Question

1.3.7 Quiz: Analyze a Supreme Court Decision

Question 9 of 10
Read this excerpt from the majority opinion on Tinker v. Des Moines.
If a regulation were adopted by school officials 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.
What is the reasoning in this argument?
OA. If students can only talk about Vietnam during a classroom
exercise, then they should be allowed to wear armbands when not
in the classroom.
OB. If students can only discuss Vietnam during a class activity, then
they can only be allowed to wear armbands during that activity.
OC. If students were forbidden to express opinions about Vietnam in
school, it would be an obvious violation of their rights, so we
might as well forbid armbands as well.
D. If students were kept from discussing Vietnam in school, it would
be an obvious violation of their rights. so not allowing them to
← PREVIOUS
8

Answer 1

The reasoning in this argument is that if students were forbidden to express opinions about the Vietnam conflict in school, it would be an obvious violation of their rights. Therefore, not allowing them to wear armbands, which are a form of expression, would also violate their rights.

Step-by-step explanation:

The reasoning in this argument is that if students were forbidden to express opinions about the Vietnam conflict in school, it would be an obvious violation of their rights. Therefore, the argument suggests that not allowing them to wear armbands, which are a form of expression, would also violate their rights. The argument highlights the importance of protecting students' First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression.

Learn more about Tinker v. Des Moines, Constitutional rights, Freedom of speech and expression