Summary Of The Barr And Melon Case

In this case, the general tension within and surrounding the School should be sufficient to help support the School in proving a reasonable forecast of a substantial disruption. This case is similar to Barr and Melton, as all three of these cases had pre-existing tension that resulted in or could contribute to a substantial disruption occurrence. Examples of prior tension in this case include: the past illegal steroid use scandal, general community disapproval of medical marijuana, and the brawl that resulted from students wearing apparel with a controversial expression. (R. 20, 21). These past instances are comparable to the contentious environments described in Barr and Melton that ultimately led to the schools restricting speech in fear of disruption. This case is discernable from Tinker, as in Tinker, there was no evidence of pre-existing tension surrounding the school nor was any tension created as a result of the
armbands. Moreover, although Tinker does not require violence, the School in this case should be able to use a fear of an eruption of violence to substantiate an argument for a reasonable forecast of a substantial disruption.
In Barr, some students skipped school, as they feared the possibility of a violent situation. In Melton, police had to come to school to stop violent confrontations from happening. The schools in these cases intervened by restricting the expression encompassing this violence. This case is similar, as a near-violent confrontation broke out in which the Student and another student were yelling at one another until each of them were red in the face. (R. 27). Had the School not stepped in here and restricted the Student’s expression, more near-violent and possibly entirely violent situations could have possibly occurred following. The Tinker case is different here as in Tinker; the court found that there were not any near-violent or violent acts that occurred on the school premises while the students wore the
armbands. Lastly, the School in this case should be able to utilize the existence of perceivable threats in support of reaching a reasonable forecast of a substantial disruption. According to Barr, there were numerous instances of life-threatening graffiti and threats made to students on school premises. The court in Barr found that the school reinforced its claim of a reasonable forecast by showing that the threats and graffiti would casually link to a likely disruption. The case at hand is similar as the Student’s expression here resulted in numerous remarks that a reasonable person could possibly perceive as threatening. The threats in this case included when other students told the Student to watch his back, chants about deaths to druggies, and a threat about a knife going into the Student’s back. (R. 13, 14). These threats differentiate this case from Tinker, as in Tinker, though hostile remarks existed, none of these remarks amounted to the level of life-threatening mentioned in our case and Barr. For the reasons mentioned above, the School should be able to prove that there was a reasonable forecast of a substantial disruption of school activities.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the School did not violate the Student’s First Amendment rights by restricting the Student’s expression. The court here should affirm the district court’s decision to grant the School summary judgment as the Student’s expression encourages illegal drug use. Also, the Student’s expression can be reasonably forecast to cause a substantial disruption of school activities. Thank you.