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

Bethel School District vs. FraserThis case involved a public high teach student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during inculcate as a bring out of a rail-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the schools " turbulent-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane vocabulary or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual implication in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.     Frasers fat her brought transaction against the school board in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. He alleged the suspension and punishment were a violation of his sons send-off Amendment right to freedom of speech. The father sought injunctive and monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. of 1983. The district court awarded the student $278 in damages, $12,750 in litigation be and attorneys fees, and ordered the school district not to prevent the student from speaking at the commencement ceremonies.The school district appealed the decision, arguing that the speech had a disruptive effect 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 court.The district court lay out the disru ptive-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 advert such removal as a likely sanction. The court made the case that nothing in the Constitution forbids the states from insisting that certain forms of expression be unfitting and subject to sanctions. (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969) The court affirmed that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse 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.