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
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Tinker VS De Moines
Transcript of Tinker VS De Moines
By: Patrick Gawienczuk and Tatiana Maher
Two children (John and Mary Tinker) wore armbands protesting the Vietnam War but they were suspended because the principal prohibited the armbands. This made the parents angry and they went to court. So the question is, does banning symbolic armband wearing in public schools violate freedom of speech rights from the 1st Amendment?
It dealt with the 1st amendment freedom of speech which is one of the main things the US is based on.
It also dealt with the 14th amendment because the school was trying to usurp the supremacy clause by making a rule that possibly does not follow the first amendment.
It could also set a precedent for the future on how disagreements involving freedom of speech in school get handled.
After appealing the case multiple times, (every appeal requested by the Tinkers) the case ended up in the U.S Supreme Court where the verdict was that the Tinkers won - 7-2.
The two Tinker children with the armbands pictured to the right.
Case started: 1965
Case resolved: 1968
The outcome, why?
When the case was closed the Supreme Court Justices reasoned that neither “students (n)or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” This means that because student expression is protected by the First Amendment even while in school, school officials must provide constitutionally valid reasons for limiting student expression.