Branches Book

BRANCHES

with them. They did not return to school until the planned time for wearing the armbands ended. The Tinker family took the district to court, under the accusation that the students involved in the protest were being denied their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and speech. While technically a form of expression, the armbands were treated in the same way as speech because wearing an armband is not considered a behavior. The District Court decided in the favor of the school district, however the Supreme Court reversed this decision. Justice Fortas explains in his delivery of the opinion of the court, “The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.” While it is a risk to protect a minority opinion, the freedom to express these views are the basis of our country’s strength. Tinker ensured the political free speech and expression rights of students, and became a precedent for later cases. Students, as learners, are subject to the opinions of their teachers and schools. When a student disagrees with their institution, their ability to openly share their opinions in a respectful way must be protected in the same way it is for any adult in the U.S. Preventing students from expressing themselves may later discourage them from innovation and discussion in government and society, or may even breed resentment and distrust towards authority. The freedom of speech is what has set the United States apart from so many other nations and exists to prevent tyranny of both the majority and the government. However, due to the wide range of conflicts between the diverse collection of opinions that is American society, it often falls to the Supreme Court to decide whether a person’s right to speech has been violated. The Court and the citizens of the United States must recognize that the freedom of speech cannot be an excuse to justify endangerment of another’s well being. Allowing people to purposefully incite violence or cause serious fear and unrest in the people they oppose would be no better than a lack of speech rights entirely. It is true that often, looking back on cases such as Schenck v. United States , the rulings can become more arguable as they reflect the majority biases of the time, but these outdated decisions can be questioned and overruled in the future if necessary. That said, the best way for the freedom of speech to be well balanced is to continue to evaluate each instance on its own. Thus far, most Supreme Court cases involving free speech have either been an entirely unique situation or have expanded upon a Concluding the Limits of Free Speech

154