The Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court case concerned two students who wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The school district suspended the students, possibly violating their right to free speech.

Which best summarizes the majority opinion?

A. There is no precedent for schools to limit the rights of students, so it is unconstitutional to suspend the students for their armbands.

B. The First Amendment protects the students' right to wear the armbands; they weren't disruptive, and the school allowed others to wear controversial symbols.

C. The Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms and form a militia, so they were allowed to express their feelings on the war.

D. The case went through the process of judicial review to determine that fear of disruption alone was reason enough to suspend the students.

Question

Janelle Pope

English

22 July, 07:22

The Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court case concerned two students who wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The school district suspended the students, possibly violating their right to free speech.

Which best summarizes the majority opinion?

A. There is no precedent for schools to limit the rights of students, so it is unconstitutional to suspend the students for their armbands.

B. The First Amendment protects the students' right to wear the armbands; they weren't disruptive, and the school allowed others to wear controversial symbols.

C. The Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms and form a militia, so they were allowed to express their feelings on the war.

D. The case went through the process of judicial review to determine that fear of disruption alone was reason enough to suspend the students.

+3

Answers (2)

Know the Answer?

Jimmy Schwartz · Answer 1

B. The First Amendment protects the students' right to wear the armbands; they weren't disruptive, and the school allowed others to wear controversial symbols.

Daisy Barnett · Answer 2

A because the students fought for their personal rights to protest.