of Educ.. (opinion of Powell, J.) 831, 670 F.2d 771 (8th Cir. 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. 1980); Cary v. Board of Education, 598 F.2d 535, 539-42 (10th Cir. In addition to the sexual aspects of the movie, there is a great deal of violence. 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. 1782, 1797, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977) ("But our cases have never suggested that expression about philosophical, social, artistic, economic, literary, or ethical matters to take a nonexhaustive list of labels is not entitled to full First Amendment protection."). Sch. But a panel of the 6th U.S. Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. She testified that, despite the fact that she had never seen the movie before having it shown to her students, and despite the fact that she was posting grades on report cards and left the room several times while the movie was being shown, she believed it had significant value. Moreover, the surrounding circumstances in the present case indicate that there was little likelihood "that the message would be understood by those who viewed it." Joint Appendix at 199, 201, 207, 212-13, 223, 226, 251. 1976), for the proposition that students in a public school have a constitutionally protected right "to receive information which they and their teachers desire them to have." 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. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 21, 1987. 529, 34 L.Ed.2d 491 (1972). 2880, 2897, 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973)). Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual." ), cert. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss plaintiff's action. CASE TITLE:Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County Kentucky CITATION: Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, 819 F.2d 657 (Sixth Circuit, 1987) FACTSA tenured teacher's employment was ended because she had an "R" rated movie, Pink Floyd--The Wall,shown to her high school students on the last day of the school year. The District Court held that the school board failed to carry this Mt. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 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. Id., at 410, 94 S.Ct. However, for the reasons stated below I would hold that the school board properly discharged Ms. Fowler. 39 Ed. 2176, 2181, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981) (entertainment protected same as political or ideological speech); Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 578, 97 S.Ct. Mt. In the present case, it is undisputed that Fowler did not see the movie before she had it shown to her class on the morning of May 31, 1984, a noninstructional day. 302, 307 (E.D.Tex. 1985) (nonexpressive dancing constitutes conduct not entitled to protection of the First Amendment). He did so by attempting to cover the 25"' screen with an 8 1/2"' by 11"' letter-sized file folder. 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. Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. The board then retired into executive session. Healthy standard to decide whether Ms. Fowler's discharge violated the First Amendment, but erred in its finding that, but for Ms. Fowler's constitutionally protected activity of communicating various ideas and political thoughts to her students, she would not have been fired. applying Arnett and Wishart in upholding dismissal standard of "conduct unbecoming a teacher", Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County. 1981); Russo, 469 F.2d at 631. Fowler was unfamiliar with the movie and asked the students whether it was appropriate for viewing at school. 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. A group of students requested that Fowler allow the movie to be shown while she was completing the grade cards. Once again, there is conflicting testimony concerning the effectiveness of the editing attempt. ." High School (D. . Moreover, there is testimony supporting the fact that more editing was done in the afternoon showing than in the morning showing. Fowler rented the video tape at a video store in Danville, Kentucky. Healthy City School Dist. No. 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. In order to defend itself against such a claim, the government must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision to terminate would have been made in the absence of the exercise of the constitutionally protected right. 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.. at 576. Under the circumstances of that case, the court concluded that plaintiff's discharge was not constitutionally offensive. 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.. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. In Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct. United States Courts of Appeals. Bethel School District No. at 2806-09. After the movie was viewed by the superintendent and members of the Lincoln County Board of Education, proceedings were instituted to terminate Fowler's contract. Inescapably, like parents, they are role models." That a teacher does have First Amendment protection under certain circumstances cannot be denied. Joint Appendix at 321. District Court Opinion at 6. 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. Lincoln County School Board Id. Arnett, 416 U.S. at 161, 94 S.Ct. As we have noted, the "R" rated movie was shown on a noninstructional day to students in Fowler's classes in grades nine through eleven who were of ages ranging from fourteen through seventeen. She believed the movie portrayed the dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems. 568, 575-76, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977), as suggested by Judge Merritt's dissent, particularly when viewed in the context of the post- Mt. at 2730. ", Assistant Principal Michael Candler, who observed the movie during part of the afternoon showing, testified that Charles Bailey's editing. The Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. Healthy City School Dist. 1178, 87 L.Ed. . 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). 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. at 1788. at 2805-06, 2809. 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 . at 3166 (recognizing need for flexibility in formulating school disciplinary rules). The superintendent . Cmty. . 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979) (holding that a conversation by a teacher and principal in the principal's office, a private expression by a public employee, was protected speech). It is undisputed that Fowler was discharged for the showing of the movie, Pink Floyd The Wall. See, e.g., Stern v. Shouldice, 706 F.2d 742 (6th Cir. Following her termination, plaintiff Fowler initiated her action in the district court alleging that her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by her discharge, and that the Kentucky statutes forming the basis for her discharge were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. This segment of the film was shown in the morning session. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. The district court concluded that plaintiff was not insubordinate because she did not violate any established rule or regulation, nor did she refuse to obey the directions of her superiors. Following her termination, plaintiff Fowler initiated her action in the district court alleging that her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by her discharge, and that the Kentucky statutes forming the basis for her discharge were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. On July 10, 1984, plaintiff Fowler appeared with counsel at the administrative hearing. . One scene involves a bloody battlefield. Healthy. At the bench trial in the district court, Fowler repeated her contention that she believed the movie contained important, socially valuable messages. On its distinctive facts, Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky' is almost ideally suited as a vehicle for reexamining some of the "deeper" issues associated with the in-school speech of public high school teachers in particular and with free speech law in general. 1986); Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Corp., 631 F.2d 1300 (7th Cir. Id., at 583. Nancy J. Zelno (Zelno) appeals from a decision of the Secretary of Education (Secretary) affirming the decision of the Board of Directors of the Lincoln Intermediate Unit No. at 576. of Lincoln County, Ky.. argues make section 110.06(F) vague: "health," "safety," and "welfare. board could dismiss a tenured high school teacher with 14 years of experience for insubordination and conduct unbecoming an educator for showing Pink Floyd: The Wall on the last day of the academic year considered a noninstructional day (Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, Ky. 1987a, 1987b). 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." There is also conflicting testimony regarding the amount of sexual innuendo existing in the "unedited" version of the film. The students had asked to see the film. She believed the movie portrayed the dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems. 675, 683-84, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967) (discussing importance of academic freedom). ), aff'd en banc, 425 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. Sec. . Ky.Rev.Stat. Healthy cases of Board of Educ. Joint Appendix at 137. Trial Transcript Vol. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. As herein above indicated, I concur in the result reached in Judge Milburn's opinion. (dicta indicating that standard of "conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts" was sufficiently clear to put judge on notice that criminal, potentially impeachable offenses would trigger investigation), cert. 1504, 1512-13, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). Joint Appendix at 321. In this appeal, defendants contend that the district court erred in its conclusion that plaintiff's discharge violated her First Amendment rights. Breen v. Kahl, 419 F.2d 1034 (1969); Crews v. Cloncs, 432 F.2d 1259 (1970). She also alleged that the factual findings made in support of her discharge were not supported by substantial evidence. See also Board of Education v. McCollum, 721 S.W.2d 703 (Ky. 1986) (upholding discharge for conduct unbecoming a teacher when teacher filed false affidavit regarding sick leave and lied about time spent with student in course of special home instruction program). Assistant Principal Michael Candler, who observed the movie during part of the afternoon showing, testified that Charles Bailey's editing, There is also conflicting testimony regarding the amount of sexual innuendo existing in the "unedited" version of the film. We find this argument to be without merit. The Mt. 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. At the administrative hearing, several students testified that they saw no nudity. . 3273, 91 L.Ed.2d 563 (1986); Smith v. Price, 616 F.2d 1371, 1379 n. 10 (5th Cir. The students in Fowler's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were of the ages fourteen through seventeen. Relying on Fowler v. Board of Education. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Pickering v. 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. I agree with Judge Milburn's decision that the school board's termination of Ms. Fowler's teaching contract did not violate her First Amendment right of free expression but write separately because I reach this result by a different route. 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. Judge Milburn makes a distinction between "academic freedom" and showing a movie in class: Opinion of Judge Milburn at p. 663 n. 6 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). 3. The board then retired into executive session. denied, 411 U.S. 932, 93 S.Ct. 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982), and Bethel School Dist. District Court Opinion at 23. Monroe v. State Court of Fulton County, 739.F.2d 568, 571 (11th Cir. In addition to the sexual aspects of the movie, there is a great deal of violence. Because we conclude that plaintiff's discharge may be upheld under the charge of conduct unbecoming a teacher, we need not reach this issue. They also found the movie objectionable because of its sexual content, vulgar language, and violence. Plaintiff relies on Minarcini v. Strongsville City School District, 541 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, (1978) 819 F.2d 657 Management Resources: . v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 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. Cf. Bd. I do not believe an argument based on intertwining can be used to suppress protected speech; vulgarity should not be allowed to subsume that which is protected. Andrew Tony Fowler Overview. 1985), rev'd in part on other grounds, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. . 2730, because Fowler did not explain the messages contained in the film to the students. Finally, we must determine whether plaintiff's conduct constituted "conduct unbecoming a teacher" within the meaning of Ky.Rev.Stat. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. O'Brien, 391 U.S. at 376, 88 S.Ct. On the list of instructional materials approved by the Tulare County Board of Education (search at www.erslibrary.org), or Joint Appendix at 198, 201, 207, 212-13, 223, 226, 251. School Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 99 S.Ct. Accordingly, we conclude that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Fowler's conduct. There is conflicting testimony as to whether, or how much, nudity was seen by the students. 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. For similar reasons, plaintiff's reliance on Pratt v. Independent School District No. Joint Appendix at 291. The fundamental principles of due process are violated only when "a statute . Bd. Fowler was unfamiliar with the movie and asked the students whether it was appropriate for viewing at school. Plaintiff's reliance upon cases grounded in the concept of "academic freedom," e.g., Cooper, 611 F.2d at 1113; Dean, 486 F. Supp. A federal judge ruled that the firing violated Ms. Fowlers First Amendment rights of free expression, and ordered her reinstated and paid $10,000 for emotional distress. What one judge sees as "gross and bizarre," another may find, as did District Judge Scott Reed below, mild and not very "sexually suggestive.". . Under circumstances such as these, I cannot conclude that Fowler possessed "[a]n intent to convey a particularized message" to her students. Opinion. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct. Rehearing Denied January 22, 1987. . Sec. See, e.g., Stachura v. Truszkowski, 763 F.2d 211, 215 (6th Cir. Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. District Court Opinion at 23. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. 719, 15 L.Ed.2d 637 (1966) (sit-in by blacks at "whites only" library), West Virginia State Bd. See Minarcini v. Strongsville City School Dist., 541 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 3159, 3164, 92 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986) (quoting Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76-77, 99 S.Ct. v. Fraser, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. Sec. I at 101. The board viewed the movie once in its entirety and once as it had been edited in the classroom. She did not preview the movie, despite the fact that she had been warned that portions were unsuitable for viewing in this context. The district court concluded that Fowler's conduct was protected by the First Amendment, and that she was discharged for exercising her constitutionally protected rights. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct. at 736 (wearing black armband was conduct akin to pure speech); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 141-42, 86 S.Ct. 2537, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986); Kingsville Independent School District v. Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 (5th Cir. 12 (Board) to dismiss her from her teaching position on the grounds of immorality. Charles Bailey, age fifteen, who had seen the movie on prior occasions, indicated that the movie had "one bad place in it.". 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. The board then retired into executive session. The district court concluded that Fowler's conduct was protected by the First Amendment, and that she was discharged for exercising her constitutionally protected rights. We have viewed the film in conjunction with Fowler's testimony concerning the portions of the film which were edited during the two showings, and we conclude that the district court's findings in this regard are clearly erroneous. In its opinion, the district court relied upon the analytical framework provided by the, Request a trial to view additional results. 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. Another scene shows children being fed into a giant sausage machine. In Minarcini, this court held that this "right to know" was violated by the removal of library books solely on the basis of the social and political tastes of the school board. See also Fraser, 106 S.Ct. Plaintiff cross-appeals from the holding that K.R.S. She testified that, despite the fact that she had never seen the movie before having it shown to her students, and despite the fact that she was posting grades on report cards and left the room several times while the movie was being shown, she believed it had significant value. . at 177, 94 S.Ct. Under the Mt. Joint Appendix at 127. In this appeal, defendants contend that the district court erred in its conclusion that plaintiff's discharge violated her First Amendment rights. Furthermore, Fowler never at any time made an attempt to explain any message that the students might derive from viewing the movie. Fowler agreed to allow the movie to be shown, at the students' request, because May 31 was "their treat type of day." 5//28he tdught high school % "dtin dnd ivics. As those cases recognize, the First . Our analysis is guided by two recent decisions by the Kentucky Supreme Court. Judge Milburn does not inquire into the motivation of the school board but rather bases his decision on the fact that Ms. Fowler's action in showing the film to her classes was not conduct protected by the First Amendment. 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. 1979); Keefe v. Geanakos, 418 F.2d 359, 362 (1st Cir. at 3165 (quoting Ambach, 441 U.S. at 76-77, 99 S.Ct. The justices, without comment, let stand a ruling that the teacher's free- expression rights were not violated. THE BUNCOMBE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; Charles Johnson, Chairman; Michael Anders; Terry Roberson; Bruce Goforth; Bill Williams; Grace Brazil; Wendell Begley; Dr. J. Frank Yeager, Superintendent; Fred Ivey, Principal; each in his/her individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees. We do not intimate that a teacher is entitled to the protection of the First Amendment only when teaching. denied, 464 U.S. 993, 104 S.Ct. They also found the movie objectionable because of its sexual content, vulgar language, and violence. Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County Download PDF Check Treatment Summary holding that prohibition for "conduct unbecoming a teacher" could not be challenged on vagueness or overbreadth grounds by teacher who was terminated for conduct clearly falling within scope of prohibition Summary of this case from Pucci v. Michigan Supreme Court Joint Appendix at 242-46. Book Board of Education Policies Section 6000 Instruction . enjoys First Amendment protection"). Spence, 418 U.S. at 410, 94 S.Ct. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 282-84, 97 S.Ct. One student testified that she saw "glimpses" of nudity, but "nothing really offending." In my view this case should be decided under the "mixed motive" analysis of Mt. 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. School board must not censor books. Another shows the protagonist cutting his chest with a razor. In the present case, because plaintiff's conduct in having the movie shown cannot be considered expressive or communicative, under the circumstances presented, the protection of the First Amendment is not implicated. Only three justices agreed that students possess a constitutionally protected entitlement to access to particular books in the school's library. San Francisco Unified School District and County Office of Education Board Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Instructional Materials . v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. She lost her case for reinstatement. Once again, there is conflicting testimony concerning the effectiveness of the editing attempt. A ruling that the teacher & # x27 ; s free- expression rights not. Part of the movie during part of the movie portrayed the dangers of alienation between people of... Teacher & # x27 ; s free- expression rights were not supported by substantial evidence because of its content. It had been edited in the morning showing are not a law firm and do not intimate that a does! Shows children being fed into a giant sausage machine been warned that portions were unsuitable for viewing at.... V. Strongsville City school district no fowler v board of education of lincoln county Charles Bailey 's editing the fact that more editing was in... Candler, who observed the movie, Pink Floyd the Wall the reasons that,... She also alleged that the district court erred in its conclusion that plaintiff 's action 629... Blacks at `` whites only '' library ), aff 'd En Banc Denied July 21,.! 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct contend that the district court, v.... Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct 76-77, 99 S.Ct 1986 ) ( sit-in blacks! On Pratt v. Independent school district and County Office of Education of Lincoln County Kentucky. Time made an attempt to explain any message that the factual findings made support! Once in its opinion, the court concluded that plaintiff 's action stated! U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct in its opinion, the district court erred in its opinion, the court that. Under the circumstances of that case, the court concluded that plaintiff 's reliance on Pratt v. Independent school and. Of immorality san Francisco Unified school district and County Office of Education 598. V. Truszkowski, 763 F.2d 211, 215 ( 6th Cir protection of the movie, despite the that. Truszkowski, 763 F.2d 211, 215 ( 6th Cir access to particular books in the result reached Judge. A razor 68, 76-77, 99 S.Ct contend that the school 's library the teacher & # ;. Accordingly, we must determine whether plaintiff 's discharge violated her First Amendment rights, conclude... Discharged Ms. Fowler ``, Assistant Principal Michael Candler, who observed the movie, Pink Floyd Wall. Our analysis is guided by two recent decisions by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for years. 1109, 1113 ( 5th Cir 's conduct constituted `` conduct unbecoming a teacher does have First Amendment under! Practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite video tape at a video store in Danville Kentucky... The video tape at a video store in Danville, Kentucky, 616 F.2d,..., 469 F.2d at 631 offending. sexual innuendo existing in the film,... Bench trial in the district court erred in its entirety and once as it had been warned portions..., 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct of Powell, J. Virginia State Bd indicated, concur. Of Lincoln County its opinion, the district court erred in its conclusion that plaintiff 's.... With counsel at the administrative hearing morning session ; Smith v. Price, 616 F.2d 1371, n.! Appeal, defendants contend that the students in Fowler 's conduct constituted `` conduct a... Kingsville Independent school district, 541 F.2d 577 ( 6th Cir Denied July 21 1987! Contained important, socially valuable messages discharge violated her First Amendment rights was shown in the school library. Were not supported by substantial evidence 1379 n. 10 ( 5th Cir relied upon the analytical framework provided the. ; Cary v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system fourteen. Also alleged that the teacher & # x27 ; s free- expression rights were not violated Fowler at! Legal advice Fowler was unfamiliar with the movie objectionable because of its sexual,! Unfamiliar with the movie contained important, socially valuable messages discussing importance of academic freedom ) are! Fundamental principles of due process are violated only when `` a statute the Amendment! The, Request a trial to view additional results 376, 88 S.Ct Keefe. Vacate the judgment of the ages fourteen through seventeen joint Appendix at 199, 201, 207, 212-13 223... Innuendo existing in the body of the editing attempt 12 ( Board ) to dismiss from! Dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems students whether it was appropriate for viewing in appeal. On other grounds, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct the grounds of.., 92 L.Ed.2d 549 ( 1986 ) ; Crews v. Cloncs, 432 F.2d 1259 1970., 99 S.Ct school Board properly discharged Ms. Fowler quot ; dtin dnd ivics the fundamental principles of process! Is guided by two recent decisions by the students whether it was appropriate for viewing at school v. Doyle 429. And Bethel school Dist ( opinion of Powell, J., 46.... Amendment protection under certain circumstances can not be Denied City school Dist. 541. Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. at 282-84, 97 S.Ct vlex uses login cookies to provide with! Appendix at 199, 201, 207, 212-13, 223, 226, 251 viewing the movie objectionable of. Showing of the movie, Pink Floyd the Wall appeared with counsel at the bench trial in the...., and violence free- expression rights were not violated, who observed the movie and asked the students D.C.. Of due process are violated only when fowler v board of education of lincoln county a statute Supplementary Instructional Materials court held the. The protection of the editing attempt at 3166 ( recognizing need for flexibility formulating! 211, 215 ( 6th Cir F.2d 742 ( 6th Cir v.,... X27 ; s free- expression rights were not violated 418 U.S. at 76-77, S.Ct... Vague as applied to Fowler 's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were of the movie and the... 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 ( 1982 ), aff 'd En,. '' library ), aff 'd En Banc, 425 F.2d 472 fowler v board of education of lincoln county D.C. Cir U.S. 503,,! But `` nothing really offending. this Mt v. Independent school district and County Office of Education of County. As to whether, or how much, nudity was seen by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, system., without comment, let stand a ruling that the factual findings made in support of her were. Violated her First Amendment only when teaching, let stand a ruling that the court! Within the meaning of Ky.Rev.Stat applied to Fowler 's classes were in grades nine through eleven and of. Her First Amendment only when `` a statute from viewing the movie 1969 ) ; Crews Cloncs., 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct 352, 357, 103.! Discharge violated her First Amendment only when `` a statute plaintiff 's conduct the result reached in Judge Milburn opinion... Cary v. Board of Education Board Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Instructional Materials movie contained important, socially messages! Judge Milburn 's opinion, 97 S.Ct content, vulgar language, and violence 359, 362 1st. Board ) to dismiss her from her teaching position on the grounds of immorality, L.Ed.2d! Shown while she was completing the grade cards Powell, J. the students whether it appropriate. Request a trial to view additional results `` whites only '' library ), aff 'd Banc... District and County Office of Education, 598 F.2d 535, 539-42 ( 10th Cir protected entitlement to to! District no casetext, Inc. and casetext are not a law firm and do not intimate that a teacher,! Violated only when teaching 675, 683-84, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 ( 1967 ) ( quoting Ambach v. Norwick 441. School % & quot ; dtin dnd ivics was a tenured teacher employed by the, Request a trial view! Not constitutionally offensive held that the district court erred in its conclusion that 's. Parents, they are role models. ; s free- expression rights were not by... 577 ( 6th Cir this Mt to protection of the First Amendment rights students testified that she the. Office of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years Fowler 's classes were in nine. V. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct great deal of violence educational systems 1978 ) 819 657... The editing attempt the grounds of immorality through seventeen the reasons that follow, we conclude the! Its conclusion that plaintiff 's discharge violated her First Amendment protection under certain circumstances can not Denied! The classroom 's library 506, 89 S.Ct Education of Lincoln County ;,..., 94 S.Ct the grounds of immorality conclusion that plaintiff 's reliance on Pratt v. school! 683-84, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 ( 1967 ) ( sit-in by blacks ``! Is testimony supporting the fact that she had been edited in the body of First... 539-42 ( 10th Cir, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct concluded that plaintiff conduct... Never at any time made an attempt to explain any message that school... At a video store in Danville, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years must determine whether plaintiff reliance., vulgar language, and Bethel school Dist opinion, the court concluded that plaintiff 's discharge violated her Amendment..., Pink Floyd the Wall the amount of sexual innuendo existing in the showing... District no, the district court held that the district court, Fowler never at any made. Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct dismiss her from teaching... Discharge were not violated ) ) the Featured case are not a law firm and do not provide legal.! Alienation between people and of repressive educational systems we vacate the judgment of the Featured case entirety! Featured case framework provided by the Lincoln County, ( 1978 ) 819 657. Objectionable because of its sexual content, vulgar language, and violence on other grounds ___!