Dame Apple Dumplin>KingsValley on Nostr: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) The ...
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
The majority asserted that the First Amendment protected the speech and expressive conduct of children in public schools, which meant that any policy restricting speech would need to be justified on constitutional grounds. While a school board will receive some deference from courts, it must be able to cite something more than discomfort, awkwardness, or inconvenience as a basis for restricting speech
Published at
2023-08-30 12:56:39Event JSON
{
"id": "15e8bb80531650e196fb3faf5a3f46f48ac1a0bdb067cc393680ffe8f71971f2",
"pubkey": "4146a07d3ecc3b8469d8d553a666b27a94aa7e628a1296034f3e6934648ca957",
"created_at": 1693400199,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"proxy",
"https://noagendasocial.com/users/apple_dumplin/statuses/110978675451599074",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)\n\nThe majority asserted that the First Amendment protected the speech and expressive conduct of children in public schools, which meant that any policy restricting speech would need to be justified on constitutional grounds. While a school board will receive some deference from courts, it must be able to cite something more than discomfort, awkwardness, or inconvenience as a basis for restricting speech\n\nhttps://static.noagendasocial.com/media_attachments/files/110/978/662/975/767/135/original/ddaf0d9998cf39d2.jpeg\n\nhttps://static.noagendasocial.com/media_attachments/files/110/978/662/985/387/805/original/0859553ebd432b11.jpeg",
"sig": "7b0ec5612dfbfaf659a23070a3078b8ae1e421fa50a5bf49f2befb1e35f70523ea598072a1c10ff55165e34817fd85e19e9a36e1782e9b885d1cc43c7fe0124e"
}
