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

4.03 The Decision

No description
by

Kaela Marie Strelec

on 26 February 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of 4.03 The Decision

4.03 The Decision
T.M.
v
State of Florida
I, Kaela Strelec, write the following opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of T.M. v State of Florida.
I favor strict interpretation. The man was caught with drugs in his home and car. He should be accountable for it even if he was pulling into his house. He as caring drugs in his car. I certainly don't want him on the road while he is doing all that.
The factors that influenced my decision include that the man had drugs in his car and could have potentially been selling the drugs out of his home. All of those things are not legal. The case has not come to a conclusion on what they are going to do. In my opinion, the man should be accountable for what he was doing illegally. I chose my decision because it is illegal and is not something that should be out on the streets.
Hazelwood
v.
Kuhlmeier
I, Kaela Strelec, write the following opinion to dissent with the majority opinion of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.
I would favor in a lose, although it all depends on the situation. Students should start having their own opinions on topics and also be able to express their emotions and feelings at a young age. They will be expressing more of their opinions further on it life so why not start it now. They need to learn new things that are going on and be able to back up their opinion and statement. As it says in the case, "exercising control over student speech in school-sponsored activities." Strict interpretations are good in situations such as inappropriate words or harsh opinions. Along with letting the students grow up is a part of it all.
My opinion reflects the majority on this opinion because I would drop the case completely. The man should have some help and they never finalized the case. You would want them to just come up with their outcome and to not just let the case go blank. They are not sure with their decision, so you would hope for the best.
I support the dissent with the majority opinion because students should have the right to their own expressions. No matter what age, they should have the right to freedom of speech. The principal should not censor the articles. Unless it violate or improper words. Such as it says in the case. "So long as their actions are reasonably related." The students should be able to express the feeling and opinions on things that are going on around them. The are asked their opinion in the first place so why censor the answer that you wanted.
The factors that influenced my decision include that I am a student myself. I go through my own opinions during school which has been a problem. We are not listened to as much as we should because we are students. That is mostly because of our age and how young we are. I think that adults have less respect for kids sometimes and kids would just like to be heard. Students should have their own opinions and start new. In the case, it states that the principal reads the students articles before he publishes them and as he does that, he censors someone of what they have written. Our expressions were asked, so what is the point in asking us if what we write is going to be censored. "The majority of the justices held that the principal was entitled to censor the articles."
Full transcript