DON'T TINKER WITH THE 1st AMENDMENT: Tinker et al. v. Des Moines

This Armband Wearing was just that. It was a symbolic act rather than speech. It did not substantually disrupt the school and so could not be prohibited.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Tinker et al. v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District et al No. 21
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
393 U.S. 503
Argued November 12, 1968
Decided February 24, 1969

Syllabus
Petitioners, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam. They sought nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation that the respondents had promulgated banning the wearing of armbands. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board's power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court. Held:

1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506.

2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507.

3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514.

MR. JUSTICE FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner John F. Tinker, 15 years old, and petitioner Christopher Eckhardt, 16 years old, attended high schools in Des Moines, Iowa. Petitioner Mary Beth Tinker, John's sister, was a 13-year-old student in junior high school.

In December 1965, a group of adults and students in Des Moines held a meeting at the Eckhardt home. The group determined to publicize their objections to the hostilities in Vietnam and their support for a truce by wearing black armbands during the holiday season and by fasting on December 16 and New Year's Eve. Petitioners and their parents had previously engaged in similar activities, and they decided to participate in the program.

The principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the plan to wear armbands. On December 14, 1965, they met and adopted a policy that any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it, and if he refused he would be suspended until he returned without the armband. Petitioners were aware of the regulation that the school authorities adopted.

On December 16, Mary Beth and Christopher wore black armbands to their schools. John Tinker wore his armband the next day. They were all sent home and suspended from school until they would come back without their armbands. They did not return to school until after the planned period for wearing armbands had expired--that is, until after New Year's Day.

This complaint was filed in the United States District Court by petitioners, through their fathers, under § 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code. It prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent school officials and the respondent members of the board of directors of the school district from disciplining the petitioners, and it sought nominal damages. After an evidentiary hearing the District Court dismissed the complaint. It upheld [505] the constitutionality of the school authorities' action on the ground that it was reasonable in order to prevent disturbance of school discipline. 258 F.Supp. 971 (1966). The court referred to but expressly declined to follow the Fifth Circuit's holding in a similar case that the wearing of symbols like the armbands cannot be prohibited unless it "materially and substantially interfere[s] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744, 749 (1966). [note 1]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
We express no opinion as to the form of relief which should be granted, this being a matter for the lower courts to determine. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

________________________________________________________________________________

Senator Stabenow's Conflict of Interest

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., in an interview last week with radio host and former CNN "Crossfire" co-host Bill Press, said: "I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves."

When Press asked if he could depend on the senator to push for hearings on the issue, Stabenow said she had already discussed the matter with fellow senators "and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep."

There is also an obvious conflict of interest: Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, is co-founder of the liberal TalkUSA radio network and served as executive vice president of the Air America network — now bankrupt because so few Americans were interested in listening to it. Of course, Sabenow is highly unlikely to ever recuse herself with this conflict of interest.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said,"the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."

Sen. John Kerry, said "the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there, and I also think the equal-time doctrine ought to come back."

Rep. Anna Eshoo, (D-CA), of the House telecommunications subcommittee, is also promising to work on bringing back a version of the Fairness Doctrine.

Senate Version of Broadcaster Freedom Act

Introduced: January 05, 2009
Status: Introduced
Next step: Voted on by Senate
Latest action: Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 12.
Sponsor: Sen. Jim DeMint [R, SC]
A BILL
To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009’.
SEC. 2. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE PROHIBITED.
Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:
‘SEC. 303A. LIMITATION ON GENERAL POWERS: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.
‘Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or any other Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe rules, regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, or other requirements, the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).’.
Calendar No. 12

This is the second time this bill has been introduced. It was introduced in 2008.

“A basic principle of our democracy is a press that is free of government influence or control. It is shameful that some now believe the federal government should dictate to Texans what they can say and when on the airwaves,” U.S. Sen. Cornyn said. “If reinstated, the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ would be a direct assault on one of this nation’s most cherished freedoms. This important legislation will ensure that all ideas can be expressed openly and freely on our nation’s airwaves.”

Democrat leaders in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate have expressed support for reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was repealed some 20 years ago. This was an obsolete federal regulation that, until its repeal in 1987, required broadcasters to air all sides of controversial issues, regardless of listener choice, or risk the loss of their broadcast license.


This Senate version is meant to prevent another bout of McCarthyism, which is the era this law came from. If the Democratic Party prevents its passage, I hope they live to see the day that they suffer under it.Feel free to check out former 1968 Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson begins with a great speech from 1968. The video ends with a short discussion of Barack Obama's attempt to limit the Freedoms of the Press.

It is a the Fairness Doctrine, Ezra Benson to Barack Obama