1

Congress shall make no

law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of

speech or of the press; or the right of the

people peaceably to

assemble, or to petition the government for

redress of grievance.

2

First Principles

The First Amendment applies to all Americans. Our nation affirms the truth of inalienable rights

for all, working for more than 200 years to make the ideals expressed in the First Amendment a

reality in the lives of all Americans. These rights were so important to early citizens and their

leaders, many states refused to ratify the Constitution of the United States without the promise of

amendments that would protect individual rights.

Here are some “First Principles” to help you to interpret these eloquent 45 words and understand

how they influence our daily lives.

1. The First Amendment affirms the freedom of the individual. American government is based upon the concept that all human beings are born with certain rights or

freedoms. The First Amendment guards these rights by prohibiting the government from denying citizens

their rights. The government does not give us our rights. Its role is to guard the rights that we already

have.

We, as individuals, have freedom of conscience. Religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, protects the

beliefs of everyone, not just those of recognized faith communities. We are free to worship —or not to

worship — as we choose. The government may not tell us what church, synagogue, mosque or temple to

attend or whether, where and how we should pray.

As individuals, our ideas and beliefs are our own. We are free to develop and express our thoughts.

Through our free press, we have access to a vast range of information. We may criticize our government

if we see fit to do so. Judgments about ideas are for individuals to make, not for government to decree.

The First Amendment guarantees we may associate with people and join groups of our own choosing. We

may ask or lobby the government to correct certain wrongs or support our beliefs.

2. Free expression is the foundation — the cornerstone — of democracy. The First Amendment is based on the premise that people who can freely share information (especially

about their government) will be informed and able to make sound choices about what leaders to elect,

what forms of government they want, what laws to enact. The freedom to exchange information about the

government enables people to seek alternatives to bad government.

3. The First Amendment tells the government to keep its “hands off” our religion, our

ideas, our ability to express ourselves. “Congress shall make no law …” means that as far as possible the government may not interfere with our

fundamental rights. The government may not pass laws that take away our First Amendment freedoms or

that force us to express ideas — including religious beliefs — that we do not embrace. But the First

Amendment is not absolute.

“No law” does not mean “absolutely no law.” For instance, human sacrifice cannot be permitted in the

name of freedom of conscience. The Supreme Court has affirmed that some limits must be placed on our

freedoms. The government, for example, may regulate the time, place and manner, but not regulate solely

on the basis of the content of our beliefs, ideas, and expressions. We may need to hold a permit before we

march in support of a particular cause, but we should not have to worry about the government telling us

we have no right to believe in that cause or express that idea.

3

4. Other people have rights, too. The First Amendment is based upon the conviction that all human beings have inalienable rights. Our

commitment to rights is inseparably linked to our civic responsibility to guard those rights for all others.

When faced with unpopular views or unrefined speech, members of the public may ask, “Why doesn't the

government do something about that?” The answer? Neither government nor a majority of the public has

the authority to stop an unpopular idea.

Because the First Amendment belongs to everyone — to each individual — it encourages us to respect

the right of others to hold their viewpoints and religious beliefs. The First Amendment protects minority

viewpoints and helps us to understand that limiting the rights of some people may eventually limit the

rights of all.

5. When rights collide, government must balance them. Sometimes the government plays a role in balancing our rights. When two rights collide, tension and

controversy may result. What happens, for example, when a person's right to a fair trial conflicts with our

right to learn if a fair trial is actually taking place through accounts reported in our free press? What

happens when an individual’s right to personal privacy conflicts with the free flow of information? The

government (through the courts) may make decisions that protect both rights to the fullest extent possible.

In addition to knowing where government officials draw the line when regulating expression, it is

important to understand who may and may not control what we say or write or perform.

Public school administrators are government officials and, like city officials, have both power and limits

regarding regulation of expression. Although students do not give up their First Amendment rights when

they come to school, the United States Supreme Court has determined that school officials may restrict

students’ rights if the administrators determine that exercising those rights would interfere with the

school’s mission of educating its students. However, as government officials, they may not control or

censor expression to the degree that a private organization or family might. The First Amendment does

not apply to private school officials.

6. The First Amendment helps us make choices. In the “marketplace of ideas,” we may choose which views to support and which ones to reject. When all

ideas are allowed to flourish, we — as individuals — may decide what ideas and concepts to question,

embrace or reject.

First Amendment advocates say it best: The antidote to distasteful or hateful speech is not censorship, but

more speech.

Key Concepts

a. When people are able to choose freely among many different competing ideas, they make better choices.

b. Exposure to competing ideas provides us with variety, enriching our society. c. Individuals whose strongly held, unpopular opinions are given an outlet may be less apt to resort

to violence than if their ideas are suppressed.

d. Because many decisions in our society are made by the majority, protection of minority rights ensures that the ideas of smaller, less popular groups are not suppressed by the majority. In time,

the majority may come to agree with these minority groups.

e. Citizens' ability to criticize the government helps prevent the government from misusing its power.

4

f. Symbolic speech — actions or objects that represent someone’s thoughts, ideas or words — is a form of expression that is generally protected by the First Amendment in the same fashion as

words that are spoken.

g. Freedom of speech extends to statements with which we may disagree, including those that are hateful, defiant and contemptuous.

h. Speech cannot be prohibited because of undesirable actions that may result from it. i. Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea just because society finds the idea itself

offensive or disagreeable.

j. In general, individuals cannot be punished by the government if the reason for the punishment is the message or idea expressed.

k. Citizens have a right to protest government policy. l. Religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, is an inalienable right. m. It is the duty of the government to guard and respect the individual's freedom of conscience and

belief.

n. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment provides that government will neither advance nor inhibit religious expression.

o. The only reasons for government to impose laws and regulations are secular. p. No one will be coerced by government to support or participate in any religion or in its exercise. q. The precedent for the right to petition for a redress of grievances originated in three English

documents: the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right and the Bill of Rights (Declaration of Rights).

r. Individuals, citizens’ groups and corporations may request remedy or complain to and about their government without fear of punishment.

First Amendment Cases Involving Freedom of Speech & Press for Students

Tinker v. Des Moines, 1968 Facts of the Case:

John Tinker, 15 years old, his sister Mary Beth Tinker, 13 years old, and Christopher Echardt, 16 years

old, decided along with their parents to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to their Des

Moines schools during the Christmas holiday season. Upon learning of their intentions, and fearing that

the armbands would provoke disturbances, the principals of the Des Moines school district resolved

(passed a rule) that all students wearing armbands be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the

Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When

they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.

Question:

Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest,

violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?

Conclusion:

The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment.

School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked justification for

imposing any such limits.The principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially

interfere with appropriate school discipline.

Decision: 7 votes for Tinker, 2 vote(s) against

Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

5

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 1986 Facts of the Case:

On April 26, 1983, 17-year-old Matthew Fraser, a senior at Bethel High School in Bethel, Washington,

spoke to a school assembly to nominate a classmate for vice president of the student government.

Students were required either to attend the assembly or go to study hall. Prior to the assembly, Matthew

consulted three teachers about a short speech he proposed to present. Two of the faculty said outright that

he should not deliver the speech because it was "inappropriate." The text of the speech was filled with

sexual references and innuendoes, although it contained no obscenities or vulgarities. On the day of the

assembly, Fraser delivered the speech with enthusiasm and emphasis, and the "faculty and student body

were stunned." The speech was greeted by his classmates with hoots, cheers, and lewd motions. Kuhlman,

the candidate nominated by Matt Fraser, was elected by a wide margin.

On the day after the speech, Fraser was called to the office and told that he "had violated the school's

disruptive conduct rule which prohibits 'conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the

educational process…including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures.'" At that first hearing

Fraser admitted that he had used sexual innuendoes in his speech.

Fraser was suspended from school for three days, and "removed from the list of students who were

eligible to make graduation remarks…" because school authorities "no longer had confidence in his

judgment…." He ranked second in his graduating class at the time. His parents appealed the school

district's disciplinary action. The Washington Supreme Court upheld Fraser's right to free speech. The

school district then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Questions:

1. Was Fraser within his rights to make the speech?

2. What limits on speech are school districts permitted to make, given their role in the educational and

civic development of students?

Conclusions:

The Court voted 7–2 to uphold the judgment of the school officials. The school's rules and the

disciplinary action against Matthew Fraser were deemed appropriate for a public school, as the speech

was disruptive to and contrary to the school’s educational mission. Fraser's freedom of speech did not

extend to being permitted to make a lewd and suggestive speech in school.

Decision: 7 votes for Bethel, 2 votes against.

Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press

6

Morse v. Frederick, 2006 Facts of the Case:

At a school-supervised event, Joseph Frederick, who was across the street and had called in sick for the

day, held up a banner with the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," a slang reference to marijuana smoking.

Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner and suspended Frederick for ten days. She justified her

actions by citing the school's policy against the display of material that promotes the use of illegal drugs.

Frederick sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the federal civil rights statute, alleging a violation of his First

Amendment right to freedom of speech. The District Court found no constitutional violation and ruled in

favor of Morse. The court held that even if there were a violation, the principal had qualified immunity

from lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The Ninth Circuit cited Tinker v.

Des Moines Independent Community School District, which extended First Amendment protection to

student speech except where the speech would cause a disturbance. Because Frederick was punished for

his message rather than for any disturbance, the Circuit Court ruled, the punishment was unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the principal had no qualified immunity, because any reasonable principal would have

known that Morse's actions were unlawful.

Questions:

1) Does the First Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages

promoting the use of illegal drugs at school-supervised events?

2) Does a school official have qualified immunity from a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 when, in

accordance with school policy, she disciplines a student for displaying a banner with a drug reference at a

school-supervised event?

Conclusion:

Yes and not reached. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit by a 5-4 vote, ruling that school officials can

prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use. Chief Justice John Roberts's

majority opinion held that although students do have some right to political speech even while in school,

this right does not extend to pro-drug messages that may undermine the school's important mission to

discourage drug use. The majority held that Frederick's message, though "cryptic," was reasonably

interpreted as promoting marijuana use - equivalent to "[Take] bong hits" or "bong hits [are a good

thing]." In ruling for Morse, the Court affirmed that the speech rights of public school students are not as

extensive as those adults normally enjoy, and that the highly protective standard set by Tinker would not

always be applied. In concurring opinions, Justice Thomas expressed his view that the right to free speech

does not apply to students and his wish to see Tinker overturned altogether, while Justice Alito stressed

that the decision applied only to pro-drug messages and not to broader political speech. The dissent

conceded that the principal should have had immunity from the lawsuit, but argued that the majority

opinion was "[...] deaf to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high-

school students [...]."

Decision: 5 votes for Morse, 4 vote(s) against

Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

http://www.landmarkcases.org/tinker/background2.html, http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/Curricula/EducationforFreedom/supportpages/L08-CaseSummaryTinker.htm

http://www.phschool.com/atschool/supreme_court_cases/bethel.html

http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/law_library.asp?id=52

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21/http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21/http://www.landmarkcases.org/tinker/background2.htmlhttp://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/Curricula/EducationforFreedom/supportpages/L08-CaseSummaryTinker.htmhttp://www.phschool.com/atschool/supreme_court_cases/bethel.htmlhttp://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/law_library.asp?id=52

7

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1987 (Press) Facts of the Case:

The Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited

by students. In May 1983, Robert E. Reynolds, the school principal, received the pages proofs for the

May 13 issue. Reynolds found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the

pages on which the articles appeared, which also had other, non-questioned articles on them, be removed

from the publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to

court.

Question:

Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment?

Conclusion:

No. In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that the First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively

promote particular types of student speech. The Court held that schools must be able to set high standards

for student speech disseminated under their auspices, and that schools retained the right to refuse to

sponsor speech that was "inconsistent with 'the shared values of a civilized social order.'" Educators did

not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long

as their actions were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." The actions of principal

Reynolds, the Court held, met this test.

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Hazelwood School District, 3 vote(s) against

Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

http://www.landmarkcases.org/hazelwood/background3.html, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-

1989/1987/1987_86_836/

http://www.landmarkcases.org/hazelwood/background3.htmlhttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_836/http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_836/

8

9

Now it’s time for you to put your knowledge to work. On the following pages, there are hypothetical cases that present First Amendment problems. Your job is to choose a

solution and tell my why you chose it. Each case is worth ten (10) points: one (1) for your choice, and nine (9) for the essay.

1. Check the decision you agree with. 2. Write a defense of your choice on the back of each case. The defense must be in

paragraph format, citing the First Principle, Key Concepts, and/or landmark court case to support your argument.

Case #1

Rumors are circulating that a high school football player has been charged with assault. The

sports editor of the student newspaper verifies which player has been accused and checks the

district’s eligibility policy. The player participated in five games, after being charged with

assault. This is against district policy. The sports editor is ready to write the article for the next

issue of the student newspaper.

It’s decision time. With whom do you agree?

You know the

Supreme Court cases

involving student

rights. Which apply

in this situation?

What would you do?

Do you publish? Do

you remove the

athlete’s name from

the article.?

1.____ The adviser to the newspaper who supports publication of an

article that focuses on the district policy. He reminds editors

that most professional journalists do not publish the names of

minors who are accused of wrongdoing.

2.____ The principal who does not want the sports editor to write an

article. He believes this story could hurt student athletes from

the school who are hoping for athletic scholarships to college.

If an article is written, the student’s name should not be used,

he says. The newspaper should write more stories about

positive school activities and fewer hard-hitting stories.

3.____

The sports editor who wants to include the assault charges and

the district’s policy in the student newspaper. He wants to

interview the football coach and use the student’s name.

Publication will stop the gossip and rumors, and all students

will be given the same information about the incident.

10

Case #2

Students who publish a personal online newspaper have written articles that have expressed

opposition to a Catholic priest’s praying at a public school assembly. The student journalists

have also written opinion pieces urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to force their

school to clean up a waste dump site. Administrators and students at the school know of the Web

site, which is not sponsored by the school. The principal has told student editors that he does not

consider their coverage fair or balanced.

The same student Web journalists report on their Web site that during an advanced English class,

the teacher said her lesson was “watered down so the students could handle the material.”

Students begin talking about the teacher’s comments after the comments are reported on the

personal Web site. The editor of the online site, who is a student in the teacher’s class, exchanges

verbal comments with the teacher after the teacher tells the student that her comments were taken

out of context. The student is suspended for three days.

The teacher was, reportedly, disturbed when she saw coverage of the conflict in the local media.

This is not the first time the Web newspaper has criticized the school and its teachers. The

principal responds by blocking school computers from accessing the students’ Web publication.

It’s decision time. With whom do you agree?

You know the

Supreme Court

cases involving

student rights.

Which apply in

this situation?

Would you

block access to

the Web site?

Do you think

the student Web

journalists have

been

irresponsible?

1.____ The principal who says that any good reporting done by the

personal Web newspaper staff is lost in the cynical attitude of the

editors. This online publication uses occasional profanity. He says

that a publication that attempts to find the worst about its

community cannot be fair, balanced or accurate. The students may

have the right to publish a Web newspaper, but the school does not

have to provide access to it.

2.____ The Director of Guidance who says legal action should be taken

against the students. She says the comments have been defamatory.

The comments are destroying teachers’ reputations and making it

difficult for them to relate to their current students, she says.

3.____

The student editor who says that everything the online newspaper

staff has reported can be documented. He has tape recordings or

written interviews which include comments that three or more

students have made about teachers.

11

Case #3

A high school junior creates a Web site on his home computer, on his own time. Using vulgar

language, he is very critical of the administration, the teachers and the approved Web site at his

school. Although his site is not intended to be accessed at school, a classmate learns about the

site and shows it to the computer teacher. School administrators suspend the student for 10 days.

He already has eight unexcused absence days and the district’s absenteeism policy (that drop

students’ grades in each class by one letter grade for each unexcused absence in excess of 10

days) means that he fails all his classes that semester.

The student files a lawsuit challenging the suspension as violating his First Amendment rights,

claiming that the 10-day suspension and failing grades are unfair penalties, especially since he

did not intend for students to view the site at school.

It’s decision time. With whom do you agree?

Hines, J. Education for Freedom. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from Education for Freedom- Lesson Plans for

Teaching the First Amendment Web site:

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/index.htm

1.____ The principal, who believes that the faculty and the school have

been damaged by the vulgar references to them on the Web site.

2.____ The student, who is concerned not only about his First Amendment

rights, but about how his failing grades will affect his admission

into a college of his choice.

3.____

A student at the school who considers the junior a troublemaker:

“Too bad if the suspension drops his grades and makes him fail. He

knew the school policy. He wouldn’t have eight unexcused

absences if he really cared about school and college. He could have

written for the school Web site, but he wants to be a rebel. He

deserves the punishment.” You know the Supreme Court cases

involving student rights. Which apply in this situation? What would

you do? Would you remove your Web site from the Internet? What

would you do about your unexcused absences?

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/index.htm

12

Okay – how well do you understand your rights?

20 Pts. (one point each)

1. TRUE FALSE In times of concern about national security, rights and freedoms under the First Amendment have been abridged by government officials.

2. TRUE FALSE Student-led religious clubs in public schools may meet before or after school using school facilities.

3. TRUE FALSE A student in a public school may wear a large cross necklace and a t-shirt that states “I love Jesus.”

4. TRUE FALSE Truth is a defense for libel.

5. TRUE FALSE Web page publishers do not need to operate under press laws.

6. TRUE FALSE Student journalists can publish a photo from any web page.

7. In fulfillment of an assignment to write a book report on any book, a student chooses to present a book report on the Holy Bible before her classmates. The student’s action is:

Constitutional Unconstitutional 8. The football coach leads his team in prayer before the big game. The coach’s action is: Constitutional Unconstitutional

9. A student wears a button in class that says, “Legalize Marijuana.” The student’s action is:

Constitutional Unconstitutional 10. A student wears a button in class that says, “Smoke Marijuana.” The student’s action is: Constitutional Unconstitutional 11. A student wears a shirt in class showing a marijuana leaf and the words, “Tastes Good!”

The student’s action is: Constitutional Unconstitutional 12. The official student newspaper is censored simply because of the position taken in an

editorial. This action is: Constitutional Unconstitutional 13. The editor of the student newspaper writes a column in which he calls the principal a

“jerk” for demanding the newspaper be submitted for the principal’s prior review before publication. The editor’s action is:

Constitutional Unconstitutional

13

Multiple Choice Match the scenario to the correct category of unprotected speech.

A Obscenity B Defamation C Expression intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action D Fighting words / hate speech E Unwarranted invasion of privacy F Deceptive or misleading advertisements or those for illegal products or services G Clear and immediate threats to national security H Copyright violations I Expression on school grounds that causes a material and substantial disruption of school activities

1. A protester gives a speech that reveals troop movements in Iraq. __________ 2. A radio station advertises a radar detector that has been declared illegal in states reached by its airwaves. __________ 3. A student throws rocks at the fans of a rival soccer team and incites other students to join in the brawl. __________ 4. A disgruntled parent stands up at a parent-teacher meeting and says that a popular teacher “must be constantly drunk” because students can’t figure out his grading system. __________ 5. A local coffee shop uses an official likeness of the Simpsons on its signs without obtaining permission from Matt Groening or Fox TV. __________

The last page is just for your amusement

14

Fake Bomb Defendant Cites 1st Amendment

By DENISE LAVOIE

BOSTON (AP) — A computer science student who unwittingly created an airport bomb scare by

wearing a blinking circuit board attached to her shirt had a First Amendment right to express

herself in that manner, her lawyer argued Friday.

Attorney Thomas Dwyer Jr. asked a judge to throw out the charge against Star Simpson, 19, who is

accused of possessing a hoax device.

Assistant District Attorney Stephen Kerr said a jury should decide whether Simpson intended to cause

fear by wearing a blinking device to an airport amid heightened post-9/11 security.

East Boston District Court Judge Paul Mahoney took the motion to dismiss under advisement and said he

would issue a ruling March 21.

Simpson, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology student from Lahaina, Hawaii, had gone to Logan

International Airport last September to pick up her boyfriend.

She was held at gunpoint and arrested by state troopers after an alarm was raised over the battery-

powered device on her shirt, which had flashing lights and the words "Socket to me" and "Course VI" (a

major at MIT) written on the back.

Dwyer said his client, who is studying electrical engineering and computer science, didn't think her shirt

would scare anyone. He said she had worn it on campus without alarming anyone.

"People make these objects part of their identity. It's a part of their personal expression," he said. "They

are legitimate forms of First Amendment expression."

Dwyer also argued that state law does not clearly define what a hoax device is. The charge carries a

penalty of up to 2 1/2 years and a $5,000 fine.

Kerr said that police officers who arrested Simpson determined that a reasonable person would think

Simpson was wearing an infernal device, which includes bombs and other explosives.

The terminal was not evacuated and flights were not affected. But authorities expressed amazement that

someone would wear the device to the airport where two of the jets hijacked in the Sept. 11 attacks took

off.

Her lawyer said she disconnected the battery to the flashing lights after somebody at the airport told her

she shouldn't be wearing something like that.

Simpson did not say anything during the court hearing.

Boston had been the focus of another bizarre security scare earlier last year when dozens of battery-

powered devices were discovered around the city. They turned out to be a promotion for the Cartoon

Network. Prosecutors dropped charges against two men after they apologized and performed community

service. Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.