In contrast, the Constitution treats homes as special sanctuaries for privacy. The undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society's countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. The majority erred in failing to address them. The speech was reviewed by 3 teachers who discouraged the speech, but did not say that it was in violation of the student handbook. I dissent from the Court's decision, however, because in my view the School District failed to demonstrate that respondent's remarks were indeed disruptive. It might even be said.
Thus, we are asked by the District to expand the doctrine of Pacifica beyond the context of broadcasting to the high school environment. See Senate Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases from 1793 to 1972, S. Some of the students at the assembly hooted and yelled during the speech, some mimicked the sexual activities alluded to in the speech, and others appeared to be bewildered and embarrassed. United States, , 1919 ; Pacifica, supra, at -745. I A On April 26, 1983, respondent Matthew N. County of San Diego, 791 F. Justice Stevens also thought that Fraser's punishment was unfair because neither the student handbook nor the three teachers had warned Fraser that he could be suspended for giving his speech.
That question, however, was discussed by Judge Newman in his separate concurring opinion. Public Service Comm'n of N. Respondent's speech may well have been protected had he given it in school but under different circumstances, where the school's legitimate interests in teaching and maintaining civil public discourse were less weighty. The District argues that we should adopt the view expressed by Judge Newman that the doctrine of Pacifica should be extended to the high school context. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The First Amendment does not prevent the school officials from determining that to permit a vulgar and lewd speech such as respondent's would undermine the school's basic educational mission. Hence, the district court's ruling in Fraser's favor on his due process claim was never reviewed, let alone reversed, by any appellate court. Today Clark Gable's four-letter expletive is less offensive than it was then. The inculcation of these values is truly the work of the school, and the determination of what manner of speech is inappropriate properly rests with the school board. In my opinion, therefore, the most difficult question is whether the speech was so obviously offensive that an intelligent high school student must be presumed to have realized that he would be punished for giving it. This fact is relevant for two reasons. Second, it is constitutionally significant that Fraser's speech was made by a minor to other minors.
The authority school officials have to regulate such speech by high school students is not limitless. The District's reliance on Trachtman v. And in addressing the question whether the First Amendment places any limit on the authority of public schools to remove books from a public school library, all Members of the Court, otherwise sharply divided, acknowledged that the school board has the authority to remove books that are vulgar. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. During the entire speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in terms of an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor. The court also said that the Bethel School District could not prevent Fraser from being the graduation speaker. The First Amendment guarantees wide freedom in matters of adult public discourse.
Respondent served two days' suspension and had his name removed from the list of candidates for graduation speaker at the school's commencement exercises, although he was eventually permitted to speak at the graduation. So vote for Jeff for A. That court appears to have proceeded on the theory that the use of lewd and obscene speech in order to make what the speaker considered to be a point in a nominating speech for a fellow student was essentially the same as the wearing of an armband in Tinker as a form of protest or the expression of a political position. Under our Constitution, it is the role of the judicial branch of government to resolve First Amendment controversies between students and public school officials such as the one between Matthew Fraser and the Bethel School District. Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures. The Court extended this rationale in F. Freedom to be different in our individual manner of expression is a core constitutional value; the First Amendment reflects the considered judgment of our Founding Fathers that government officials, including public school administrators and, for that matter, judges, should not be permitted to use their power to control individual self-expression.
Nor do I see why a university should have to establish a 'compelling state interest' to defend its decision to permit one group to use the facility and not the other. The District Court and Court of Appeals conscientiously applied Tinker v. We granted certiorari to decide whether the First Amendment prevents a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a school assembly. In conclusion, we hold that the District violated Fraser's First Amendment rights when it disciplined him for the language and verbal imagery he used in nominating his candidate for office. Because we decide the case on First Amendment grounds, we need not review Judge Tanner's ruling that the District's action in removing Fraser's name as a graduation speaker violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law.
Lopez, , 574-575, 95 S. During Fraser's delivery of the speech, a school counselor observed the reaction of students to the speech. Respondent served two days' suspension and had his name removed from the list of candidates for graduation speaker at the school's commencement exercises, although he was eventually permitted to speak at the graduation. No part of the damages award was based upon the removal of Fraser's name from the list, since damages were based upon the loss of two days' schooling. Board of Education, 607 F. Teachers noted that some students were shocked and embarrassed.
The assembly was in the best sense a student activity; the candidates and their nominators were on their own, free to exercise their individual judgments about the content of their speeches. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He also suggested that if a school was going to enforce policies cracking down on free speech, then the school must be specific about what is and is not allowable. There is no merit to respondent's contention that the circumstances of his suspension violated due process because he had no way of knowing that the delivery of the speech would subject him to disciplinary sanctions. At best, the rule is sufficiently ambiguous that without a further explanation or construction it could not advise the reader of the student handbook that the speech would be forbidden. Des Moines upheld forms of student expression that many parents and school authorities considered inappropriate. New York, , 88 S.