Bethel School District Vs. Fraser :: essays research papers fc

Bethel School district vs. FraserThis case involved a public high discipline student, Matthew Fraser who gave a run-in nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during indoctrinate as a pct of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his prospect in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant headway told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the schools "disruptive-conduct normal." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had use sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspend from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the gradation exercises.     Frasers milit ary chaplain brought action against the school board in the joined States District chat up of justice for the Western District of Washington. He alleged the wall hanging and punishment were a violation of his sons First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The father sought injunctive and monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. of 1983. The district judicial system awarded the student $278 in damages, $12,750 in litigation costs and attorneys fees, and ordered the school district not to prevent the student from speaking at the starting signal ceremonies.The school district appealed the decision, arguing that the speech had a disruptive proceeding on the educational process. The school district said it had an interest in protecting an audience of minors from indecent speech in the school. The school board believed it had the right to control language that was used during a school-sponsored activity. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district cour t.The district court found the disruptive-conduct rule unconstitutionally vague and broad, and that withdrawal of the students name from the graduation speakers list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the rule did not mention such removal as a apt(predicate) sanction. The court made the case that nothing in the Constitution forbids the states from insistence that certain forms of expression are unfitting and subject to sanctions. (Tinker v. Des Moines fissiparous Community School District, 1969) The court affirmed that students do not " swan their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schooltime gate."(Tinker) If the student had given the same speech off the school premises, he would not have been penalized because government officials found his language inappropriate.