Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


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.


4.03 The Decision

No description

Madison Gordon

on 28 February 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of 4.03 The Decision

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
T.M. v. State of Florida
4.03 The Decision
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

I tended to favor a loose interpretation for this case. Although students have the right to express their opinions, it is necessary for restrictions in order to avoid mayhem within the student body. I believe the school was properly protecting its students' rights and representing the interest of the majority. Yes, newspapers are a form of public expressions but it is a school environment and the faculty has every right to alter the paper as needed.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

The factors that most influenced my decision and interpretation were the fact that the identities of the interviewees were not anonymous and the amount of negative feedback from students and parents. The people being interviewed had been under the impression that their identities would be concealed when they were going through the process. The principle had protected these people when it came to his mind that the identities were hidden poorly so he pulled the article out. Unfortunately the article about divorce was said to target student's parents and the principle had failed to do anything about it.
T.M. v. State of Florida

I am in favor of the minority opinion considering that it is more of a situational aspect compared to the majority which would reflect as a principality aspect. The curfew set for this town is too extreme. There are many understandable reasons as to why a minor would be out past 11 p.m. such as a friends/family birthday dinner, work, studying or even extracurricular activities. Many guardians allow their child under the age of 18 to be out past that time. I believe curfews should be set by the guardian of a child and not by the law.

T.M. v. State of Florida
In this case I leaned towards a strict interpretation of the laws because I believe that freedom of assembly is an important right. As said before, every American should have equal rights but the person in charge, like the guardian of a minor, should be the one to restrict these rights.

T.M. v. State of Florida
The factor in this case that most influenced my decision and interpretation was simply the first amendment. I think that everyone should have the right to do what they please at whatever time they want without being questioned for no reason. Many adults rely on teenage children for many things nowadays and if there happened to be a late night situation where the teenager was not allowed to go somewhere, then it could possibly be harmful to the person who sent him/her to do so.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Considering that this case was a school sponsored newspaper, I chose to support the majority opinion. I believe the school has the right to get rid of those pages since the articles were most definitely going to be a distraction to the students that attend the school. Also, the articles violated several people so it is better that they are removed.
-"Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Podcast." USCOURTSGOV RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.
-"First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case." First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
-"T.M., a Juvenile, Petitioner, v. STATE." Findlaw. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.

Full transcript