Tinker vs. Des Moines.

One quiet day in the 1960s 3 Des Moines students were wrongly punish for protesting the Vietnam War by eroding black arm bands to school. The school officials believed that the armbands would cause a huge intervention and be a very big distraction to the student body. The students were past suspended. The students first amendment right had been violated. This right gives us the immunity of expression, to sum it all up, as long as others are non in danger. The staff was quick to punish these students, who were only exercising their rights.I believe that the students that were involved in this aspect did not deserve to be punished because in wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not interfere with the rights of others. Therefore, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech clause of the starting line Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Also, First Amendment rights are open to teachers and s tudents, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. (http//caselaw. p. findlaw. com/scripts/getcase. pl? royal lawcourt=us&vol=393&invol=503) Also, I believe that they did not deserve to be punished because under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is disposed only to be so dependant that it populates in principle only when not in reality. Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a eleemosynary government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots The Constitution says that sex act (or anyone else, for that matter) may not deprive anyone the right to free speech.You see, the thing is we right read it to permit reasonable regulation of speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances. But we do not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet. Lastly, I believe that students were wrongly treated because The constitutionality of the school authorities action was on the kingdom that it was reasonable in order to prevent disturbance of school discipline. (258 F. Supp. 971 1966).The court referred to but declined to follow the Fifth Circuits holding in a identical case that, the wearing of symbols like the armbands cannot be prohibited unless it materially and comfortably interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school. (Burnside v. Byars, 1966). In conclusion, The Students in this case were wrongly punished due to the fact that their first amendment right protected their freedom of expression. The pupils should not have been suspended just because of their difference in political views, and their courage to express them.