BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403 V. FRASER 478 U.S. 675 (1986) CASE BRIEF

BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403 V. FRASER

478 U.S. 675 (1986)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over a lewd speech given by a 14-year-old student in his public school during a school assembly.

FACTS: Fraser, a 14-year-old student at Bethel High School, gave a speech nominating a fellow student for student elective office. Fraser referred to his candidate in terms of an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor. Fraser was told in advance that giving such a speech would result in discipline. Fraser was suspended for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of candidates for graduation speaker at the school's commencement exercises. Fraser sought administrative review. The examiner determined that the speech fell within the ordinary meaning of 'obscene,' as used in the disruptive conduct rule, and affirmed the discipline in its entirety. Fraser (Respondent) brought this action alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech, and sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The District Court held that the school's sanctions violated respondent's right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, that the school's disruptive conduct rule is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the removal of respondent's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the disciplinary rule makes no mention of such removal as a possible sanction. The District Court awarded $278 in damages, $12,750 in litigation costs and attorney's fees, and enjoined the School District from preventing respondent from speaking at the commencement ceremonies. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court holding that respondent's speech was indistinguishable from the protest armband in Tinker. The court explicitly rejected the District's argument that the speech, unlike the passive conduct of wearing a black armband, had a disruptive effect on the educational process. The Court of Appeals also rejected the District's argument that it had an interest in protecting an essentially captive audience of minors from lewd and indecent language in a setting sponsored by the school, reasoning that the District's 'unbridled discretion' to determine what discourse is 'decent' would 'increase the risk of cementing white, middle-class standards for determining what is acceptable and proper speech and behavior in our public schools.' It also rejected the District's argument that, incident to its responsibility for the school curriculum, it had the power to control the language used to express ideas during a school-sponsored activity.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner