they were uncomfortable with such a controversial topic
Apex I wish to avoid controversy
The Tinker, or Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, was a Supreme Court decision. Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion.
By citing a similar case, West Virginia v. Barnette, in which the Court decided that students are not required to salute the flag
Fortas defend the majority opinion that free speech in school is constitutionally protected by saying that such an expression isn't disruptive to ...
a wish to avoid controversy. -apex
In the majority opinion, Fortas suggests that the actions of the school authorities were primarily due to their fear of potential disruption caused by the students' protests. He argues that their decisions were not based on a legitimate interpretation of the First Amendment or a personal dislike for the students, but rather an overreaction to the possibility of unrest and disorder in the school environment. This fear led the authorities to suppress the students' rights to free expression.
That the United States is the kind of society in which disagreement is a strength
That the United States is the kind of society in which disagreement is a strength
I lean more toward Justice Fortas's opinion, as it emphasizes the importance of protecting individual rights and freedoms under the Constitution, particularly in the context of due process. Fortas's perspective acknowledges the evolving nature of society and the necessity of adapting legal interpretations to safeguard personal liberties. In contrast, Justice Black's dissent, while advocating for strict adherence to constitutional text, may overlook the practical implications of rigid interpretations in contemporary contexts. Balancing foundational principles with the realities of modern governance is crucial for a just legal system.
Chief JusticeEarl WarrenAssociate JusticesHugo BlackWilliam O. DouglasJohn M. Harlan IIWilliam Brennan, Jr.Potter StewartByron WhiteAbe FortasThurgood MarshallCase Citation:Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 US 503 (1969)
Precedent precedentprecedent