Supreme Court Decision Analysis Quiz

By pointing out that people under 18 and 21 are already barred from certain rights.

As we shall discuss, the wearing of armbands in the circumstances of this case was entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. It was closely akin to 'pure speech' which, we have repeatedly held, is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment. Cf. Cox v Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 555 (1965); Adderly v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966)

The dissent uses the majority opinion as evidence.

<p>Summary</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Flaws in the majority opinion</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>In his dissent, Justice Black argues that teachers are not hired by the state to teach whatever they want, just as students are not sent to school to express any opinions they want.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A judicial review</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>What are the goals of the text, and what elements help achieve those goals?</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>If preventing the teaching of a foreign language violates people's rights, then preventing freedom of expression, such as wearing armbands, is also a violation of rights.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To support an argument by showing that because other courts have made similar decisions, the decision in the current case must be logical.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>In his majority opinion, Justice Fortas argues that if students were not allowed to talk about Vietnam at school, unless as a class activity, it would be an obvious violation of their rights.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>If students were kept from discussing Vietnam at school, it would be an obvious violation of their rights, so not allowing them to wear armbands also violates their rights.</p> Signup and view all the answers