The Kylie Smith Case

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
The Kylie Smith Case
ISSUE
The case is as a result of Kylie Smith and the group wearing controversial attires to school which led to their suspension. The parents of the students sort legal redress since they supposed that the First Amendment right protected their children hence were justified to wear the t-shirts which were a sign of silent protest. The defendant, Harrison West High School, argued did not allow such attire since they could lead to disruption of school activities and the learning environment.
RULE
The case tries to evaluate whether prohibiting the students against wearing the controversial t-shirts as a sign of silent protest violates the victim’s freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment. Students were not allowed to wear the t-shirts at the school since the defendant viewed it as a possible interference of the school activities. In this case, The First Amendment is a significant element in determining the freedom of speech of the students. The word “speech” in this case is interpreted as a symbolic action (such as the t-shirts).
ANALYSIS
The parents who are the Plaintiff cited that punishing the students for their conduct was irrational and unjust. As such, they alleged the First Amendment should have protected their rights to silent protests such as wearing the t-shirts. The majority opinion supported the claim that “students or teachers [do not] shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

” In certain precedence, the case of Tinker v. Des Moines School District also handled a similar case regarding freedom of speech. The school principal who was the defendant had enacted a policy that prohibited students from wearing certain attires arguing that they violated the school rules and regulations. As such, the offenders had to serve a two-day suspension for instilling fear in the school environment. The defendant maintained that the student’s actions had caused remarkable interference in learning on that day.
CONCLUSION
It is essential for the school administration to prove how specific actions of the students disrupt the school activities when censoring students’ speech. However, if the disruption is not material and hence fails to meet certain requirements, it cannot guarantee protection. Nevertheless, the case laid a formidable foundation regarding freedom of expression in the school environment and therefore enhanced public dialogue as a significant aspect while at school.

Work Cited
Tinker v. Des Moines School District