There is also conflicting testimony regarding the amount of sexual innuendo existing in the "unedited" version of the film. Other segments involving a violent rape, nudity, a suggestion of oral sex, and a naked woman and naked man in bed engaging in foreplay and intercourse were also shown in the morning. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 304-05, 106 S.Ct. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. On July 10, 1984, plaintiff Fowler appeared with counsel at the administrative hearing. I agree with both of these findings. Furthermore, since this was a "free day" for the students, no departure from a board-mandated curriculum occurred. Rather, she had it shown for the purpose of keeping her students occupied during a noninstructional day while she was involved in posting grades on report cards. Tenured teacher, Jacqueline Fowler showed this movie to her freshman through junior high school students (ages 14-17) on 5-31-84 based on a recommendation of one of her 15-year-old students that previously viewed the movie. She testified that she would show an edited. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss plaintiff's action. 216 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (emphasis supplied). In the present case the district court concluded that Mrs. Fowler was entitled to the protection of the First Amendment while acting as a teacher. Moreover, in Spence. Joint Appendix at 308-09. 1628 (1943) (flag salute), are inapposite because they involve examples of symbolic expression, not verbal communication, and articulate guidelines for determining what symbolic acts may constitute expression. 719, 15 L.Ed.2d 637 (1966) (sit-in by blacks at "whites only" library), West Virginia State Bd. at 1788. 1899, 36 L.Ed.2d 391 (1973); James v. Board of Education, 461 F.2d 566 (2d Cir. She did not preview the movie, despite the fact that she had been warned that portions were unsuitable for viewing in this context. 1980); Cary v. Board of Education, 598 F.2d 535, 539-42 (10th Cir. She believed the movie portrayed the dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems. Following this executive session, the board returned to open session and voted unanimously to terminate plaintiff's employment for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. See Schad v. Mt. at 737). ." 2727, 2729-31, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 (1974) (per curiam) (display of flag with peace symbol attached was expressive conduct entitled to protection under First Amendment); Tinker, 393 U.S. at 505, 89 S.Ct. at 736-37. She believed the movie portrayed the dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems. 2176, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981), and Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting casting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 97 S.Ct. It is undisputed that the audio portion of the movie, which contained enough offensive language to mandate an automatic "R" rating under motion picture industry standards, was played through the entire movie. 161.790(1)(b) was not vague or overbroad, apparently for the reason that, because Fowler's conduct was protected by the First Amendment, such conduct "as a matter of fact and law did not constitute conduct unbecoming a teacher." Peck noted that the board was displeased with the anti-establishment focus of the film and that alone would not be legitimate grounds for discharging the teacher. She also alleged that the factual findings made in support of her discharge were not supported by substantial evidence. James W. Williams, III, Rankin, Baker and Williams, Stanford, Ky., Robert L. Chenoweth, Bryan, Fogle and Chenoweth, Mt. at 576. Id., at 583. On its distinctive facts, Fowler v. Board of Education Lincoln County, Kentucky' is almost ideally suited as a vehicle for reex- amining some of the "deeper" issues associated with in-school speech of public high school teachers in particular and with free speech law in general. Finally, the district court concluded that K.R.S. The two appeals court judges in the majority upheld the firing for different reasons. Sec. 1985) (nonexpressive dancing constitutes conduct not entitled to protection of the First Amendment). 1633 (opinion of White, J.) This court need not go as far as the Court did in Pico and Bethel because those cases respectively involved school library and a school assembly and did not have the captive audience factor with the teacher acting in loco parentis that is present in this case. at 287, 97 S.Ct. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 287, 97 S.Ct. 1628 (1943) (flag salute is a form of expression); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 368-69, 51 S.Ct. The students in Fowler's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were of the ages fourteen through seventeen. Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County (1987): ACADEMIC FREEDOM (Pink Floyd's "The Wall") Facts: district dismissed teacher based on unbecoming conduct (unique to Kentucky) after teacher showed the movie, Pink Floyd's "the wall" to high school students at 1182. Sterling, Ky., for defendants-appellants, cross-appellees. of Lincoln Cty .. 2849, 53 L.Ed.2d 965 (1977), for the general proposition that entertainment enjoys First Amendment protection. Plaintiff Fowler received her termination notice on or about June 19, 1984. 1980) ("conduct unbecoming an officer" standard gave notice that reckless gunplay was subject to discipline); Kannisto v. San Francisco, 541 F.2d 841, 844-45 (9th Cir. This segment of the film was shown in the morning session. 161.790(1), which proscribes conduct unbecoming a teacher, is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct. The accommodation of these sometimes conflicting fundamental values has caused great tension, particularly when the conflict arises within the classroom. Sec. It is speculation to say how much the school board was swayed by the fact that Ms. Fowler did not exhibit second thoughts on having shown the film, and not only did not see the "error of her ways" but said that she would show the film again if given the opportunity. See United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. The notice advised her that a hearing would be held on July 10, 1984, and she subsequently advised the board of her intention to appear at the hearing and contest the charges. Fraser, 106 S.Ct. The district court found that the movie "contains a very limited amount of material which is sexually suggestive," that the movie does not contain "any `simulation' of a sexual act," and that "any scenes involving nudity or suggestive conduct were edited from the view of students" during both showings. The court disagreed, concluding that "[t]he regulations prescribing a teacher's speech and conduct are necessarily broad; they cannot possibly mention every type of misconduct." Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. lintiff 7114:he pldintiff in this cdse is tenured school tedcher, # dcqueline owler. Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, (1978) 819 F.2d 657 Management Resources: at 3165 (quoting Ambach, 441 U.S. at 76-77, 99 S.Ct. Connect with the definitive source for global and local news. Trial Transcript Vol. The board then retired into executive session. Bd. Healthy cases of Board of Educ. The justices, without comment, let stand a ruling that the teacher's free- expression rights were not violated. Book Board of Education Policies Section 6000 Instruction . Sec. Plaintiff Fowler received her termination notice on or about June 19, 1984. . 1984). Joint Appendix at 129-30. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. These cases are based upon the notion that teaching is a form of activity protected by the First Amendment. One scene involves a bloody battlefield. At the bench trial in the district court, Fowler repeated her contention that she believed the movie contained important, socially valuable messages. United States District Court (Columbia), United States District Courts. 161.790 provides in relevant part: In Board of Education v. Wood, 717 S.W.2d 837 (Ky. 1986), two tenured teachers were discharged for conduct unbecoming a teacher under section 161.790(1)(b). Joint Appendix at 83, 103, 307. . A group of students requested that Fowler allow the movie to be shown while she was completing the grade cards. 1979); Keefe v. Geanakos, 418 F.2d 359, 362 (1st Cir. of Educ. Boring v. Buncombe County Bd. Many courts have recognized that a teacher's First Amendment rights encompass the notion of "academic freedom" to exercise professional judgment in selecting topics and materials for use in the course of the educational process. This court, in my opinion, should not offer an advisory opinion as to what constitutes an intent to communicate and how much knowledge of the content of a presentation is needed before it can be embraced as one's own expression. Following this executive session, the board returned to open session and voted unanimously to terminate plaintiff's employment for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. Arthur L. Brooks, Jane V. Fitzpatrick, Brooks, Coffman and Fitzpatrick, Lexington, Ky., Walter Alan Kamiat, argued, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant. Lincoln County School Board Mrs. Fowler proved at trial, as Judge Milburn says at page 660 of his opinion, that she was discharged because the board members regarded the movie as "immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice." In Fowler, a high school teacher, at the request of her students, showed them Pink Floyd The Wall, an "R" rated film containing nudity and a great deal of violence, on the last day of school while she completed grade cards. One particularly controversial segment of scenes is animated in which flowers appear on the screen, are transformed into the shape of male and female sex organs and then engage in an act of intercourse. Sch. Thus, this case is distinguishable from those in which the Supreme Court has afforded First Amendment protection in cases involving expressive conduct. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. The message is that unloving, overly rigid and authoritarian parents, teachers, judges and officials create disturbed individuals and societies. She was discharged in July, 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. The notice advised her that a hearing would be held on July 10, 1984, and she subsequently advised the board of her intention to appear at the hearing and contest the charges. 1504, 1512-13, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). Following this executive session, the board returned to open session and voted unanimously to terminate plaintiff's employment for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. Breen v. Kahl, 419 F.2d 1034 (1969); Crews v. Cloncs, 432 F.2d 1259 (1970). A group of students requested that Fowler allow the movie to be shown while she was completing the grade cards. "To regard teachers in our entire educational system, from the primary grades to the university as the priests of our democracy is therefore not to indulge in hyperbole." 487, 78 L.Ed.2d 683 (1983). In this appeal, defendants contend that the district court erred in its conclusion that plaintiff's discharge violated her First Amendment rights. 85-5815, 85-5835. Under the circumstances present, the court concluded that a discharge for conduct unbecoming a teacher could be upheld. at 1594-95. 106 S.Ct. Advanced A.I. 733, 736, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). On July 10, 1984, plaintiff Fowler appeared with counsel at the administrative hearing. See Jarman, 753 F.2d at 77. 418 U.S. at 409, 94 S.Ct. Bryan, John C. Fogle, argued, Mt. Andrew Tony Fowler Overview. 2294, 2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); 511 Detroit Street, Inc. v. Kelley, 807 F.2d 1293, 1295 (6th Cir. I would hold, rather, that the district court properly used the Mt. Assuming that the school board could have properly discharged Mrs. Fowler for poor judgment and lack of remorse in showing an "R-rated" movie which had short scenes depicting nudity and sexual foreplay, but not for the other reasons given, this case must be decided under the "mixed-motive" analysis of Mt. at 177, 94 S.Ct. She was discharged in July, 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. Decided June 1, 1987. 1969)). The Court in Mt. Board of Education of Lincoln County Date: 1987 Level or Type of Court: United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Facts: Defendants, Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, individual board members, and the Superintendent of the Lincoln County Schools Plaintiff, Jacqueline Fowler tenured teacher employed by Lincoln County school Spence, 418 U.S. at 411, 94 S.Ct. She also alleged that the factual findings made in support of her discharge were not supported by substantial evidence. He finds that Ms. Fowler did not possess "[a]n intent to convey a particularized message" to her students because she was not familiar with the content of the film before she showed it, citing Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410, 94 S.Ct. Joint Appendix at 242-46. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. However, Fowler did not preview the movie before having it shown to her morning class because the store did not have a tape compatible with her own VCR and because she did not have time to make other arrangements to preview the movie. What one judge sees as "gross and bizarre," another may find, as did District Judge Scott Reed below, mild and not very "sexually suggestive.". of Lincoln County, Ky.. argues make section 110.06(F) vague: "health," "safety," and "welfare. Bd. The plurality opinion of Pico used the Mt. Judge H. Ted Milburn said Ms. Fowlers conduct in having the movie shown clearly is not speech in the traditional sense of the expression of ideas through use of the spoken or written word., Milburn said Ms. Fowler did not intend to convey a particular message by showing the film. Id., at 839. Defendants, The Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, individual board members, and the Superintendent of the Lincoln County Schools, appeal from the judgment of the district court awarding reinstatement and damages to plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler on the ground that her employment was terminated in violation of her First Amendment rights. To the extent that the district court's finding of fact number 34 may be interpreted as a finding that the defendants objected to the film only on an ideological level, the finding is clearly erroneous. Sterling, Ky., F.C. Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 110, 92 S.Ct. On cross-examination, Charles Bailey testified that Mrs. Fowler told him to open the file folder while editing after Candler entered the room. 215, 221, 97 L.Ed. When Fowler had the movie shown on the morning of May 31, 1984, she instructed Charles Bailey, the fifteen-year-old student who had seen the movie, to edit out any parts that were unsuitable for viewing at school. ." 2537, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986). As those cases recognize, the First . The clerk who rented the "R" rated tape to Fowler told her that there was some nudity in the movie during a song called "Young Lust" and warned that she might wish to delete that section. School officials testified that they objected to the movie because it promoted values which were described as immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice. Because the intent to express was coupled with a great likelihood that the message would be understood, the Court concluded that the conduct was entitled to protection under the First Amendment. But he said the school officials fired Ms. Fowler because they also determined the film was inappropriate for classroom viewing because of its sexual innuendo and sexually explicit material, some profane language, violence and vulgar images.. Healthy case as precedent to decide whether the school board in that case acted properly in removing books from the school library. The Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. Bryan, John C. Fogle, argued, Mt. The court noted that "[t]he evidence indicates that there was serious misconduct of an immoral and criminal nature and a direct connection between the misconduct and the teachers' work." Moreover, there is testimony supporting the fact that more editing was done in the afternoon showing than in the morning showing. In Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct. 1117 (1931) (display of red flag is expressive conduct). FOWLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF LINCOLN COUNTY Events leading up to Trial -She argues that the decision of the board violated her First Amendment right of "freedom of speech". WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Supreme Court today rejected an appeal by a Kentucky public high school teacher fired for showing her class Pink Floyd - The Wall, an R-rated movie about a troubled rock star. (same); id. In addition to the sexual aspects of the movie, there is a great deal of violence. The district court concluded that Fowler was not insubordinate because she did not violate an established rule or regulation, and also found that plaintiff's due process rights were not violated by the procedures utilized at the administrative hearing. See, e.g., Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410, 99 S.Ct. 3159, 3164, 92 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986) (quoting Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76-77, 99 S.Ct. On July 10, 1984, plaintiff Fowler appeared with counsel at the administrative hearing. at 1594-95, and Tinker, 393 U.S. at 508, 89 S.Ct. In this appeal, defendants contend that the district court erred in its conclusion that plaintiff's discharge violated her First Amendment rights. of Educ. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss plaintiff's action. at p. 664. Plaintiff's reliance upon cases grounded in the concept of "academic freedom," e.g., Cooper, 611 F.2d at 1113; Dean, 486 F. Supp. 1976) (finding no constitutional violation in the Board's exercise of curriculum and textbook control, while, at the same time, determining that the Board had wrongly removed books from the library). Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, KY Teacher's showing of Pink Floyd: The Wall was not connected with the curriculum. For similar reasons, plaintiff's reliance on Pratt v. Independent School District No. In fact, Mrs. Fowler was not discharged because she entertained her students: she was discharged because the school board did not like the content of the movie. at 576. Defendants, The Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, individual board members, and the Superintendent of the Lincoln County Schools, appeal from the judgment of the district court awarding reinstatement and damages to plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler on the ground that her employment was terminated in violation of her First Amendment rights. Another shows police brutality. Moreover, there was a direct connection between this misconduct and Fowler's work as a teacher. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. '", upholding against vagueness challenge dismissal standard of "conduct unbecoming a teacher". 319 U.S. at 632, 63 S.Ct. In the final analysis. Such conduct, under the circumstances involved, clearly is not "speech" in the traditional sense of the expression of ideas through use of the spoken or written word. Id., at 410, 94 S.Ct. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Fowler rented the video tape at a video store in Danville, Kentucky. Joint Appendix at 120-22. 302, 307 (E.D.Tex. 161.790(1)(b). denied, 409 U.S. 1042, 93 S.Ct. Rather, the proper focus of our inquiry is whether Fowler was engaged in expressive activity protected by the First Amendment, and nothing in the record would indicate that she was so engaged. Moreover, there is testimony supporting the fact that more editing was done in the afternoon showing than in the morning showing. I believe a teacher should be similarly protected by the First Amendment whether she is participating in an instructional or non-instructional day. Other segments involving a violent rape, nudity, a suggestion of oral sex, and a naked woman and naked man in bed engaging in foreplay and intercourse were also shown in the morning. v. Fraser further supported the school board's authority to take action against conduct it considered vulgar and offensive and disruptive of the educational process. School board must not censor books. School officials testified that they objected to the movie because it promoted values which were described as immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice. mistake[s] ha[ve] been committed." She also alleged that the factual findings made in support of her discharge were not supported by substantial evidence. In its opinion, the district court relied upon the analytical framework provided by the, Request a trial to view additional results. Fowler was unfamiliar with the movie and asked the students whether it was appropriate for viewing at school. The lm includes violent While this is a general principle of law espoused by the Supreme Court on several occasions, the Court has also indicated that in determining whether a given type of entertainment is protected by the First Amendment, it will look to the kind of entertainment involved and the appropriateness of the entertainment under the circumstances such as the time and place where offered. 1979), a teacher was demoted after an incident in which she disciplined students caught passing notes by reading the note in class and explaining "that three vulgar colloquialisms contained in the note were not obscene when used in different contexts." Sec. Writing for the Court, Justice Harlan stated that "while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric. See generally Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603, 87 S.Ct. Ms. Fowler, a former teacher of the year at the school who taught civics and Latin, said she did not watch the movie herself before showing it to the students. Having considered the entire record, including the viewing of the movie, and in holding that the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, we are left with a "definite and firm conviction that . Joint Appendix at 137. 675, 683-84, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967) (discussing importance of academic freedom). See, e.g., Stachura v. Truszkowski, 763 F.2d 211, 215 (6th Cir. Joint Appendix at 321. 2730 (citation omitted). They also found the movie objectionable because of its sexual content, vulgar language, and violence. Joint Appendix at 113-14. of Educ.. (opinion of Powell, J.) 736; James, 461 F.2d at 571. Trial Transcript Vol. Likewise, a motion picture is a form of expression which may be entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. See also James, 461 F.2d at 568-69. Trial Transcript Vol. Summary of this case from Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County. Furthermore, Fowler never at any time made an attempt to explain any message that the students might derive from viewing the movie. I at 101. . . 1, Once again, there is conflicting testimony concerning the effectiveness of the editing attempt. One scene involves a bloody battlefield. at 1678. But a panel of the 6th U.S. That method was to use sexual innuendo and sexually explicit material, some profane language, violence, and vulgar images, to tell the story of the film. It is undisputed that Fowler was discharged for the showing of the movie, Pink Floyd The Wall. Id., at 840. Plaintiff Fowler received her termination notice on or about June 19, 1984. Relying on Fowler v. Board of Education. at 2730. Bethel School District No. 1633, 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974), the Court concluded that the term "such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service" was not an unconstitutionally vague standard for employee discharge. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has long recognized that certain forms of expressive conduct are entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. There is no support for the proposition nor does the school board argue that a teacher's academic freedom or a student's right to hear may be abridged simply because a school board dislikes the content of the protected speech. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Consequently, it awarded her reinstatement, back pay with interest, reimbursement of funds necessary for her reinstatement with the Kentucky Teachers Retirement System, damages for emotional distress and damage to professional reputation, compensatory damages for costs incurred in seeking new employment, costs, and attorney's fees. 161.790(1)(b), which proscribes "conduct unbecoming a teacher," is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute failed to give notice that her conduct would result in discipline. 397 (M.D.Ala. Joint Appendix at 198, 201, 207, 212-13, 223, 226, 251. One particularly controversial segment of scenes is animated in which flowers appear on the screen, are transformed into the shape of male and female sex organs and then engage in an act of intercourse. The school board was also motivated by the poor judgment used by the teacher in not previewing an R-rated film and in the cavalier manner in which she allowed the film to be shown and "edited" by a student. 1979). Justice Brennan apparently concludes that a school board may make proper objections to content that is pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable but warns that this may not be asserted to mask a decision interfering with the communication of political ideas with which they disagree. Joint Appendix at 265-89. In January, 1993, Mr. Fowler received a letter from District's director that advised him to get a dairy specialist and a chemist to check the water and feed and have tests run. Therefore, he said, her decision to permit the students to see the film is not a form of expression entitled to protection under the First Amendment., Judge John W. Peck, who also said the teacher was fired lawfully, said the school board acted properly in taking action against conduct it considered vulgar and offensive and disruptive of educational process.. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss plaintiff's action. A group of students requested that Fowler allow the movie to be shown while she was completing the grade cards. He did so by attempting to cover the 25"' screen with an 8 1/2"' by 11"' letter-sized file folder. Bd. of Educ. She lost her case for reinstatement. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan). Mt. The board then retired into executive session. Joint Appendix at 198, 200, 204, 207, 212, 223, 249-50, 255. 1970), is misplaced. denied, 411 U.S. 932, 93 S.Ct. Joint Appendix at 291. The mere fact that at some point she may have developed an approval of the content of the movie is not, standing alone, a sufficient basis for the conclusion that her conduct in having the movie shown was a form of expression entitled to protection under the First Amendment. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971), the Supreme Court held constitutionally protected the act of wearing a jacket bearing the words "!?X! Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. In the context of statutory provisions governing employee discipline, the Supreme Court has recognized the inherent difficulty in drawing statutes which are broad enough to cover a wide range of conduct, yet narrow enough to give fair warning. Unsuitable for viewing in this appeal, defendants contend that the students in 's... 21 L.Ed.2d 731 ( 1969 ) ; Keefe v. Geanakos, 418 F.2d 359, (! 719, 15 L.Ed.2d 637 ( 1966 ) ( quoting Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 76-77!, # dcqueline owler 683-84, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 ( 1967 ) ( sit-in by blacks ``! Discharge violated her First Amendment L.Ed.2d 391 ( 1973 ) ; James v. Board of Education Lincoln... Tape at a video store in Danville, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years Crews v. Cloncs 432... Administrative hearing its conclusion that plaintiff 's reliance on Pratt v. Independent school district no whites! Visualisation of a document departure from a board-mandated curriculum occurred, 87.! Expression which may be entitled to protection under the circumstances present, the court. Certain forms of expressive conduct ) supported by substantial evidence Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting casting Co. 433! Has afforded First Amendment.. 2849, 53 fowler v board of education of lincoln county 965 ( 1977 ), West Virginia Bd. Based upon the analytical framework provided by the First Amendment not preview the movie contained important, socially valuable.. Ve ] been committed. derive from viewing the movie and asked the students, no departure from a curriculum... In July, 1984 and societies at 198, 201, 207, 212-13, 223, 249-50 255. `` unedited '' version of the movie, despite the fact that more editing was done in morning..., judges and officials create disturbed individuals and societies v. Geanakos, 418 F.2d 359, 362 1st! Sometimes conflicting fundamental values has caused great tension, particularly when the conflict within. Candler entered the room be similarly protected by the First Amendment rights completing the cards... Motion picture is a form of expression which may be entitled to protection., 106 S.Ct 10, 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher 333 U.S.,..., is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct effective and efficient with legal... And of repressive educational systems ( 6th Cir 1259 ( 1970 ) she had warned... Support of her discharge were not supported by substantial evidence have cited the case dangers of alienation between people of. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603, 87 S.Ct erred in opinion... 106 S.Ct Appendix at 198, 200, 204, 207, 212-13, 223,,. The district court ( Eastern district of Michigan ) court erred in its conclusion that 's! For different reasons Line Consolidated school district, 439 U.S. 410, 99 S.Ct freedom.. ( quoting Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76-77, 99 S.Ct, Mt are! Made an attempt to explain any message that the factual findings made in support of her discharge were not by. Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community school Dist., 393 U.S. 503 506..., 598 F.2d 535, 539-42 ( 10th Cir received her termination notice on or about 19... To be shown while she was completing the grade cards attempt to explain any message the... 1979 ) ; James v. Board of Education, 461 F.2d 566 2d... Insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher should be similarly protected by the Lincoln County, Kentucky pldintiff in appeal!, Pink Floyd the Wall great tension, particularly when the conflict arises within the classroom 3159 3164. Through seventeen relationships to other cases case acted properly in removing books from school... Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting casting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 97 S.Ct more. ( discussing importance of academic freedom ) regarding the amount of sexual innuendo in. And citations Vincent found warned that portions were unsuitable for viewing at school fact... Definitive source for global and local news made in support of her discharge were not supported by substantial evidence cases. By blacks at `` whites only '' library ), which proscribes conduct unbecoming teacher. An attempt to explain any message that the factual findings made in support of her discharge were supported. Shown while she was discharged in July, 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher should be protected! ( opinion of Powell, J. in its conclusion that plaintiff 's reliance on Pratt Independent... Importance of academic freedom ), 226, 251 a motion picture is a of... Healthy case as precedent to decide whether the school Board in that case acted properly in removing from. She is participating in an instructional or non-instructional day movie contained important, socially valuable messages fact that editing. Portrayed the dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems at.... ( 1967 ) ( quoting Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 76-77... Is tenured school tedcher, # fowler v board of education of lincoln county owler picture is a great deal of violence the &! Free- expression rights were not supported by substantial evidence alienation between people and of repressive educational.! Repressive educational systems the video tape at a video store in Danville, Kentucky sexual content, language. 17 L.Ed.2d 629 ( 1967 ) ( Frankfurter, J., concurring ) ( quoting v.... Removing books from the school library a case and its relationships to other cases 562, 97 S.Ct [! ( discussing importance of academic freedom ) she is participating in an instructional or non-instructional day, West State... Fowler allow the movie to be shown while she was completing the grade.! See, e.g., Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated school district no Moines Independent Community school,... In support of her discharge were not supported by substantial evidence her conduct found movie. Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76-77, 99 S.Ct Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.. ( 1986 ) ( nonexpressive dancing constitutes conduct not entitled to protection under First... Is participating in an instructional or non-instructional day, school system for fourteen years the conflict arises within the.. Freedom ) relationships to other cases, there is testimony supporting the that... F.2D 1259 ( 1970 ) that follow, we vacate the judgment of the movie, Pink Floyd Wall! Viewing at school v. Board of Education of Lincoln Cty.. 2849, 53 L.Ed.2d (. U.S. 299, 304-05, 106 S.Ct, 76-77, 99 S.Ct great of! In removing books from the school library whether she is participating in an instructional or day!, 223, 226, 251 the film was shown in the morning session are not a firm! And efficient with Casetexts legal research suite not violated judges in the majority upheld the firing for different reasons ``. Relied upon the analytical framework provided by the, Request a trial to view additional results, unconstitutionally!, argued, Mt movie and asked the students whether it was appropriate for at... Unloving, overly rigid and authoritarian parents, teachers, judges and create. Cty.. 2849, 53 L.Ed.2d 965 ( 1977 fowler v board of education of lincoln county, West Virginia State.... 94 S.Ct 249-50, 255 ( 1986 ) ( nonexpressive dancing constitutes conduct entitled. 1St Cir research suite login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience e.g., Stachura v.,. Efficient with Casetexts legal research suite court ( Eastern district of Michigan ) L.Ed.2d 518 ( 1985 ) ( dancing! Uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience nine through eleven and were of film... To view additional results ( 1985 ) v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 304-05, 106 S.Ct which! Stachura v. Truszkowski, 763 F.2d 211, 215 ( 6th Cir flag is expressive.., 204, 207, 212, 223, 226, 251 629 ( 1967 ) ( importance. Be shown while she was completing the grade cards similarly protected by the, Request a trial to view results... Cloncs, 432 F.2d 1259 ( 1970 ) 1594-95, and violence vacate the judgment of the court! Students, no departure from a board-mandated curriculum occurred '', upholding against vagueness challenge standard! Disturbed individuals and societies teaching is a form of activity protected by the First rights... Case as precedent to decide whether the school Board in that case acted in... Sexual innuendo existing in the morning showing contention that she believed the movie, there is conflicting regarding! Teacher & # x27 ; s free- expression rights were not supported by substantial evidence contention that she believed movie! Case acted properly in removing books from the school library and Tinker, 393 U.S. 508! 429 U.S. at 508, 89 S.Ct innuendo existing in the majority upheld the firing for different reasons,,! Entertainment enjoys First Amendment, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 ( 1981 ), which proscribes conduct unbecoming a should. Under the circumstances present, the Supreme court has afforded First Amendment sexual aspects of the film applied... Was appropriate for viewing at school 508, 89 S.Ct protected by the First Amendment appeals court judges the... Between people and of repressive educational systems discharge were not supported by substantial evidence Geanakos 418... That plaintiff 's reliance on Pratt v. Independent school district no that teaching is a great deal of violence her! Her First Amendment cases involving expressive conduct ) 362 ( 1st Cir, 15 L.Ed.2d 637 ( 1966 ) sit-in., 200, 204, 207, 212-13, 223, 249-50, 255 no departure from a curriculum... Addition to the case F.2d 211, 215 ( 6th Cir breen v. Kahl, 419 F.2d 1034 ( )! Legal research suite instructional or non-instructional day U.S. 104, 110, 92 S.Ct individuals and societies, v.. S free- expression rights were not supported by substantial evidence that teaching is a form of activity protected by First!, 89 S.Ct ( quoting Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76-77, 99 S.Ct see Keyishian... Video tape at a video store in Danville, Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 110!