Bethel School District v. Fraser: Free Speech Issue

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Holding
Facts
Procedural History
Issues
Rules of Law
Analysis
Conclusion
References

Holding

The school district was not prevented by the First Amendment from disciplining the respondent. When applied to children in a public school, the institution has the right to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terminology in public. It is up to the states and school boards of the district to determine the level of appropriateness in free speech and impose reasonable sanctions for circumstances such as this for purposeful use of offensively lewd speech that is not protected by the First Amendment. Furthermore, the school has a right to impose disciplinary sanctions for a variety of disruptive or unanticipated conduct violations that can interfere with the educational process.

Facts

A student Matthew N. Fraser at Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington made a public speech to a mandatory assembly of 600 students aged approximately 14-years old. Fraser was meant to nominate a fellow student for the student elective office as part of a school-sponsored program in self-government. During the speech, Fraser referred to the candidate in an explicit, graphic, and sexual metaphor. Before the speech, he was warned by two teachers with whom he discussed the speech to not go through with it since it was inappropriate. The schools disciplinary code prohibited the use of obscene and profane language in the school. The following morning, Fraser was called to the assistant principals office where he had admitted to using sexual innuendo. Fraser was given three days of suspension and removed from candidacy for graduation speaker, the sanctions were held up by a subsequent review of the case.

Procedural History

The students father as guardian filed a lawsuit on behalf of Fraser in the U.S. District Court alleging a violation of the First Amendment and the right to freedom of speech. District Court ruled against the school for violation of freedom of speech and unconstitutionally vague conduct code. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also rejected the school districts argument for disruption of the educational process and protection of minors from lewd language.

Issues

How should First Amendment be recognized within the context of public educational settings, particularly with minors?
What extent and control does the school district have on creating and enforcing its disciplinary code and imposing sanctions?

Rules of Law

The First Amendment clause of free speech does not offer a carte blanche for all types of speech. Some forms or categories of speech are given lesser or lack of protection by the First Amendment, including obscenity and speech integral to illegal conduct. Under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), free speech is judged under contemporary community standards and is not protected if it depicts or describes offensive sexual conduct. The First Amendment recognizes the need to protect minors from exposure to vulgarity in spoken language (FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726) and limitations on sexually explicit speech in public settings (Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629).

Analysis

The common argument in lower courts referenced Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) where students were disciplined for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. They argued that simply because Frasers speech was disruptive does not essentially differ it from the right to free speech ruled in favor of Tinker. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Frasers explicit sexual content speech differed from the passive non-disruptive political speech in Tinker. While school officials should allow expression of views, even controversial, the school board ultimately has the authority to determine which speech is appropriate and protection of students that may be offended by certain profanity language.

Conclusion

It is evident that Fraser intentionally utilized inappropriate language in his assembly speech despite being given forewarning about its violation of school discipline. This type of speech is not protected under the First Amendment, nor does it apply to educational settings where the school has the right to protect minors from lewd speech. The Supreme Court has dismissed previous decisions and ruled in favor of the School District in being within its rights to enforce disciplinary sanctions.

References

Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

Click Here To Order Now!