Bethel School District vs. Fraser :: essays research papers

On April 26, 1983, Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High shallow in Bethel, Washington, delivered a tongue nominating a fellow student for a student elective spatial relation to his fellow high indoctrinate mates. The convocation was part of a school-sponsored educational program in self government. During the broad(a) speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in terms of "elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor." However, no detestable language was used.      Fraser discussed his speech with trine of his teachers. Two of the teachers testified at the trial that they assured Matthew the speech was "inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it." They as well as mentioned that the speech might have "severe consequences," but none of the three suggested that the speech might violate a school rule. So Matthew gave his speech, during which a school counselor observed the reaction of students. Some hooted and yell ed others appeared to be bewildered and embarrassed by the speech. A Bethel High School disciplinary rule prohibited the use of obscene language in the school Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, offend language or gestures. The morning after the assembly, the assistant head word called Matthew into her office and notified him that the school considered his speech to have been a impingement of this rule. The assistant principal informed Matthew that he would be suspended for three eld and would be ineligible as a candidate for graduation speaker at the schools commencement exercises.      Matthew went to the schools hearing officer for a review of the disciplinary action. 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 served two d ays of his suspension, and was allowed to return to school on the third day.      Matthews father appealed the school districts actions on behalf of his son to the federal district court. He alleged a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and sought both injunctive second-stringer and monetary damages. The District Court held that the schools sanctions violated respondents right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, that the schools disruptive-conduct rule is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the remotion of respondents name from the graduation speakers list violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the disciplinary rule makes no mention of such remotion as a possible sanction.