1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
fomenos
3 years ago
7

Read this passage from Justice Fortas's majority opinion on Tinker v. Des Moines: If a regulation were adopted by school officia

ls forbidding discussion of the Vietnam conflict, or the expression by any student of opposition to it anywhere on school property except as part of a prescribed classroom exercise, it would be obvious that the regulation would violate the constitutional rights of students. Which is the best summary of the passage? A. "If a regulation were adopted by school officials forbidding discussion of the Vietnam conflict," except as a class activity, it would be clear that the rule "would violate the constitutional rights of students." B. The majority opinion, correctly, in my view, argues that the rights of the poor students who can only express their views on Vietnam during a ridiculous class activity are clearly violated. C. In Tinker v. Des Moines Justice Fortas argues that it would be obvious that students' rights are violated "if a regulation were adopted by school officials forbidding discussion of the Vietnam conflict . . . except as part of a prescribed classroom exercise." D. In his majority opinion on Tinker v. Des Moines, Justice Fortas argues that if students were not allowed to talk about Vietnam at school, unless as a class activity, it would be an obvious violation of their rights.
History
2 answers:
Alla [95]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

The correct answer is C. In Tinker v. Des Moines Justice Fortas argues that it would be obvious that students' rights are violated "if a regulation were adopted by school officials forbidding discussion of the Vietnam conflict . . . except as part of a prescribed classroom exercise."

Explanation:

The opinion of Justice Fortas, which corresponds to the majority position of the Court in the case, establishes that the prohibition to students to discuss positions regarding the Vietnam War is clearly in violation of the students' rights to express their opinions, which is framed in the right to freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Ksivusya [100]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

D. In his majority opinion on Tinker v. Des Moines, Justice Fortas argues that if students were not allowed to talk about Vietnam at school, unless as a class activity, it would be an obvious violation of their rights.

Explanation:

The Tinker versus Des Moines case was basic in figuring out what the right to speak freely looks like in state funded schools. It began when Mary Beth Tinker, and a portion of her companions, wore dark armbands with a gesture of goodwill on them to challenge the Vietnam War. The school rebuffed her and her companions for wearing this armband. This case experienced neighborhood and state courts before setting off to the Supreme Court.

You might be interested in
Please help ASAP!
ira [324]
Heyo, I believe your answer would be C. Closed Door Policy. It's the only one that makes most sense out of the three choices.
5 0
3 years ago
What present day city is located near where fort duquesne once stood
Delicious77 [7]
Pittsburgh is where Fort Duquesne once stood.
4 0
3 years ago
Why is the precambrian not divided into many time subdivisions whereas the paleozoic, mesozoic and cenozoic are?
Ludmilka [50]
I think It not suppose to 
4 0
3 years ago
Which of the following questions will help you discover your self-management skills?
Fynjy0 [20]

Answer:

B. Can I think of a time when I used this skill

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
In your own words provide and objective summary of amendment V. Then describe three present day situations where this law might
miv72 [106K]
Basically, the fifth amendment gives you rights in courts to protect yourself against a government that might illegally prosecute you. It prevents the government from making you testify against yourself if you don't want to vote and it provides you with a jury that decides your faith to prevent there being a judge that works for the government. One might be if you're a dissident so the jury protects you. Another is if your property gets taken away then they have to give you payment to make up for it. Another modern thing could be if they wanted to put you on trial for the same offense again and the fifth would protect you from it.
7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What amendments are being violated? and why?
    15·1 answer
  • Which of the early African kingdoms gained favor with Muslim merchants by converting to Islam in order to increase their control
    8·1 answer
  • Match these items. 1. number of delegates who signed the Constitution Legislative branch 2. can create, alter, or repeal laws 39
    6·1 answer
  • 1. In the U.S. Civil War, both Union and Confederate armies used
    9·1 answer
  • The New England Indians Question 1 options: 1) were naturally resistant to smallpox. 2) were greatly divided among themselves in
    8·1 answer
  • Can someone please write a haiku about animal abuse?
    15·1 answer
  • what could have been done by the international community to prevent WW2 and the rise of hitlers regime?
    15·1 answer
  • Please help!! It would mean so much! I will mark you as brainliest!
    9·1 answer
  • Rulers of the Zhou dynasty established a Mandate of heaven to (blank).
    12·2 answers
  • Why did General Howe enjoy being stationed in Philadelphia?​
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!