Bethel+School+District+No.+403

Dan Butler //Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)//

//Background:// In 1983 a high school senior named Matthew Fraser gave nomination speech for a fellow classmate running for student body vice president. The speech was somewhat lewd and used several expressions with sexual double meanings. The school suspended Fraser but he appealed his case with the help of the ACLU and it went to U.S. district court. The district court ruled in Fraser’s favor saying the school violated his first amendment rights. The case was then brought be before the 9th circuit court of appeals for reconsideration but that court also ruled in favor of Fraser. The circuit court then asked the Supreme Court to examine the case as it brought up an important constitutional question.

//Constitutional Issue:// Was the school within their rights to punish Matthew Fraser for his speech or was Fraser’s 1st amendment right to freedom of speech violated by the school’s levying of punishment?

//Court Ruling:// The high school did not violate Fraser's first amendment rights when they him for his speech. The reason they were not in violation was because the speech was lewd, sexually offensive and disruptive to the school atmosphere. Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens dissented in the ruling.

//Impact of the ruling:// This ruling was a landmark case in the area of freedom of speech in schools. The case would be followed up in 1989 with a similar ruling in the case //Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier// in which the court used the precedent set by //Fraser// to justify their ruling (ruled that schools can censor school newspapers). To some the ruling in //Fraser// could seem to be in conflict with //Tinker v. Des Moines// but the court distinguished //Fraser// from //Tinker// because the speech given by Matthew Fraser was explicitly vulgar. Schools couldn’t restrict political speech (ruling in Tinker) but they can restrict vulgar speech. This case was one of many that affirms the supreme court precedent of giving schools the right to limit certain freedoms.