Surname 1
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Subject
Date
Choice 1: Bethel School District vs Fraser
Every year, as the school calendar nears its close, and students are making office campaign
speeches and commencement keynotes, a landmark student expression and address is spotlighted
in the case involving Bethel District School and Fraser. In this case, the court had to consider if
the First Amendment protected Fraser’s speech, which was filled with inappropriate content.
Specifically, approaching the school podium, the student gazed at a crowd of about 600 students
comprised of his schoolmates and read a printout of his speech full of sexual references as well
as insinuation, making his audience to react in myriad ways (Thibodeaux 516). Though it was a
classic case of an individual’s freedom of speech, the Supreme Court determined that Fraser had
used offensive language in his address, which was not protected under the United States’ First
Amendment as outlined in the Constitution. As such, the case was highly controversial, with the
lower courts’ decision favoring the student, while the Supreme Court toppling the ruling, arguing
that Fraser’s speech was indeed disruptive (Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser 583-586).
Thus, considering the controversy surrounding this case, Fraser’s address does not meet the
protection of free speech protections under the First Amendment because it contained materials
that are unsuitable for minors in a school podium.
In this case, it has been proved that Fraser used what the Supreme Court termed as
‘graphic sexual metaphors’ in efforts to endorse the candidacy of his colleague (Thibodeaux
516). As part of the school’s disciplinary standards and codes, it enforced a rule that attempted to
Surname 2
prevent such conduct, as it worked to substantially interrupt and interfere with the institution’s
educational process. In particular, most schools, including Bethel, ban the use of inappropriate,
indecent, as well as profane language and gestures. In this regard, Fraser’s suspension from
school was squarely based on these standards. By taking such a measure, and being backed by
the Supreme Court’s ruling, the school acted rightly and never infringed the student’s rights
rather such behaviors are not accepted because they constitute lewd and obscene language
(Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser 583-586). Also, it is well documented that the process
of educating children and youths for social responsibility in schools is never restricted to books,
civic classes, or the syllabus but that these institutions must teach them values and norms of the
civilized social order. In this regard, the schools, including Bethel, serve as important tools of the
state, which determines the important lessons of civil and mature conduct of students.
In his article about the concept of public discourse, Post evaluates the concept behind the
First Amendment free speech protections. For Post, an obscene and sexual speech qualifies as an
outrageous reference to the standards of mainstream life. He also argues that in most of the
culturally heterogeneous societies America, the First Amendment works best to foster good use
of language among different groups of people, especially in ensuring a shared public and
democratic perspective. Based on this reason, Post presents that the First Amendment, to a large
degree, draws a distinct line between a speech that is unbiased with regard to the particular
expectations and standards of communities. In a sense, Post’s article can also be used to analyze
the case between Bethel and Fraser. Essentially, Post shows ways in which important themes, in
this case, follow from the separation of private discourse, public communication as well as social
values. It is this separation that leads to the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court that Fraser’s
speech content fundamentally violated the expectations of societal norms and the laid down rules
Surname 3
of conduct as outlined in the school’s codes. Furthermore, it is also clear that the legal notion of
the public address is intrinsically stable, since speeches that often violate the mainstream norms
are seen as illogical and coercive, and therefore, largely incompatible with the American
people’s deliberation. Moreover, the First Amendment also supports the enforceability and legal
application of these very norms and renders logical deliberations very possible.
In opposing the decision of this case, Justice Marshall argued that Bethel had not
sufficiently proved their case and ways in which Fraser’s speech had indeed disruptive and
indecent. Based on this argument, he believed that the student had not violated the school and
that his speech was appropriate given its context. Moreover, as such, his strong opinion was that
the student did not disrupt the school process. In this way, he held that the school had unfairly
treated and suspended Fraser because the student’s handbook or the teachers had not warned him
that he could be suspended from the school upon giving the speech (Bethel School District No.
403 v. Fraser 583-586). Moreover, for Justice Marshall, the constitution, and mostly the Due
Process Clause, restricted all public schools from suspending and punishing students without
according them fair trials or warnings. Also, he argued that the same Clause equally prohibits the
government and its state organs from infringing people’s rights to life, property, as well as
freedoms. He also maintained that, just like the adults, students had free speech rights under the
constitution (Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser 583-586). Furthermore, he also suggested
that students never give up their freedoms to speech when they are in schools, meaning that
schools can only interfere with students’ free speeches when it is necessary and mandated under
the United States’ laws.
I strongly believe that this case would be treated in the same way today because the
values the country held back then have not significantly changed. Furthermore, the First
Surname 4
Amendment has also not changed from how it was when this case was determined more than two
decades ago. While there have been several and endless strings of controversies over the last
years entailing attempts to regulate offensive speeches, it is true that their verdicts have always
been drawn from the United States’ Constitution, and particularly from the First Amendment. By
offensive or inappropriate speech, it means that the speech is especially harmful, distasteful, as
well as obnoxious to some segments or groups of people in the society, especially the minors.
Sometimes, offensive speeches have the ability to cause psychological torture and injuries to the
audiences receiving them. With respect to sexual references and content, it is both the use of
language and inferences to erotic materials in use which hurts as well as offends. As such, recent
controversies over such speeches involve efforts to prevent and regulate the use of disruptive
language and references to audiences that are not suitable for them. I also believe that much of
the debate surrounding offensive speech can be attributable to the present state of the cultural
battle in America in addition to most of the western nations. Currently, different groups are
embroiled in vigorous conflicts over issues of norms, values, codes of behavior, as well as the
link between the state as well as the individual.
Therefore, a close look at the regulation of offensive language and speech and the First
Amendment reveals interesting facts. In most cases, the First Amendment issues, which have
been raised by prohibiting and even regulating offensive speech, have for a long time been
analyzed in a great deal and detail everywhere in the different societies that make America. The
United States’ courts have also determined cases related to regulation and prohibition of
offensive speech since the forties and fifties. Majority of these cases offered gave the state some
form of leeway in regulating such speeches, including the case that involved Chaplinsky and
New Hampshire, where the fighting words doctrine were recognized. Drawing from all these
Surname 5
cases, it is apparent that landmark rulings have been made in the country. Perhaps, the most
publicized modern-day efforts to regulate and stop offensive speech have been those from
colleges and schools, which have drafted different codes of conduct that restrict deemed obscene
use of language to minorities, minors, women, and certain groups in the society. These codes and
standards are usually based on the idea that the issuance of such speeches results in severe
psychological injuries to members of particular groups, and could, therefore; vividly impede the
educational process and setting. While the majority of the incidents that have constituted these
codes and standards might be regarded as being outrageous and condemned in courts, most of
them have not been invalidated under the existing precedents. Generally, supporters of these
codes rely on a variety of the First Amendment principles, including fighting words, deliberate
infliction of psychological damage, as well as group slander.
In relation to Bethel and its decision to discipline Fraser, I also believe that public
institutions and schools have an expressive right under the First Amendment to instill good
character and reprimand students who seem do deviate from the set rules, including making
offensive expressions in public. Moreover, under this Amendment, it has been explicitly declared
that the use of inappropriate expressions might not be restricted to adults, which does not follow
that the same principle is extended to children in schools. Moreover, the constitution also
recognizes the need for protecting young children, and in this case, the minors from exposure to
offensive and vulgar expressions. I equally suggest that schools also need to do more in
enlightening their students on contents that violate laid down rules and those that constitute
offensive expressions in efforts to prevent cases such as Bethel v. Fraser. In the same way,
students’ school handbook should contain these codes for easy accessibility and reference by
students.
Surname 6
Works Cited
Surname 7
Thibodeaux, Therese. "Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser: The Supreme Court Supports
School in Sanctioning Student for Sexual Innuendo in Speech." Loy. L. Rev. 33 (1987):
516.
Post, Robert C. "The Constitutional Concept of Public Discourse: Outrageous Opinion,
Democratic Deliberation, and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell." Harvard Law
Review (1990): 601-686.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment