Bethel school district no. 403 v. fraser
Case name: Bethel School District No. 403 v. Mathew N. Fraser, a minor, et al
Year decided: 1986
Result: 7-2, in favor of Bethel School District No. 403
Related constitutional issue/amendment: First Amendment (freedom of speech)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that schools are allowed to prohibit vulgar and offensive language and that the First Amendment does not limit schools from banning vulgar and lewd language because such offensive speech would disrupt the "fundamental values of public school education" and ultimately harms the education of students. Chief Justice Burger made a clear distinction between the political expression that was protected in Tinker v. Des Moines and the sexual innuendos referenced in Fraser's speech.
Quote from the majority opinion: "Surely it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse. Indeed, the "fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system" disfavor the use of terms of debate highly offensive or highly threatening to others. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions...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."
Summary of the dissent: While the goals of education and public school referenced by the majority opinion are valid, the school district failed to demonstrate that Fraser's speech was indeed disruptive and interrupted education.
Six-word Summary: Schools can prohibit vulgar, "disruptive" speech.
Year decided: 1986
Result: 7-2, in favor of Bethel School District No. 403
Related constitutional issue/amendment: First Amendment (freedom of speech)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that schools are allowed to prohibit vulgar and offensive language and that the First Amendment does not limit schools from banning vulgar and lewd language because such offensive speech would disrupt the "fundamental values of public school education" and ultimately harms the education of students. Chief Justice Burger made a clear distinction between the political expression that was protected in Tinker v. Des Moines and the sexual innuendos referenced in Fraser's speech.
Quote from the majority opinion: "Surely it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse. Indeed, the "fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system" disfavor the use of terms of debate highly offensive or highly threatening to others. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions...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."
Summary of the dissent: While the goals of education and public school referenced by the majority opinion are valid, the school district failed to demonstrate that Fraser's speech was indeed disruptive and interrupted education.
Six-word Summary: Schools can prohibit vulgar, "disruptive" speech.