Mr. Werner's 7th Grade US History Project

REGULATING FREEDOM OF SPEECH
And
Search and Seizure

Jeff K.
US History
I feel the Supreme Court made a good decision for the side of Veronia School District. The case was that there was much drug use at a high school in Veronia, Oregon. In the past few years there was a huge increase in drugs especially in the students playing sports. The School District made all students that signed up in athletics sign a form for permission for them to take a drug test. Every week around 10% of the athletes were tested. The parents of James Acton refused to sign the slip allowing the drug test. They felt it violated his rights in the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, which it didn’t. I think the School District has the right to make the drug test when they know that students are using drugs. They gave fair warning by sending a permission slip out for parents to sign. The Supreme Court decided that the drug test was constitutional because they had good reason and they gave warning.

Veronia School District V. Acton

Collin B.

I feel that the Supreme Court decided the case correctly. The School District won the case when the Supreme Court decided that the Veronia School District was allowed to do random drug testing. I feel that the Veronia School District should be allowed to do random drug testing. I feel this way because if a student is doing drugs…then they really shouldn’t be playing sports. They shouldn’t even be on drugs. Drugs could affect the amount of injuries and effect on functions. I think the case was constitutional because all of the athletes had to sign a form saying that they could be drug tested if it was their turn. Acton didn’t sign the form so therefore he shouldn’t have been playing in the first place. So it didn’t matter if they tested him. The Supreme Court had a very hard decision to make this time, but I think they made the right one.

Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board vs. Pinette
Thursday, December 23, 1993
Lindsay C.

The question in this case was whether the Ku Klux Klan could place a temporary, unattended cross in a public place where other semi-religious symbols were being displayed. this case was about the free speech clause of the First Amendment. This clause permits the Ku Klux Klan to put up their cross. The State singled out the Ku Klux Klan by not allowing them to place their cross in the Capitol Square area because they did not like one of the Ku Klux Klan's speakers or representatives, Pinette. This discrimination by the State was unlawful and was not standardized operating procedure. All of the lower courts agreed that the Ku Klux Klan had the right to put up the cross.

I, Justice Lindsay C., find that, because of the evidence provided, the Advisory Board had no constitutional right to not allow Pinette and the Ku Klux Klan to put up their cross in the Capitol Square area. The State mistakenly assumes that the cross is banned by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (which forbids Congress to have, or establish, a state religion) because of its symbolism. This is an untrue defense because of the other religious symbols that the Advisory Board allowed to be put on display. I therefore agree with the previous judgment of the lower courts.

Ward v. Rock Against Racism
First Amendment
Matt O.

This case is about when a group of musicians called Rock Against Racism was playing their music in Sheep Meadow in “the Bandshell” for a gathering. The law for every “bandshell” is to have a controlled sound level for it and a technician from the cities choice. The sponsor for the RAR was against this regulation and RAR decided to go against it also because they believed that when the city took away their sound control, they took away their freedom of speech.

I think that RAR had the right to play loud music because it was their choice; they had the first amendment to back them up and when that sponsor was put in they must have felt that their right was taken away because they can no longer choose the sound for their music. They have to have it chosen for them and the crowd may not like this new sound of theirs. Plus the group wouldn’t get many fans because they were so used to their loud music that they may not come anymore. The group may lose some money because of the lack of the crowd. Which means they have a right to take it to court and I am all for it because they were denied their freedom of speech when they were playing their music.

Maryland vs. Wilson
by Will F.

December 11, 1996-
February 19, 1997

Jerry Lee Wilson was a passenger in a car when it was pulled over. The officer arrested the driver and ordered Wilson to get out of the car to search him because Wilson looked nervous. As Wilson got out, a bag of cocaine dropped to the ground. The officer arrested Wilson for possession of drugs and intent to distribute them.

I, Justice Will F., think that it was unconstitutional for the officer to search Wilson just because he looked nervous. The officer is allowed to arrest the driver and search him. These rules do not qualify for the passenger. Wilson would not have been arrested if the officer hadn’t unconstitutionally asked Wilson to get out of the car and search him. In conclusion, the search was unconstitutional and Wilson cannot be charged with possession and intent to distribute.

The real Supreme Court decided that the officer’s search was illegal and unconstitutional. They ordered that the officer had no right to order Wilson out of the car and search him because of his apparent nervousness.

.
BETHEL SCHOOL DIST. NO. 403 VS FRASER
By Max K.

In the case of Bethel School District #403 vs. Fraser, a high school student named Matthew N. Fraser was nomination one of his friends for student counsel and during his speech Matthew used sexual metaphors and profane language to promote his friend. There were approximately 600 people listening to his speech and many who were only fourteen years old. During Matthews’s speech, fellow students were hooting and yelling, while others were mimicking him and others seemed very embarrassed

The day after the speech Matthew was called into the assistant principal’s office and was informed he was being suspended. Matthew’s suspension was for three days but he only had to serve two days because his father said suspending him was a violation of the First Amendment. Matthew and his father filed a suit against the school.

As a Supreme Court Justice, I would also rule against Matthew Fraser in this case. Although I think that the First Amendment is very important, it does not protect all kinds of speech. What Matthew said was very disruptive to his school. The school has the right to stop and bad speech that might cause the school problems.

The Supreme Court ruled that ‘under the First Amendment, the use of an offensive form of expression ay not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, but it does not follow that the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school. It is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse.”