RUNNINGHEAD:PORTFOLIO4FREEDOMOFEXPRESSION

KathleenMyers
April25,2014
NVSchoolLaw
Portfolio4
Freedomofexpression

FREEDOMOFEXPRESSION

BillFosterisahighschoolstudentwholivesintheNortheasternpartofthecountrywhich,
besidesPennsylvaniaandNewJersey,considersdressaformofexpression.Hishighschoolinitiateda
policyprohibitingthewearingofgangsymbolssuchas:jewelry,emblems,earrings,andhats.The
schoolstartedthepolicybecauseoffrequentgangactivityintheschool.BillFosterisnotinvolvedina
gangandheworeanearringtoschoolasaformofselfexpression.Billwassuspendedfromschool
becauseofhisearring,sohefiledsuitclaiminghisfirstamendmentrightoffreedomofexpression
wasviolated.
ThefirstcasetodealwithstudentsfirstamendmentrightswasTinkerVDesMoines(1969).
InthiscasestudentsweresuspendedbecausetheyworeblackarmbandstoprotesttheVietnam
War.Thecourtruledintheirfavorandsaidtheschoolviolatedtheirfirstamendmentrighttoexpress
theiropiniononthewar.Thecourtruledthatstudentshavefreespeechrightsinschoolsolongas
thoserightsdonotdisruptlearningorotherstudentsrights.UndertheTinkerguidelinesof
disruption,Billsearringdoesnotdisruptlearningorotherstudentsrights.
TheTinkercasewasthecasethatsetthestandardforwhetherornotexpressionisdisruptive
tolearningand/orotherstudentsrights.Howeveranotherlandmarkcase:HazelwoodVKuhlmeier
(1988),althoughinregardtothewrittenwordnotdress,setthestandardforspeechbeinglimited
containingvulgar,graphicorsexuallyexplicitmaterial.TakingbothofthesestandardsintoaccountBill
Fostersearringisnotdisruptivetolearning,disruptivetootherstudentsrightsorvulgar.Thesetwo
standards

FREEDOMOFEXPRESSION

the:
Tinker
standardandthe
Hazelwood
standard,areatthebaseofhowastudentsspeechcanbe
limited.
Aschool,thatdoesnotconsiderdressprotectedspeech,canprohibitclothingitdeems
unsuitableforalmostanyreason.Policiescanbewrittentoprohibitcertainclothingsuchasgang
relatedbutitmustnotbevague.InthecaseNewsonvAlbemarle(2003)astudentfiledsuitclaiming
hisfirstamendmentrightswereviolatedwhenhewasinstructedtoturnhisNRAshirtcontaining3
gunmaninsideout.Intheschoolhandbookunderthedresscodeitprohibitsmessagesonclothing,
jewelry,andpersonalbelongingsthatrelatetoweapons.Theassistantprincipalwhoinstructedthe
studenttoturntheshirtinsideoutclaimedthegunmanontheshirtremindedherofthegunman
fromthecolumbineshootings.Shesaidshedidnotwantotherstudentstothinktheschool
promotedweaponsandthatschoolsandgunsdontmix.Thecourtruledinfavorofthestudent
becausethedresscodewasvagueandthestudentsshirtcontainedweaponsinanonthreatening
nonviolentway.
InthecaseBoroffvVanWert(2000)astudentwassuspendedforwearingaMarilynManson
TshirtcontainingathreeheadedJesusthattheprincipalfoundoffensive.Theschoolhadalso
prohibitedthewearingofMarilynMansonshirts.Thestudentknewtheshirtwasprohibitedandin
factworeaMarilynMansonshirtdayafterday.Thecourtruledinfavorofthestudentclaimingthe

schooldidnothavetherighttoprohibitthetshirtsimplybecausetheydisagreedwiththemessage.
Inthepresentcase,Billwassuspendednotbecauseofatshirtbutanearring,andtheschoolalso
alreadyhadrulesinplaceprohibitinggangrelatedsymbols.
FREEDOMOFEXPRESSION

AccordingtoTinkerVDesMoines(1969),tolimitspeechitrequiresaspecificandsignificant
fearofdisruption,notjustsomeremoteapprehensionofdisturbance.BillFostersearringalthough
againsttherulesofwearinggangrelatedsymbolsisnotagangsymbolpersebutapieceofjewelry,
anditisknownBillisnotinagang.TheBoroffvVanWert(2000)casesaystheschoolcannotsimply
restrictspeechbecauseitdisagreeswiththemessage.InthiscaseBillsearringdoesnotcontainany
openlyoffensivemessage.
InconclusiontheNewsomvAlbemarle(2003)caseisthecasewhichmostcloselyidentifies
withBillFosterandhisearring.IntheNewsomcasehisshirtwhichdisplaysthreegunmanisnotunder
theschoolscategoryofviolent,threatening,lewdordangerousweaponsmaterial.LikeNewsom,
BillFosterisnotwearinghisearringasagangmemberssymbolorpromotinggangactivityinany
way.Billiswearinghisearringasanaccessorytoimpressgirls,nottosendagangrelatedmessage.
TheNewsomcasealsousedtheTinkerstandardtodeterminewhetherhisshirtwasdisruptiveto
learningorothers.UndertheTinkerstandard,Billsearringisnotdisruptiveand,likeNewsom,heis
wearinghisearringforotherreasonsbesidesgangactivity.UnlessBilllivesinanareathatdoesnot
considerdressaformofexpression,hisfirstamendmentrightswereviolated.

FREEDOMOFEXPRESSION

References
BoroffvVanWert(2000)prenhall.com/underwood.comch7cases

HazelwoodvKuhlmeier(1988)prenhall.com/underwood.comch7cases

NewsonvAlbemarle(2003)prenhall.com/underwood.comch7cases

TinkerVDesMoines(1969)prenhall.com/underwood.comch7cases

UnderwoodJ.&WebbD.2006.SchoolLawforTeachers.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PearsonEducation
Inc.