Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

JOHN F. TINKER and Mary Beth Tinker, minors, by their father

    and next friend, LEONARD TINKER and CHRISTOPHER ECKHARDT,

    minor, by his father and next friend, William Eckhardt,

Petitioners,

v.

THE Des Moines INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it
exists in principle but not in fact. Freedom Of Expression would not truly exist if the right could
be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots.
The Constitution says that Congress (and the States) may not abridge the right to free speech.
This provision means what it says. We properly read it to permit reasonable regulation of
speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances. But we do not confine the permissible
exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or
to supervised and ordained discussion in a school classroom. ...

The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based
upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear
or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.
Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion
may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from
the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says
we must take this risk, Terminiello V. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949); and our history says that it is
this sort of hazardous freedom - this kind of openness - that is [393 U.S. 503, 509]
the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.