- 著者
-
渡辺 英雄
- 出版者
- 新潟大学
- 雑誌
- 現代社会文化研究 (ISSN:13458485)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.23, pp.89-99, 2002-03
In this article, I consider how the Supreme Court of the United States has applied the standard adopted by Tinker, whether teachers can constitutionally restrict the student's freedom of speech, to later cases. Especially, I refer to three cases in which the Supreme Court applied that standard in the 1980's. It the Pico case at 1982, plurality opinion of the judges decided that removal of certain books from school libraries by the board of education was unconstitutional because the special characteristics of the school library made it's environment especially appropriate for the students to recognize their First Amendment rights. As to matters of curriculum, instead, discretion was recognized broadly to accomplish the duty of inculcating community values upon students. In Fraser at 1986, the regulation by school officials concerning obscene speech of student at the assembly as a curriculum was judged constitutional because the school mission of education could be violated if it was permitted. The Hazelwood judgment in 1988 was a crucial shift. Opinion of the court distinguished the speech, which is the personal expression of the student in the Tinker case, and 'the school sponsored speech'. And a passive jurisdiction rule was applied to the latter one so as to allow the school officials to exercise extended authority. Through the consideration of these judgments, then, I present the conclusion that the purpose of the public education which the Supreme Court of the United States has set up, is consistently based on "Civil Education".