Question 5 of 15Which statement from the dissenting opinion of Tinker v. Des Moines court decision best supports the reasoning that the conduct of the student protesters was not within the protection of the free speech clause of the First Amendment?A.This case, therefore, wholly without constitutional reasons, in my judgment, subjects all the public schools in the country to the whims and caprices of their loudest-mouthed, but maybe not their brightest, students.B.In Cox v. Louisiana, the Court clearly stated that the rights of free speech and assembly "do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time."C.Even a casual reading of the record shows that this armband did divert students' minds from their regular lessons, and that talk, comments, etc., made John Tinker "self-conscious" in attending school with his armband.D.There is also evidence that a teacher of mathematics had his lesson period practically "wrecked," chiefly by disputes with Mary Beth Tinker, who wore her armband for her "demonstration."SUBMITarrow_backPREVIOUS

The Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court case concerned two students who wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The school district suspended the students, possibly violating their right to free speech.Which best summarizes the dissenting opinion?A.The Des Moines Supreme Court had already ruled in favor of the school to suspend the students.B.There is precedent for schools limiting the rights of students when they anticipate a disruption.C.Because the armbands protested the Vietnam War, the lawsuit was actually a question of Second Amendment rights.D.It was proven that other students were allowed to wear controversial symbols, so their suspension was unconstitutional.SUBMITarrow_backPREVIOUS

Read the following summary of the Supreme Court majority opinion in the Tinker v. Des Moines case:Two students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The school district suspended the students. The Supreme Court determined that wearing the armbands is an expression of free speech, protected by the First Amendment, and it was not disruptive in the school setting. In addition, the school had allowed other students to wear controversial symbols without suspension.If a Supreme Court justice were to disagree with the majority opinion, which issue would be most important in forming the dissent?A.The two students in question were under the age of 18.B.There is precedent for schools limiting student expression.C.The district feared, but could not prove, that the armbands caused disruption.D.None of the other students were bothered by the armbands.SUBMITarrow_backPREVIOUS

Read the following summary of the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines:Two students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The school district suspended the students. Their families sued the school district for violating their right to free speech, but lower courts upheld the school district's right to suspend the students.Which issue is most important in determining constitutionality in this case?A.Whether the district had grounds to fear a disruptionB.Whether other students were bothered by the armbandsC.Whether the students were adults or minorsD.Whether schools have the right to limit freedomsSUBMITarrow_backPREVIOUS

Read this excerpt from the Supreme Court's Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier majority opinion:We hold that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate [educational] concerns.4The reasoning in this opinion is most similar to the reasoning in which other Supreme Court ruling?A.Tinker v. Des MoinesB.Miranda v. ArizonaC.Gideon v. WainwrightD.New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Read this excerpt from the Supreme Court's Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier dissenting opinion:The state educator's undeniable, and undeniably vital, mandate to [teach] moral and political values is not a general warrant to act as "thought police" stifling discussion of all but state-approved topics. . . . Official censorship of student speech on the ground that it addresses "potentially sensitive topics" is . . . impermissible.5A person who agrees with the dissenting opinion in this case would most support which conclusion?A.Students create major social problems by abusing their civil liberties.B.The state should play an expanded role in regulating students' behavior.C.The Court has a duty to protect students' right to free speech.D.The First Amendment applies only to adults, not to schoolchildren.