Bethel v. fraser
Year: 1986
Result: 7-2, favor Bethel School District No. 403
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 1st Amendment (Speech, Press, Assembly)
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that unlike the political speech in Tinker v. Des Moines, the vulgar and offensive speech of Fraser was not protected under the 1st Amendment. If speech undermines the fundamental educational mission of a public school and causes a disruption, the Court ruled that because of public schools “interest in teaching students socially appropriate behavior”, disciplinary action could be imparted. It also set the precedent that inappropriate language would be defined by School Boards since there are no Constitutional references of lewd or suggestive language.
Quote from majority opinion: “It is true, however, that the State has interests in teaching high school students how to conduct civil and effective public discourse and in avoiding disruption of educational school activities. Thus, the Court holds that, under certain circumstances, high school students may properly be reprimanded for giving a speech at a high school assembly which school officials conclude disrupted the school's educational mission. Respondent's speech may well have been protected had he given it in school but under different circumstances, where the school's legitimate interests in teaching and maintaining civil public discourse were less weighty.”
Summary of dissent: Justice Stevens argues that there was no real evidence that Fraser’s innuendo had caused a “material interference”, this being a criteria for “disruptive conduct” which is subject to the disciplinary rule of the school. He also stated that the standards of the community (the students) must be taken into account, since such comments would have been commonplace in the locker room or halls.
6-word summary: Sexual innuendos, speech at school: limited
Result: 7-2, favor Bethel School District No. 403
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 1st Amendment (Speech, Press, Assembly)
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that unlike the political speech in Tinker v. Des Moines, the vulgar and offensive speech of Fraser was not protected under the 1st Amendment. If speech undermines the fundamental educational mission of a public school and causes a disruption, the Court ruled that because of public schools “interest in teaching students socially appropriate behavior”, disciplinary action could be imparted. It also set the precedent that inappropriate language would be defined by School Boards since there are no Constitutional references of lewd or suggestive language.
Quote from majority opinion: “It is true, however, that the State has interests in teaching high school students how to conduct civil and effective public discourse and in avoiding disruption of educational school activities. Thus, the Court holds that, under certain circumstances, high school students may properly be reprimanded for giving a speech at a high school assembly which school officials conclude disrupted the school's educational mission. Respondent's speech may well have been protected had he given it in school but under different circumstances, where the school's legitimate interests in teaching and maintaining civil public discourse were less weighty.”
Summary of dissent: Justice Stevens argues that there was no real evidence that Fraser’s innuendo had caused a “material interference”, this being a criteria for “disruptive conduct” which is subject to the disciplinary rule of the school. He also stated that the standards of the community (the students) must be taken into account, since such comments would have been commonplace in the locker room or halls.
6-word summary: Sexual innuendos, speech at school: limited