Social Media, Free Speech and the Judicial Legacy of the Tinker Case

Introduction: Social media is revolutionizing the way we interact and exchange with each other. No matter how good or bad, we are all connected in a way that did not exist ten years ago, and these connections are bringing more and more challenges to the school. With the advent of social media, the school district became the center of the legal problems concerning student freedom of speech, and the school became responsible for providing an appropriate learning environment.

Fraser is the first student's freedom of speech determined by the court after Tinker and in particular did not apply Tinker analysis 166 School of instituting the basic social value of the child as a reason for regulating the pupils' speech Focused on responsibility - In the case of Ephesus Reze, there are vulgar remarks. Like the court said: public school education is a very appropriate function to prohibit the use of vulgar and unpleasant words in public discourse. In fact, "the basic value necessary to maintain a democratic political regime" does not contribute to the use of extremely offensive or very threatening discussion clauses. . . . Penetrating these values ​​is certainly "school work". Judgment of the appropriateness of speech in classrooms and meetings will vary depending on the Board of Education.

In Part 3 we will analyze Tinker and the Supreme Court students' freedom of speech. Understanding how the court is using the Tinker standard in subsequent decisions - and not using it - are important guidelines of the court 's view on bullying control in the context of student speech rights I will provide a.

Freedom of speech in the classroom to protect teachers should be broadly interpreted by the right of First Amendment proposed by Tinker and Sweezy. Tinker's extensive protection against the freedom of speech of students also applies to any speech act that does not seriously compromise the classroom. Freedom of speech is one step further than the classroom theme set by state. In addition, this restriction on freedom of expression is an insult to this principle. According to our Constitution, Freedom of Speech is not a right, it is restricted to the principle, not a fact. If you can only exercise your rights with a merciful government that provides a safe haven to organized crime groups, freedom of speech will not actually exist. The Constitution provides that parliament (and state) can not weaken the rights of freedom of expression. This provision means what it says