Paul's constitutional right, in regards to the distribution of flyers, is that he has the right to express freedom of speech. However, when it is malicious or is defamatory, it is not protected by the Constitutional free Speech provisions ("US defamation laws & standards,” 2017). The word defamation alludes to a term, which encompasses all acts that damage the reputation of any individual and when made in writing, it is referred to as a Libel. However, when it is in the form of oral communication, it is called slander. Defamatory comments include false comments that an individual committed a particular crime or is involved in certain sexual undertakings. Under the US law, Libel is considered to be a tort or a civil wrong ("Libel, Slander, and Defamation Law: The Basics," 2019) and in this manner, Mr. Jones, the principal, has the right to sue Paul. However, in case Mr. Jones sues Paul for the defamation, the plaintiff has to prove four primary elements (Lee, 2019):
That the defendant had made a statement of fact to one or more individuals
The statement was in regards to the plaintiff
The statement was defamatory in nature; and
The libel statement was detrimental to the reputation of the plaintiff.
However, Mr. Jones would have to provide significant proof to show that the LLibel was intentional and that Paul meant malice through the action. This process was first initiated by a case between New York Times Co. V. Sullivan where Sullivan sued the newspaper company for defamation. Under the law of Alabama, Sullivan only required proof that there were faults in the newspaper regarding him and that they were deleterious to his reputation. In this case, the jury granted him $500,000 in damages, which was a considerable amount then. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision unanimously and eliminated the award. This was in a bid to preserve democracy and freedom of speech. In this manner, the Court implemented the "actual malice" test, which translates to the fact that no public official will win libel damages without the provision of substantiated proof that the statement was undertaken "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” (Wermiel, 2019, pr. 6). By using this argument, because Paul intended to damage the reputation of the principal, he can be sued by Mr. Paul even under the protection of the First Amendment because Mr. Paul can easily prove the intentions of the Libel as well as its source. Therefore, Paul is legally prevented from continuing to pass out the defamatory fliers.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Marijuana and Gang Attire
Paul’s constitutional right, regarding the “marijuana tee shirt” as well as gang attire on school property, is that he has the right to express himself, which is constituted in the right to freedom of expression. The freedom of expression extends to the message that students wear on their T-shirts as well as the manner in which they dye their hair. Students typically display their opinions on their T-shirts, and the views of the teachers and students are not enough to attain the Tinker Standard. Tinker V. Des Moines is a Supreme Court ruling that cemented the rights of students to free speech in public schools (“tinker v. Des Moines - landmark supreme court ruling on behalf of student expression,” 2019). However, because Paul’s school dress code is disruptive to the learning environments or does violate other’s rights, he cannot be allowed to wear as he pleases (The Marijuana and gang-related shirt). The first law on school dress code was founded in 1969 by the Supreme Court of the US. The case entailed several school students that wore black armbands to school, in a protest against the war in Vietnam. In a comprehensive decision, the Court ruled that the schools had the right to limit the expression of students (like implementing dress codes) in case there is a valid concern that their expressions will be troublesome to the learning environment. Presently, most states have laws, which permit schools boards to make resolutions on the dress codes of students inside their districts, in order to enhance safety, discipline within the school context, and minimize intrusion in schoolwork and to uphold uniformity as well as control in schools. Therefore, limits to the dress codes encompass the following (“School Dress Codes," 2019):
Restrictions on clothing that are gang-related.
Ban on themed T-shirts that are suggestive.
Limits on the length of pants, skirts, and shirts.
Prohibition of clothes, which expose body parts or underwear in a manner that is vulgar or indecent.
Dyeing of Hair
As per the constitutional rights, Paul has the freedom to dye to his hair as forcing him to conform to the school's rules violates his freedom of expression and it represents either the 14th Amendment liberty or a First Amendment free-expression, or equal-protection interest. For instance, one high school student from Virginia sued his school in a federal court, as they suspended him for dyeing his hair. In this case, the Federal Court reinstated the student because they found a violation of his constitutional right. However, this case has received mixed reactions. Other courts have resolved similar cases by dismissing the students’ claims citing a legitimate government interest under the due process of the constitution (“Can Your School Dictate Your Hair?”, N.d). As concluded by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the regulations on grooming are sensible methods for facilitating the educational committee's irrefutable interest in promoting cleanliness, ingraining discipline, attesting authority, and enforcing uniformity.
References
Can Your School Dictate Your Hair? (N.d). Tolerance.org . Retrieved 27 August 2019, from https://www.tolerance.org/sites/default/files/general/tt_can_school_dictate_hair_0.pdf
Lee, E. Douglas. (2019). Libel and Slander . Mtsu.edu . Retrieved 27 August 2019, from https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/997/libel-and-slander
Libel, Slander, and Defamation Law: The Basics . (2019). Findlaw . Retrieved 25 August 2019, from https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html
School Dress Codes . (2019). Findlaw . Retrieved 27 August 2019, from https://education.findlaw.com/student-rights/school-dress-codes.html
Tinker v. Des Moines - Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Behalf of Student Expression . (2019). American Civil Liberties Union . Retrieved 25 August 2019, from https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression
US Defamation Laws & Standards . (2017). RM Warner . Retrieved 25 August 2019, from http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/
Wermiel, Stephen. (2019). New York Times Co. v. Sullivan . Mtsu.edu . Retrieved 27 August 2019, from https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/186/new-york-times-co-v-sullivan
