Can you imagine living in the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four: where thinkpolice are all around you, you can not say anything except what they want you to say, otherwise you will be arrested for the thinking crime. Do we have sacred rights to speak, to show our viewpoints? It’ s obvious that we have the freedom to speak, although this freedom is combined with restrictions for the whole society’s safety, profit and benefit. The more specific and just outlines the government gives, the more secure our rights are. The Tinker V.S. Der Moises case suggests a situation that the school official suspended the students, the Tinkers, because they wore arm bands in protest of the Vietnam War and supported the Christmas Truce called for by Senator Robert
…show more content…
In the majority opinion, the judge claimed that the silence speech，his armband was aimed to speak out his own viewpoint at the same time minimizing the controversy. And the he also asserted: “must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint”. These reasonings are based on facts and gave prudent logic inside, and what the school officials described can be an evidence to support his idea that Tinkers did not really harm the laws but improper regulations.
The dissent held that Tinkers’ behavior is disruptive “symbolic speech” so that it should not be constitutionally protected, and his behavior also defy and flout the orders made by the school officials. Later he declared,"I repeat that if the time has come when pupils of state-supported schools, kindergartens, grammar schools, or high schools, can defy and flout orders of school officials to keep their minds on their own schoolwork, it is the beginning of a new revolutionary era of permissiveness in this country fostered by the judiciary.” The generalization and the inductive reasoning mentioned is like a slippery scope fallacy, so it was not so convincing and strong. And the point in his defense has been changed from the free speech to the obedience of the school regulations, which can not support his assertion of disruptive symbolic
In the majority opinion, the judge claimed that the silence speech，his armband was aimed to speak out his own viewpoint at the same time minimizing the controversy. And the he also asserted: “must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint”. These reasonings are based on facts and gave prudent logic inside, and what the school officials described can be an evidence to support his idea that Tinkers did not really harm the laws but improper regulations.
The dissent held that Tinkers’ behavior is disruptive “symbolic speech” so that it should not be constitutionally protected, and his behavior also defy and flout the orders made by the school officials. Later he declared,"I repeat that if the time has come when pupils of state-supported schools, kindergartens, grammar schools, or high schools, can defy and flout orders of school officials to keep their minds on their own schoolwork, it is the beginning of a new revolutionary era of permissiveness in this country fostered by the judiciary.” The generalization and the inductive reasoning mentioned is like a slippery scope fallacy, so it was not so convincing and strong. And the point in his defense has been changed from the free speech to the obedience of the school regulations, which can not support his assertion of disruptive symbolic