Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
04.03 The Decision
Transcript of 04.03 The Decision
I chose to support the majority opinion in this case because of the fact that it was a school sponsored newspaper. I think this gives the school the right to take out those pages and also because of the nature of the articles. These articles would have assuredly been a inconvenience and distraction for the students of the school. Because these articles violated the rights of several others, it was on everyone’s best interest that they were removed.
I favored a loose interpretation in this case. For although students have rights, there is a need for certain rights be be restricted to avoid disruptions and chaos within the student body. This is one case where I believe the school was using these restrictions properly to protect the rights of others and the best interest of the majority. And although the school newspaper is a form of public expression the newspaper was school sponsored therefore the school had every right to alter the paper.
The factors that most influenced my decision were the irresponsibility with concealing the identities of the interviewees in the school article and also the criticism of a students parents. The people in the interviews were supposed to have their identities concealed and were under that impression when conducting the interview, the principle were protecting these people when he realized the identities were poorly hidden and he pulled the article. When the article about divorce was said to have targeted a students parents with criticism, it was absolutely the responsibility of the principle for to pull this article.
T.M. v. State of Florida
My opinion on this case is that the curfew that this town had set was extremely overbearing of the local government. There are too many situations I can think of that could require a person below the age of 18 to go out past 11 to do something, and beyond that it’s just ridiculous to say they don’t have the right to. In the end this ends up costing both the minor and their guardians. I think the majority opinion was a good decision but possibly for a more of a principality than a situational thing.
I went with a more strict interpretation of the laws in this case because I think freedom of assembly is an important right. I also think that all Americans should have equal rights but that parents should have jurisdiction over their child and whomever those parents choose to allow should also have jurisdiction over that child, like a sibling or teacher. I don’t believe this ordinance serves a real public interest not just because of the fact that the statistics cant prove it but it’s a ridiculous violation of rights.
04.03 The Decision
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
By: Kelsey Berg
The factor in this case that had the greatest influenced my decision was the first amendment. I believe everyone should have the right to travel without being encroached upon without a reasonable cause. Not only that but many parents rely on their teenage children for many things these days and if there were a late night situation wherein a teenager was obstructed from being somewhere they needed to be it could be detrimental to the person. Essentially the police are punishing regular citizens for the actions of criminals, and I believe that to be unconstitutional.