Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start 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

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Fowler v BOE Prezi

No description
by

Erika Capogna

on 7 May 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Fowler v BOE Prezi

Fowler vs BOE Erika Capogna -Kentucky, 1987
-Plaintiff : Jacqueline Fowler
-Defendant: School Board
-Amendments involved: 1st Background Information Fowler v. The Board of Education
of Lincoln County - Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky school system A closer look.. - The day prior to showing the film Fowler rents the R-rated movie herself - Fowler received her termination notice on
June 19, 1984 Verdict - board viewed the movie once in its entirety and once as it had been edited in the classroom before making their decision Reasoning - Milburns decision was based on the fact that :
a) Fowler did not possess "[a]n intent to convey a particularized message" to her students because she was not familiar with the content of the film before showing it
b) there was "little likelihood that the message would be understood by those viewing it" due to the use of rich metaphors and imagery. ? Questions ? 1. Which amendment was mentioned in this case?
(a) Fourth
(b) First
(c) Tenth
(d) Fifth Continued.. - taught for 14 years - May 31, 1984; non instructional last day used by teachers - Group of students requested that the movie, "Pink Floyd- The Wall" was shown - Fowler was prompted by Charles Bailey, age 15, who had viewed the film on prior occasions - Bailey indicated that there was "one bad place" in it but that the movie was generally appropriate - Students in Fowler's classes were in 9th, 10th and 11th grade and between the ages of 14 and 17 - Discharged in July of 1984 - Fowler agrees to show the film - The clerk who rented the tape mentioned to Fowler there was some nudity and warned that she might wish to edit that section out - Without viewing the movie herself Fowler has the movie shown and instructs Charles Bailey to edit out any parts unsuitable for viewing in class - That same afternoon Principal Jack Portwood asked Fowler to give him the video tape - After viewing of the movie by the superintendent and members of the Board of Education, proceedings were instituted to terminate
Fowler's contract - July 10, 1984 plaintiff testified that:
a) she had never seen the movie before having it shown to her students
b) she was posting grades on report cards and left the room several times while the movie was being shown
c) she believed the film had significant value - Believes the film portrayed the dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems - However, she did not at any time discuss the
movie with her students because she stated she
simply did not have enough time. - voted unanimously to terminate plaintiff's employment for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher - Fowler then initiated her action in the district court alleging that her 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech was violated - The district court agreed with Fowler, and concluded that her conduct was protected by the First Amendment - The school board was not ready to give up, they made an appeal to the Supreme Court - On appeal Judge Milburn stated that the mere showing of the film could not be considered “speech" - If Fowler would have made an attempt to explain the message of the film to her class, and why she believed it was important, the film would be protected under the 1st Amendment - The Supreme Court decided to vacate the judgment of the lower district court and dismissed Fowler’s cause of action - Although not illegal, she introduced a controversial movie into a classroom of adolescents without preview or discussion - Her behavior demonstrated a blatant lack of judgment - The movie uses sexual innuendo, sexually explicit material, some profanity, violence, and vulgar images,
to tell the story of the film. 2. Fowler previewed the film prior to showing it. (True/False) 5. Did the case close completely after trial at
the district court? (True/ False) 3. Which film was Fowler on trial for showing to her students?
(a) American Pop
(b) Pink Floyd- Live at Pompeii
(c) Yellow Submarine
(d) Pink Floyd- The Wall 4. Was Fowler aware that there was at least one inappropriate scene in the movie? 1. Yes 2. No
Full transcript