words.
Defendants (Fraser’s) Argument:
In the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District it was said that students does not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."(Bethel) Meaning that students have the right of the first amendment to speak their mind no matter the words. Also, his statements were necessary because what he said was needed to be said to get his point across for his candidate. Trough much review it was observed that what he said doesn’t “concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students"(Bethel). The First Amendment allows freedom of speech, and the schools can no determine what is vulgar or acceptable to be said in classes or around school.
"I wish therefore, . . . to disclaim any purpose . . . to hold that the Federal Constitution compels the teachers, parents, and elected school officials to surrender control of the American public school system to public school students."(Bethel)
Students should determine what each other should know, not a teacher or an official. All of what he said was relevant to the election. For what he said could have had a difference on a victory or a loss.
Conclusion:
As reviewed from both sides there is reason for moderation in the speech of other students but at the same time a freedom of speech. Nevertheless students are held responsible for the actions. Fraser was suspended for two days returning on the third and fought the decisions of the school against him.