In 1986, in front of 600 students in a school assembly, 17-year-old Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Washington, strung together a list of double-entendres, saying the candidate he supported was...(click here to read the rest of Fraser's speech)
The Supreme Court said:
Bethel High School officials in Washington did not violate the First Amendment by punishing 17-year-old Matthew Fraser for a campaign speech that was considered lewd. Both of the lower courts had ruled for Fraser because there was no disruption following the speech given in the school auditorium.
“The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order.”
“The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order.” (from Bethel v. Fraser)
What do you think?
His speech may not have been totally appropriate for let's say, the freshman, but it is a speech that will be remembered. The audience will know what he was talking about, even if it was a bit gross. It got his point across. All speeches are going to be somehow offensive to someone, and this just happened to be more offensive. And if the teens were so innocent, they wouldn't have understood the reference anyway.
ReplyDeleteI can see how this argument could have gone either way, the speech Fraser gave was rather immature, however Fraser was 15 in high school and at that age most students tend to act a bit out of line and that behavior should not have come across as that much of a surprise. So in this case I take to the side of Fraser, in that the school had no right to suspend him for a couple of reasons. First off Fraser had shown his speech to multiple teachers beforehand and not one had told him it would have violated any school policy only that it would "raise eyebrows", also the speech created no major disruption at the assembly, except perhaps a few laughs. Lastly, the court ruled the speech as "a lewd speech," so the school, following this never violated his first amendment rights, however I feel that his speech should not have been classified as "lewd" because of his use of double entendres Fraser never directly referenced any obscene material, the interpretation of his speech was what caused it to be considered as "lewd." In conclusion I feel that the school violated Fraser's first amendment right by suspending him from school for a speech that caused no harm.
ReplyDeleteWOW! This is a very interesting story that has one controversial argument whether The school violated the 1st Amendment or not. In my opinion as a student I think that the school should somewhat censor what is said, not to make people feel that they are having their rights taken away but to protect those who could harm others with their words. I am a very big supporter of freedom of speech but I still believe that there is a very fine line between "oohh shouldnt say that" or "Its not like anybody will take offense". The student who gave his speeched was judged by his school and it was stated "lewd" . I think The 17- year old student should have known that he could hurt himself and others around him if there were to be a big disruption in the auditorium lucky there were none.
ReplyDeleteMore to the point of this Freedom of speech are a "Damned if you do" or "Damned if you don't" situations Words can be cheap but come out expensive. So for the student who felt his rights were violated still can use freedom of speech to argue why he felt that way but to take caution its best to give the same respect to the opposing sides the freedom of speech they granted him.
This kid got what he deserved. There are other ways of campaigning for something you beleive in. This case shows how high schools have lost track of teaching ethics and it also shows how teen discipline has greatly been ignored by parents.
ReplyDeleteAgreed with the Supreme Court decision. The way I saw it was sort of like a 'probable cause' misconception. Just like how some police men may automatically suspect, let's say... a black man for a crime more than a white man, due to a biased opinion, principals may suspect a student for vulgar language when he or she did not intend on saying anything like that. Just because Fraser stated, "… a man who is firm — he’s firm in his pants … in his character … a man who takes his point and pounds it in … who will go to the very end — even to the climax, for each and every one of you" does not mean he violated his speech rights simply because some teachers thought he meant something else. It was more of a biased point of view towards teenagers that led to his suspension, which I did not agree with at all.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, with him not being an official adult, he was rightfully subjected to the law. Although, I don't think his terms were vulgar enough to the point where the Supreme Court needed to be involved. He was just simply supporting a canadite he favored.
ReplyDeleteI think he should be punished since it was a school-sponserd activity. And even if we could be leagally punshed the school would have made him pay. Schools teach democracy not practice it.
ReplyDeleteI think this should be a real "cut and dry" case. He did something that he shouldn't have done and he got punished accordingly. And it's not like the punish was cruel and unreasonable. This was a very reasonable punish and I don't think he should of even made a big deal about this. I just hate it whenever something is just barely controversial and people make a big halabaloo about. Well that's just my 2 pennies about this subject.
ReplyDeleteI can understand both sides of the situation, but I think that he should of expected some sort of punishment because he was in high school and used some sort of vulgarity while being in favorable for a candidate. He was just an immature kid, that was trying to express his views.
ReplyDeleteIt is very expected for an immature teenager to announce such a speech in public. I believe it is known that the school can act as one's "parent" and can enforce discipline. I wouldn't say Fraser deserved a suspension for a speech that didn't really stir any disruption but I don't think his rights were violated either. The school gave a harsh punishment on Fraser, however the school is allowed to discipline the child as they see fit. Overall, what the school did was constitutional. It was just too harsh a punishment for a speech from Fraser.
ReplyDeleteHis speech was immature but in my opnion totaly necessary. our society is full of immature and stupid poeple, which he played to his advantage to grab the attention of the class body. but he also im sure had a tone of seriousness which made the audience not yell and cuase a ruckus so that his point was clearly made. i believe he did what he felt was necessary, the consequences were most likly known so i have no sympathy for his legal troubles. this needs to happen in hebron every once and a while, not only to amuse people but to make the limits of a students voice known.
ReplyDeleteI think he got wat he deserved because its a right polace n right time for everything and that was'nt the right time or place for that.
ReplyDeleteI also think the kid got what he deserved. He must have known that what he did would get him into trouble, so he deserved his punishment. I understand he was trying to express his views, but he could have approached it a little differently and still gotten his point across without getting into trouble. He should have know what the rules were and known that when he broke those rules that their would be consequences to deal with.
ReplyDeleteConsidering this speech was to a body of high school students, the school had every right to punish the student for the vulgarity of his speech. The first amendment protects our freedom of speech, but unnecessary sexual innuendos in a school setting are never appropriate and should never be considered acceptable.
ReplyDeleteWell...the answer to this is short and sweet, and it came from you Fitz. "We teach democracy in schools, we don't practice it. You don't have your rights till you are out of high school." That's the answer. On a different note i think the speech is classic, it's one of those things you would see in a movie. The kind of act that high school students think and dream about doing but few rarely ever actually execute.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. A public school provides a captioned audience of impressionable minds who are already exposed to enough rot via the media and the internet ( and friends, TV, etc.). Second, the school cannot allow such lewd analogies to carry on or else each year their class elections will become more and more crass because the faculty did not stop it early enough. Third, Mr Fraser is still a minor and does not have full entitlement to his Rights. Fourth, what part of the speech in any way represented a civilized and educated approach to public speaking/discourse--both of which are necessary elements in a democracy.
ReplyDeleteI believe that you have to look at the speech holistically; Mathew was only giving a metaphor so that the high school students could better understand. I think that we as viewers get caught up in the part where he states that the candidate is “hard in his pants” and really never grasp the entire speech. Yes, it might have been an extremely bad metaphor, and yes it might have disrupted the “prosperity” of the assembly, but the message its self is very good. Mathew talks about how the candidate will go well and beyond for his fellow students, so that they can have a voice and really benefit as a whole. Colin you can not make the generalization that the elections well get worse and worse from one incident, you cant generalize a fact off of one incident
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the school's actions. Had this speech been given by an adult, in a non school setting, then yes his rights would have been violated. However, he was simply a high school student, who counted on teachers ignorance to be able to say whatever he wanted.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt he thought himself very clever for writing such a speech, and he thought he would get away with it. I find it very annoying when immature students think they are smarter than anyone else, and able to trick the system. I know it is controversial right now, but I think the breast cancer "boobies" bracelet situation is similar in some ways.
I know that the majority of the people who wear these bracelets genuinely support and care about finding the cure, but I also think a percentage of students who wear them don't care at all, and just want an excuse to wear profanity without consequence. They think that its clever, and when asked to take them off they launch into a false speech about how much they care. It is a shame that such a serious condition is being used as an excuse by some students to try and outsmart the rules.
Matthew Fraser did not empress anyone with his play on words, he simply showed his immaturity.
(P.S. I'm not trying to bash on anyone who wears the boobies bracelets, because I support the cause too.)
Yes the speech was immature but it obviously worked if a riot didn't break loose. He could have done it a little more maturely I admit.
ReplyDeleteBut i wouldn't go as far as taking it to court like they did.
Seriously Matthew Fraser grow up, you know how immature that sounds. I BET YOUR PARENTS ARE PROUD! If this was a statement made for any postition in the U.S. Government this canidate would never be nominated or recognized again as a serious contender in an election. Showing how sorry the ethics of the young people in that school are.
ReplyDeleteIf Fraser was an adult, campaigning and used the terms that he used, it wouldn't be a problem. But because he was a young adult and under his high school rules, he can be punished by school.
ReplyDeleteDo I think it is constitutitonal to punish him? I do not agree. I am not trying to say that what he expressed was right, but it didn't harm anybody. No public place in the U.S. punishes you for saying sexual words out loud.
There are many immature high school students, but I think the age doesn't determine how mature you are, therefore the constitutional rights still affects everyone, including high schoolers. You do not earn the consitutional rights when you turn 18, but born with it. That's what makes America.
I think the arguement can go either way. From the schools stand point it isn't an appropriate speech for school only because of the underlying meaning of his speech. But from the students' standpoint, we have freedom of speech in this country so we are allowed to say what we feel as stated in the Bill of Rights.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion regardless of the face that it was a hilarious speech and he probably won because of it he was out of line to say that in his speech only because everyone knows what is acceptable to say at school but I dont think he should be punished because he does have the right to free speech and he technically didnt say anything vulgar or out of line, it was the underlying meaning behind what he said that wasnt appropriate.