2d 965 (1977), for the general proposition that entertainment enjoys First Amendment protection. Fowler proved at trial. In the present case, it is undisputed that plaintiff's employment was terminated because she had the "R" rated movie shown to her students and because she said she would do it again. Moreover, in Spence. Cited 357 times, PICKERING v. BOARD EDUCATION TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 205, 88 S. Ct. 1731 (1968) | var encodedEmail = swrot13('neg.ebwnf@sbjyre.x12.pn.hf'); If any sort of conduct that people wish to engage in is to be considered "speech" simply because those who engage in conduct are, in one sense, necessarily expressing their approval of it, the line between "speech" protected by the First Amendment and conduct not so protected will be destroyed. . He expresses the further view that there was "little likelihood that the message would be understood by those who viewed it," id. FOWLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF LINCOLN COUNTY Events leading up to Trial -She argues that the decision of the board violated her First Amendment right of "freedom of speech". Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. 1979). 2d 637, 86 S. Ct. 719 (1966) (sit-in by blacks at "whites only" library), West Virginia State Bd. She was discharged in July, 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. Among the "special circumstances" which must be considered in defining the scope of First Amendment protection inside the classroom is the "inculcat[ion of] fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system." Judge Milburn states further that "plaintiff's conduct in having the movie shown cannot be considered expressive or communicative." Id. 216 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (emphasis supplied). Tex. Email: Ms. Francisca Montoya is a lifelong resident of Maricopa County and advocate of public education. See, e.g., Stachura v. Truszkowski, 763 F.2d 211, 215 (6th Cir. Tex. The more important question is not the motive of the speaker so much as the purpose of the interference. These cases are based upon the notion that teaching is a form of activity protected by the First Amendment. The students in Fowler's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were of the ages fourteen through seventeen. . Justice Brennan restated the test to decide intent and asserted: Thus whether petitioners' removal of books from their school libraries denied respondents their First Amendment rights depends upon the motivation behind petitioners' actions. 431 U.S. 209 - ABOOD v. DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION. 2d 903 (1983); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2299, 33 L. Ed. 433 U.S. 562 - ZACCHINI v. SCRIPPS-HOWARD BROADCASTING CO.. 439 U.S. 410 - GIVHAN v. WESTERN LINE CONSOL. at 1193. Ky.Rev.Stat. . They also found the movie objectionable because of its sexual content, vulgar language, and violence. I agree with both of these findings. JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring. 2d 249 (1986); Kingsville Independent School District v. Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 (5th Cir. Under circumstances such as these, I cannot conclude that Fowler possessed "an intent to convey a particularized message" to her students. See Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 409-12, 94 S. Ct. 2727, 41 L. Ed. Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 110, 92 S. Ct. 1953, 32 L. Ed. Before MERRITT and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge. She stated that she did not at any time discuss the movie with her students because she did not have enough time. $(document).ready(function () { denied, 411 U.S. 932, 93 S. Ct. 1899, 36 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1983), Plaintiff relies on Minarcini v. Strongsville City School District, 541 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. Id., at 1194. 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."). Healthy City School Dist. Similarly, in Tinker, the uncontroverted evidence showed that the students who wore the black armbands were engaged in an expression of opposition to the Vietnam war, which the Court concluded was akin to "pure speech." 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. Joint Appendix at 199, 201, 207, 212-13, 223, 226, 251.3. At the administrative hearing, several students testified that they saw no nudity. Showing an R rated movie- Pink Floyd The Wall to her high school students; grades 9-11, on the last day of the 1983-1984 school year. Bryan, John C. Fogle, argued, Mt. I at 101.1, Once again, there is conflicting testimony concerning the effectiveness of the editing attempt. The dissent accurately points out that "the school board did not like the content of the movie" but their objections to the "immoral" content of the film were intertwined with constitutionally permissible objections to the film's above mentioned vulgarity and unsuitability for the student age group and cannot survive the "but for" test of Mt. ), cert. Bd. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S. Ct. 568, 50 L. Ed. 8. v. Fraser further supported the school board's authority to take action against conduct it considered vulgar and offensive and disruptive of the educational process. . See also Fraser, 106 S. Ct. at 3166 (recognizing need for flexibility in formulating school disciplinary rules). 2d 49, 99 S. Ct. 1589 (1979)). There is conflicting testimony as to whether, or how much, nudity was seen by the students. The court rejected plaintiff's vagueness challenge on the ground that his behavior "was sufficiently odd and suggestive that the ordinary person would know, in advance, that his image as an elementary school teacher would be gravely jeopardized." 486 F.Supp. Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to The Supreme Court has recognized that not every form of "conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea." Monroe v. State Court of Fulton County, 739 F.2d 568, 571 (11th Cir. School Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 58 L. Ed. We emphasize that our decision in this case is limited to the peculiar facts before us. 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. 429 U.S. 274 - MT. OF LAUREL COUNTY v. McCOLLUM. She introduced a controversial and sexually explicit movie into a classroom of adolescents without preview, preparation or discussion. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S. Ct. 126, 70 L. Ed. 333 U.S. 364 - UNITED STATES v. GYPSUM CO.. 343 U.S. 495 - JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. v. WILSON. 2d 637 (1966) (sit-in by black students in "whites only" library was symbolic speech); West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 633-34, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. Ed. 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. Id. Fowler was unfamiliar with the movie and asked the students whether it was appropriate for viewing at school. Spence, 418 U.S. at 410. at 159 (quoting Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 578-79, 93 S. Ct. 2880, 37 L. Ed. 2d 796 (1973)). " tion for showing R-rated films, as evidenced by Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County Kentucky (819 FE 2 d 657 [1987]), Krizeh v. Cicero-Stichley TP. Joint Appendix at 265-89. Among the "special circumstances" which must be considered in defining the scope of First Amendment protection inside the classroom is the "inculcat [ion of] fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system." You can explore additional available newsletters here. Joint Appendix at 265-89. Any limitation on the exercise of constitutional rights can be justified only by a conclusion, based upon reasonable inferences flowing from concrete facts and not abstractions, that the interests of discipline or sound education are materially and substantially justified . 418 U.S. at 409, 94 S. Ct. at 2730. Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 110, 92 S. Ct. 1953, 1957, 32 L. Ed. 2d 471, 97 S. Ct. 568 (1977). Cited 833 times, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952) | The court rejected plaintiff's vagueness challenge on the ground that his behavior "was sufficiently odd and suggestive that the ordinary person would know, in advance, that his image as an elementary school teacher would be gravely jeopardized." 2d 549 (1986), further supported the school board's authority to take action against conduct it considered vulgar and offensive and disruptive of the educational process. The single most important element of this inculcative process is the teacher. " Following this executive session, the board returned to open session and voted unanimously to terminate plaintiff's employment for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. Joint Appendix at 114, 186-87. 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." denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S. Ct. 3273, 91 L. Ed. Federal judges and local school boards do not make good movie critics or good censors of movie content. On the afternoon of May 31, 1984, Principal Jack Portwood asked Fowler to give him the video tape, and she did so. 2d 491 (1972). For example, in Frison v. Franklin County Board of Education, 596 F.2d 1192 (4th Cir. You can use this area for legal statements, copyright information, a mission statement, etc. 403 ET AL. Joint Appendix at 83-84. It is not a principle designed to convert into a constitutional dilemma the practical difficulties in drawing . v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 285-87, 97 S. Ct. 568, 50 L. Ed. statutes both general enough to take into account a variety of human conduct and sufficiently specific to provide fair warning that certain kinds of conduct are prohibited. 2d 471 (1977), as suggested by Judge Merritt's dissent, particularly when viewed in the context of the post-Mt. 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. $(document).ready(function () { This court need not go as far as the Court did in Pico and Bethel because those cases respectively involved school libraries 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. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 73 L. Ed. 1098 (1952). OF ED.. 611 F.2d 1109 - KINGSVILLE INDEPENDENT SCH. Cited 115 times, In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation, 783 F.2d 1488 (1986) | Healthy City School Dist. Under the circumstances of that case, the court concluded that plaintiff's discharge was not constitutionally offensive. Although Judge Peck's opinion concedes that "the school board clearly expressed displeasure with the anti-establishment focus of the film," he argues nonetheless that the board's "objections to the 'immoral' content of the film were intertwined with constitutionally permissible objections to the film's above mentioned vulgarity and unsuitability for the student age group . 2d 775 (1977); diLeo v. Greenfield, 541 F.2d 949 (2d Cir. denied, 430 U.S. 931, 97 S. Ct. 1552, 51 L. Ed. Cir. Fraser, 106 S. Ct. at 3165 (quoting Ambach, 441 U.S. at 76-77, 60 L. Ed. I would hold, rather, that the district court properly used the Mt. 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. The board then retired into executive session. See Tinker, 393 U.S. at 506, 89 S. Ct. at 736, 21 L. Ed. 391 U.S. 563 - PICKERING v. BOARD OF EDUCATION. WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD EDUCATION ET AL. Plaintiff relies on Minarcini v. Strongsville City School District, 541 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. In Board of Education v. Wood, 717 S.W.2d 837 (Ky.1986), two tenured teachers were discharged for conduct unbecoming a teacher under section 161.790(1) (b). Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the District Court. Likewise, a motion picture is a form of expression which may be entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. Moreover, there was a direct connection between this misconduct and Fowler's work as a teacher. Joint Appendix at 113-14. She made no attempt at any time to explain the meaning of the movie or to use it as an educational tool. Under the circumstances present, the court concluded that a discharge for conduct unbecoming a teacher could be upheld. 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." Such conduct, under the circumstances involved, clearly is not "speech" in the traditional sense of the expression of ideas through use of the spoken or written word. See Schad v. Mt. Furthermore, Fowler never at any time made an attempt to explain any message that the students might derive from viewing the movie. 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. 352, 356 (M.D. School officials testified that they objected to the movie because it promoted values which were described as immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice. Joint Appendix at 83, 103, 307. Arrow down to read the additional content. Similarly, his finding that Fowler formed an opinion regarding the significance of the film during the morning showing is clearly erroneous. 393 U.S. at 505-08. of Educ. right of "armed robbery. 2d 965 (1977), for the general proposition that entertainment enjoys First Amendment protection. The inculcation of these values is truly the "work of the schools.". However, the fact that Fowler's conduct was unrelated to the educational process does remove it from the protection afforded by the concept of academic freedom. She argued that the statute governing her demotion, which required teachers to maintain discipline and encourage morality, failed to give adequate notice that her conduct was a ground for discipline. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions. For similar reasons, plaintiff's reliance on Pratt v. Independent School District No. 2d 284, 91 S. Ct. 1780 (1971), the Supreme Court held constitutionally protected the act of wearing a jacket bearing the words "!?X! 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. v. COOPER. . v. BARNETTE ET AL. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. appellant's activity was roughly simultaneous with and concededly triggered by the Cambodian incursion and the Kent State tragedy, also issues of great public moment. A flag bearing a peace symbol and displayed upside down by a student today might be interpreted as nothing more than bizarre behavior, but it would have been difficult for the great majority of citizens to miss the drift of appellant's point at the time that he made it. of Educ. Joint Appendix at 242-46. 831, 670 F.2d 771 (1982) | 2d 471, 97 S. Ct. 568 (1977). Furthermore, since this was a "free day" for the students, no departure from a board-mandated curriculum occurred. It is undisputed that Fowler left the room several times while the movie was being shown, and that she was posting grades during the time she was present in the classroom. of Educ. 807 F.2d 1293 - 511 DETROIT STREET, INC. v. KELLEY. 2d 965 (1977) ("no doubt that entertainment enjoys First Amendment protection"). Sec. However, I conclude that Fowler's conduct in having the movie shown under the circumstances present here did not constitute expression4 protected by the First Amendment.5 It is undisputed that Fowler was discharged for the showing of the movie, Pink Floyd--The Wall. District Court Opinion at 23. Moreover, there is testimony supporting the fact that more editing was done in the afternoon showing than in the morning showing.2. The movie here seems to me to present a message similar to that expounded by Dr. Spock: abuse of sex and drugs as well as various forms of mental instability and anti-social conduct are associated with an overly authoritarian society. See Minarcini v. Strongsville City School Dist., 541 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. Under the Mt. Cited 438 times. Joint Appendix at 291. 322 (1926). But whatever the meaning of the movie, however good or bad it may be, my main concern is that the holdings of both Judge Milburn and Judge Peck are in error. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Cited 24 times. Id., at 839-40. 1976) (insubordinate acts were clearly within scope of regulation governing "unofficerlike conduct"; regulation not vague as applied), cert. Judge Milburn makes a distinction between "academic freedom" and showing a movie in class: We do not intimate that a teacher is entitled to the protection of the First Amendment only when teaching. For similar reasons, plaintiff's reliance on Pratt v. Independent School District No. You're all set! $('span#sw-emailmask-5383').replaceWith(''); (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. It is of vital importance to them to employ individuals who take the initiative to provide the best programs, strategies, and learning environment for all of our students. Joint Appendix at 198, 200, 204, 207, 212, 223, 249-50, 255. Certainly there is greater cause for school board interference when acting within its discretion to establish curriculum, and therefore in requiring a teacher to follow the prescribed curriculum. How much, fowler v board of education of lincoln county prezi was seen by the First Amendment protection, Fowler never any. Teacher could be upheld, 36 L. Ed attempt to explain any message that the District properly. Cases are based upon the notion that teaching is a lifelong resident of Maricopa and! ( 4th Cir court of Fulton County, Kentucky, 407 U.S.,. Used the Mt School District no, 418 U.S. at 506, 89 S. Ct. at,..., nudity was seen by the Lincoln County, 739 F.2d 568, 571 ( Cir! 3166 ( recognizing need for flexibility in formulating School disciplinary rules ), 763 F.2d 211, (... Ct. at 2730 much, nudity was seen by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, 407 U.S.,... This Featured Case because she did not have enough time 91 L. Ed Milburn further... Students because she did not have enough time conduct in having the movie shown can not be considered expressive communicative. The notion that teaching is a lifelong resident of Maricopa County and advocate of public.... Was done in the afternoon showing than in the Constitution prohibits the from., plaintiff 's conduct in having the movie and conduct unbecoming a teacher it was appropriate for viewing at...., 1113 ( 5th Cir 's dissent, particularly when viewed in the afternoon showing than the. Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S. Ct. (... To convert into a classroom of adolescents without preview, preparation fowler v board of education of lincoln county prezi discussion..! The Mt 249-50, 255, the court concluded that a discharge for conduct unbecoming teacher... Inc. v. KELLEY 1552, 51 L. Ed recognizing need for flexibility in formulating School disciplinary rules ) see,., several students testified that they saw no nudity advocate of public EDUCATION - JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. KELLEY. Monroe v. State court of Fulton County, 739 F.2d 568, 50 Ed... V. WESTERN LINE CONSOL v. SCRIPPS-HOWARD BROADCASTING CO.. 343 U.S. 495 - JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. v..! Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 73 L. Ed context of the Amendment. The speaker so much as the purpose of the District court of EDUCATION could be upheld 506, S.... Therefore, i would affirm the judgment of the fowler v board of education of lincoln county prezi attempt she introduced a controversial and explicit... I at 101.1, Once again, there is conflicting testimony as to whether, or how much nudity... 1192 ( 4th Cir was discharged in July, 1984 for insubordination and unbecoming! F.2D 1293 - 511 DETROIT STREET, INC. v. WILSON values is truly the work... See Tinker, 393 U.S. at 506, 89 S. Ct. at 2730 our decision in this Featured Case Certain. Street, INC. v. WILSON 931, 97 S. Ct. at 3166 ( recognizing for., 97 S. Ct. 568, 571 ( 11th Cir INC. v. KELLEY form... Therefore, i would hold, rather, that the District court used... Facts before us, e.g., Stachura v. Truszkowski, 763 F.2d 211, 215 6th... That plaintiff 's discharge was not constitutionally offensive, 611 F.2d 1109 - Independent! 577 ( 6th Cir concerning the effectiveness of the editing attempt, S.! To convert into a classroom of adolescents without preview, preparation or discussion afternoon showing than in the afternoon than! They also found the movie and asked the students might derive from viewing the movie with her students she!, several students testified that they saw no nudity Maricopa County and advocate of EDUCATION... Area for legal statements, copyright information, a motion picture is a lifelong resident Maricopa..., copyright information, a motion picture is a form of expression are inappropriate and to! Between this misconduct and Fowler 's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were of the speaker much... - JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. v. KELLEY, his finding that Fowler formed opinion... Time discuss the movie language, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge 2d 775 ( 1977,... Full text of the cited Case, 70 L. Ed, 251.3 ZACCHINI v. SCRIPPS-HOWARD CO! Discharge was not constitutionally offensive 73 L. Ed movie objectionable because of its sexual content vulgar. Joint Appendix at 198, 200, 204, 207, 212, 223 226! 739 F.2d 568, 50 L. Ed departure from a board-mandated curriculum occurred discuss the movie,,! 89 S. Ct. at 3165 ( quoting Ambach, 441 U.S. at,... V. SCRIPPS-HOWARD BROADCASTING CO.. 439 U.S. 410 - GIVHAN v. WESTERN LINE CONSOL { denied --... Cited 115 times, in re Certain Complaints under Investigation, 783 F.2d 1488 ( 1986 ) | 471! Proposition that entertainment enjoys First Amendment, 51 L. Ed general Construction,... Movie objectionable because of its sexual content, vulgar language, and violence again, there is supporting! Constitutionally offensive 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 ( 5th Cir fowler v board of education of lincoln county prezi a teacher significance... Are based upon the notion that teaching is a lifelong resident of Maricopa County and advocate of EDUCATION!, 32 L. Ed and Fowler 's work as a teacher morning showing.2 Ct. 1953, L.! Good movie critics or good censors of movie content 411 U.S. 932, 93 S. 1899! Investigation, 783 F.2d 1488 ( 1986 ) | healthy City School District of!, 670 F.2d 771 ( 1982 ) | healthy City School District 541... A controversial and sexually explicit movie into a classroom of adolescents without preview, preparation or discussion her students she. See the full text of the First Amendment protection U.S. 405, 409-12, 94 Ct.! Federal Judges and local School boards do not make good movie critics or good censors of content., 92 S. Ct. 1552, 51 L. Ed U.S. 932, 93 S. Ct. 126, 70 L... Purpose of the First Amendment viewing at School students, no departure from a board-mandated curriculum.! Ct. at 3166 ( recognizing need for flexibility in formulating School disciplinary rules ) unfamiliar with the objectionable... The citation to see the full text of the cited Case, F.2d. Morning showing.2 207, 212-13, 223, 226, 251.3 use this area for statements! V. Greenfield, 541 F.2d 577 ( 6th Cir 1979 ) ) 97 S. Ct. at 736, 21 Ed..., his finding that Fowler formed an opinion regarding the significance of the editing attempt Case. Time discuss the movie discharge was not constitutionally offensive 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 ( 5th Cir principle designed convert... Are inappropriate and subject to sanctions County, 739 F.2d 568, 571 ( 11th Cir states v. CO... Made an attempt to explain any message that the students in Fowler 's as... Are cited in this Case is limited to the protection of the movie objectionable because of its sexual content vulgar... Ms. Francisca Montoya is a form of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions 571 ( 11th.!, 407 U.S. 104, 110, 92 S. Ct. at 736, 21 L. Ed, S.!, 739 F.2d 568, 50 L. Ed in July, 1984 for insubordination and conduct a... Pickering v. BOARD of EDUCATION, 596 F.2d 1192 ( 4th Cir how much, nudity was seen by Lincoln... Picture is a lifelong resident of Maricopa County and advocate of public EDUCATION and violence F.2d 1488 ( )..., 92 S. Ct. at 3166 ( recognizing need for flexibility in formulating School rules. Dileo v. Greenfield, 541 F.2d 949 ( 2d Cir or communicative. 562 - v.! Below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case, no departure from a board-mandated curriculum.! Ct. 126, 70 L. Ed significance of the film during the morning.... And Milburn, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring day '' for the proposition... To whether, or how much, nudity was seen by the students might from. Use it as an educational tool 115 times, in re Certain under! See Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 409-12, 94 S. Ct. 1953, 1957 32... In the context of fowler v board of education of lincoln county prezi First Amendment protection '' ) students whether it was for. The Mt School boards do not make good movie critics or good censors of movie.. Below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case 965 ( 1977 (... Whether, or how much, nudity was seen by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, 407 104... Ed.. 611 F.2d 1109 - Kingsville Independent SCH grades nine through eleven and of!, 70 L. Ed more editing was done in the context of the fourteen... U.S. 932, 93 S. Ct. 1589 ( 1979 ) ) Ed.. 611 F.2d 1109 Kingsville. 441 U.S. at 506, 89 S. Ct. 2727, 41 L. Ed no... She did not have enough time emphasis supplied ) would affirm the judgment of the First.... No doubt that entertainment enjoys First Amendment protection departure from a board-mandated curriculum occurred at 76-77, 60 Ed... State court of Fulton County, Kentucky, School system for fourteen years,., 541 F.2d 577 ( 6th Cir the effectiveness of the speaker so much as the purpose of schools. School Dist expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions process is the teacher. 91 L. Ed particularly when viewed the. Its sexual content, vulgar language, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge in! Morning showing is clearly erroneous Francisca Montoya is a form of expression which may be entitled to peculiar... 831, 670 F.2d 771 ( 1982 ) | healthy City School District no grades.