Embedded Files
Congress shall make no law respecting an
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
Government for a redress of grievances.
Learning Target - By the end of this thing you will be able to debate a real world topic. You may not be ready to step in front of the Supreme Court, but you certainly will be able to speak on the subject of free speech with authority, and you will will be able to marshal the words and arguments of lawyers and judges to defend your position.
Furthermore you will realize that students make history because of the cases cited on this page involve the freedoms of students like you who with the help of the ACLU and others argued their case in front of the highest court in the land.
After this lesson your public speaking skills will be marginally better and you will have the confidence to speak your mind in a way that others will listen.
Resolution: The school district should adopt a discipline policy governing students’ online speech as it pertains to school
(p. 256 in your textbook) Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District is a 1969 landmark Supreme Court case that established the First Amendment rights of students in public schools. The case involved John and Mary Beth Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt, who wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. School officials asked the students to remove their armbands, and they were suspended. The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 in favor of the students, saying that students' free rights should be protected and that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate”. The court took the position that school officials could not prohibit speech unless they suspected it might disrupt learning.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier was a landmark 1988 Supreme Court case that established that school officials can limit student newspapers that are not considered public forums. The case involved students in a Journalism II class at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis, Missouri, whose principal removed pages of the student newspaper that contained articles about teen pregnancy and divorce without telling the students. The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in favor of the school, saying that public schools do not have to allow student speech if it is inconsistent with the schools' educational mission. The court also decided that school officials have the power of censorship over student newspapers that are not considered public forums.
Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri (1973) was a Supreme Court case involving Barbara Papish, a student expelled from the University of Missouri for distributing a controversial publication. The Court ruled in Papish's favor, asserting that public universities must uphold students' First Amendment rights to free speech, even if the speech is offensive or controversial. This decision set an important precedent for protecting free speech rights on college campuses.
Morse v. Frederick (2007), also known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, involved a high school student who displayed a banner with the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across the street from his school during a school-sanctioned event. The principal confiscated the banner, and the student was subsequently suspended. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the Court ruled in favor of the school. The Court held that the school could restrict student speech that promotes illegal drug use, even if the speech occurs off-campus and at a school-related event. The decision affirmed that schools have the authority to regulate speech that undermines their educational mission and promotes drug use.
In Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), the Supreme Court ruled on whether a public high school could discipline a student for delivering a speech containing lewd and indecent language at a school assembly. The Court held that the school could indeed discipline the student, as schools have the authority to regulate lewd and vulgar speech that is inconsistent with the "fundamental values of public school education." This case established that public schools can restrict lewd or indecent speech that disrupts the educational environment, even if it occurs during a school-sponsored event.
In Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the Supreme Court considered the case of a high school student, B.L., who was disciplined by her school for posting a profanity-laden message on Snapchat criticizing the school's cheerleading team. The school argued that the discipline was justified because B.L.'s speech disrupted school activities. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of B.L., stating that her speech was protected by the First Amendment even though it was made off-campus. The decision reaffirmed the principle that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," but it also recognized that schools have a legitimate interest in regulating certain types of off-campus speech that could cause substantial disruption to school operations.
see video below
The Assignment
The Assignment
You have a choice. You can participate in a debate or write and essay. In both cases I will assign your position. Because the debate requires working with a team and being present on a specific day I will guarantee anyone that chooses to debate a grade no lower than 75% (C).
The following are outlines and suggestions for a debate. If you choose to do the essay, you may adapt these to fit your needs. You do not have to fill in the blanks. Make sure you do this in your own voice so you are comfortable giving the speech.
Opening and Constructive Outline
Opening and Constructive Outline
Introduce yourself
State your name and your partner's name, and which side you are speaking for. For example, "Good afternoon Mr/Madam Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Sam and I am the first speaker for the pro team".
Introduce the topic
State the topic of the debate and which side you are arguing for. For example, "Today we are proposing/opposing the motion that mobile phones should be banned in schools".
Define key terms
Explain what the topic means and define any important words.
State your position
Explain why you are taking a particular position, and what criteria you will use to support it. For example, "We stand affirmative on the resolution that ___________________________. We take this position for the following reasons: __________(point A), _______ _(point B), ___________ and __________(point C)".
Present your thesis statement
This should be a strong summation that will shock the audience back into listening. For example, "This is a serious problem and the present system will not solve the problem; our plan will solve the problem".
Constructive Arguments
Evidence #1 (present evidence #1 and explain why it is relevant and strong in support of your argument). This should be 3-4 sentences.
Evidence #2 (present evidence # 2 and explain why it is relevant and strong in support of your argument). This should be 3-4 sentences.
Evidence #3 (present evidence # 3 and explain why it is relevant and strong in support of your argument). This should be 3-4 sentences.
o For the reasons just stated, we _________ (affirm/negate) the proposition that _________________.
rebuttal
rebuttal
This is time for strategy. You will have to be prepared for the arguments that the other side makes. Granted this is a little bit of guess work, but if you research well enough you should be able to figure out what they are going to say.
You will construct the rebuttal during the debate, but it will look kind of like this.
o We stand _____________(affirmative/negative) on the proposition that ________________________ and I defend our point A that __________
_______________ in the following way(s): (this should be 3-4 sentences and defend your team’s first point by responding to the other teams arguments against it.)
o Furthermore, our position is stronger than the opponent’s position in reference to their point A. Their point A is weak because _____________
____________________ (this should be 3-4 sentences and point out flaws or problems to their point A argument. Use evidence if you have it.)
o Therefore, we remain ______________(affirmative/negative) on the proposition that ___________________________.
closing
closing
o The issue presented in the proposition that __________________ is clearly resolved by our contentions that ____________, __________, and ____________ are of higher value than our opponents because _____________________________________
________________________________________(2-3 sentences).
o Our evidence of ____________, ___________, and ___________ clearly support and establish our position because _____________
_______________________ (2-3 sentences).
o Therefore, you must resolve the _______________ (affirmative/negative) that _________________________ (proposition).
LEVEL UP
LEVEL UP
Law Student
The level of Law Student indicates that you have just begun your journey and probably should not be giving legal advice to anyone. Perhaps you did not have evidence to support your argument or your notes aren't organized enough to think on your feet. You have attained this level in class if you have collected high quality evidence with citation for your debate.
Paralegal
You can definitely do some work to help a lawyer. You can do some of the research and fill out documents, but you should still leave the heavy lifting to the lawyers. You can consider yourself a paralegal if you have written a draft of your opening and constructive speech and begun practicing it to reach the four minute time.
Legal Analyst
You can definitely be in the court room now, but you should probably still have a lawyer with you. Most of the time you will be second chair, but occassionally you can represent clients on smaller issues. Congratulations, if you have nailed your opening and constructive speech. You are now researching possible opposing arguments and potential rebuttals. A good analyst is ready to answer any questions that the opposition have and can rebut any arguments made.
Lawyer
You made it. You are a lawyer. While you will still rely on assistance for paralegals and analysts, the case is yours. You know the subject matter, can easily find evidence and organize it into a coherent argument. You are ready to debate. You have not only your speech, but notes and evidence to support your argument against any rebuttals. You have a closing statement prepared and will immediately take the stage prepared.
Judge
At this point you know the facts so well that you get to decide who makes the best arguments. You are in charge of the actual debate because you have argued so many cases that you have become an expert in the field. You have completed your debate and achieved a respectable score. You can now sit back and judge others.
Report abuse