The Court ruled that it does provide protection to the pupils of public school, since the school is a government run operation. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of all American citizens to freedom of speech. According to Justice Abe Fortas “First Amendment rights, applied in the light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students.” Everyone knows that the First Amendment is applied to any form of written or spoked speech that does not inflict harm or affect and person in a distressful manner. That is known as pure speech. Since the Tinkers wore the armbands, as a sign of their discrepancy, they used symbolic speech to represent their opinion. Symbolic speech is one of the biggest controversies within considering the Constitution, as it is not pure speech. A similar case, in which a boy wore a shirt with the Confederate Flag was brought into the Court. It was thrown out because the Judges ruled that the shirt was just an article of clothing, not a form of speech. Nevertheless, the case was brought back in and the boy won. Accordingly, many may argue that the armbands were just a piece of clothing. While this is true the school never addressed what would happen if it had been another type of symbolic speech. For example, if the Tinkers had ultimately decided to wear a shirt or anything similar, would the school have taken issue with …show more content…
Des Moines case has always had its dissenters. To name one, Justice Hugo Black believed that “It is a myth to say that any person has a constitutional right to say what he pleases, where he pleases, and when he pleases…” This is, without a doubt correct, but Justice Black failed to mention that any person may not say anything they wish if it is intended to cause harm. The Tinkers did not harm anyone. The two Justices whom had their opposition towards the Tinkers claimed that the armbands interfered with the other pupil’s ability to complete school tasks. Seeing as though that the school could not show that they caused disruption, the Constitution protects the Tinkers. Why? Because the reason of their suspension cannot be that the government disapproves of the message conveyed by the message. In other words, they cannot infringe upon the rights of the Tinkers, because they viewed the speech as inappropriate. Another argument to be made against the Tinkers, is that the Constitution does not protect school students. Under the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution anyone who is born or naturalized in the Us is subject to the constitution. As Justice Fortas said it is also incorrect to be educated the young about their citizenship and their footprint as an American resident, and then take away their