# data[].attributes.body
Within pieces of texts, the different viewpoint on a topic can affect the tone that the author uses within his/her text. An author may be focused on informing the reader by stating only the facts, not how they feel in any way, shape, or form while an author focused on an inspirational approach to the topic, will include many more evident opinions. Within the Tinker vs. Des Moines Case, the different tones present themselves. Justice Abe Fortas used a more inspirational approach to the topic when he states, “The principle of these cases is not confined to the supervised and ordained discussion which takes place in the classroom. The principal use to which the schools are dedicated is to accommodate students during prescribed hours for the purpose of certain types of activities.” (Fortas). Fortas describes personal feelings rather than straight up facts. He describes what he believes what a schooling atmosphere should be like. Justice Hugo Black includes more facts: “Assuming that the Court is correct in holding that the conduct of wearing armbands for the purpose of conveying political ideas is protected by the First Amendment, cf., e.g., Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949),” (Black). Black uses facts to display a more informational claim in order to prove his point. Lastly, Catherine Ross provides an inspirational approach. She describes what she believes is right: “Teaching young people how to exercise their rights of citizenship and allowing them to do it is at the heart of our democracy.” (Ross). Ross uses no facts within her claim as to what should be used and strictly uses opinions. These multiple accounts of one similar event are told in different ways even though the event is the same, thus proving how a different approach to an event can lead to a much different tone used within a text.

# data[].attributes.body
Fortas and Black both write pieces in which the Diction is very formal, and those reading the document are generally government officials. Each Justice uses vocabulary  that is both formal and prestigious. Fortas describes risks taken by the students as a “must” which “our constitution” implores. He references supreme court case “Terminiello V. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)”  to provide support to his claim.  This reference indicates his formal knowledge and diction. Black writes his claim similarly, again using a formal diction. Black uses words such as “ushers”, “era”, and “pupils” to project his stature in the courts. In her radio interview, Ross conveys a more laid back, casual tone. The interview host opens the discussion with phrases such as “quick look” to appease a more casual audience. The use of the  word “we” in the interview creates a more inclusive environment in contrast to the very clean cut factual texts written by the Justices.

# data[].attributes.body
The three texts the diction and audiences vary. Supreme Court Justices Abe Fortas and Hugo Black speak in a formal tone since they are speaking to a professional audience. Fortas states that “there is here no evidence whatever of petitioner’s interference, atual or nascent, with the school’s work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone.” Using the term “evidence” shows that he is trying to prove a point and is very familiar with the topic he is discussing. His choice of words such as “atual” and “nascent” make it noticeable that he must be speaking to an important audience. Justice Black also speaked in this tone to a formal audience: “The Court concludes that the wearing of armbands is ‘symbolic speech’, which is ‘akin to pure speech’, and therefore protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Black’s choice of words show that he understands the topic fully and is making a decision. Mentioning the First and Fourteenth Amendments also gives off a professional tone and hints towards who his audience may be. In the Landmark Series, however, the tone and audience are less formal and more conversational. Ross states, “So, when you ask how it impacts our lives today, Tinker has been used to protect student’s speech…” Ross uses more casual language such as “So” which shows that his audience is not as formal as the audience of the texts written by Fortas and Black.

# data[].attributes.body
Each of the three texts cater to a unique audience and use a diction that is of the same type their demographic would be familiar with. Justice Abe Fortas writes in a formal way because he is writing the majority opinion for a Supreme Court Case that would be read by the public for years to come and stored as an official document. Since it is an official document it contains specific points with diction that carry the weight of the point he is trying to make. For example, when Abe Fortas talks about how the “case does not relate to regulation of the length of  skirts or the type  of clothing, to hairstyle, or deportment. Cf. Ferrel Sellmeyer, 158 Ark. 247, 250, S.W. 538 (1923),” it shows how serious the matter is through the diction and the in text citations. The second text shows this same level of formality, since it is on the same topic, but is from the perspective of the dissenting opinion. However, the third text is an interview from a  radio talk show host and his guest named “Ross”. This is an informal conversation in which the diction consists of a more casual diction. This can be seen from when the announcer says “You’re listening to the Supreme Court Landmark Series,” and concludes the interview with “Join us for more landmark Supreme Court case episodes at uscourts.gov., “ this shows that the document is more of a business front for an educational company.

# data[].attributes.body
In all three of the pieces, the speaker’s diction appropriately correlates to his or her audience. Justice Hugo Black and Chief Justice Abe Fortas both speak in a formal, addressing tone, in that they are both making a statement to a group of people in the Court. When Fortas gives the Court the Justices’ ruling, he proclaims, “there is here no evidence whatever of petitioners’’ interference, actual or nascent, with the schools’ work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be left alone.” His formal way of speaking and choice of words such as “nascent” and “collision with the rights” contribute to his addressive tone towards his audience. Similarly, Black, when arguing his dissenting opinion to the Court audience, he states,“the crucial remaining questions are whether students and teachers may use the schools at their whim as a platform for the exercise of free speech… and whether the courts will allocate to themselves the function of deciding how the pupils’ school day will be spent.” The words “crucial” and “allocate” help make his speech also sound very formal and addressing towards the audience. However, Ross, when speaking to the radio host about the trial’s affects on our country today, states to his audience, “so, if you cut off speech while people are learning both their own personalities and identities, and also how to behave in the world, you minimize the likelihood that they’ll be active participants in democracies.” The words “so” and “they” minimize the formality of her speech and make it seem as if she is having a conversation with only one person, as opposed to a statement to a group of people, like the Justices.

# data[].attributes.body
The style of syntax and diction changed amongst the passages because of their audience and purpose. In the first two passages, written by Justice Fortas and Justice Black, the diction is very formal. These two passages are written to document the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, therefore, the passages can be used as a reference in later court cases and must be formally written. When describing the purpose of the trial, Fortas references the First Amendment: “Our problem involves direct, primary First Amendment rights akin to ‘pure speech’” (paragraph 1). By including the First Amendment in his argument, Fortas provides strong evidence in a professional manner. Black uses this same technique in his writing as well: “The court brought this particular case here on a petition for certiorari urging that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of school pupils to express their political views ‘from kindergarten through high school.’” (paragraph 1). Once again, the reference to the amendments help in the contribution to a formal tone. Also, Black uses court vocabulary such as “certiorari” which would rarely be used in an informal setting. In addition to the formal diction, both Fortas and Black use correct syntax when forming their sentences. This creates a well structured and planned piece of writing. Contrary to the first two passages, the radio transcript uses informal diction and flexible syntax. These sentences use common phrases such as “a bit lower” instead a formal substitute (paragraph 4). Thus creating an informal approach. Moreover, this passage is a transcript of a conversation. Because of this, the sentences are much longer and less structured. Professor Ross, a speaker on the radio show, states her opinion on the Tinker v. Des Moines case by stating, “So, when you ask how it impacts our lives today, Tinker has been used to protect students’ speech that schools have improperly cut off, and that why its so important or average citizens, children, and their families, to  know the law and to use the law and to be prepared to stand up for it” (paragraph 9). This sentence contains many commas and repeats the word “and” several times. Because Ross is saying this outloud, the diction and syntax is very informal. Furthermore, the audience normally would not be using the transcript for evidential purposes. The passages written by the Justices are written in a formal, structured manner to be used for future cases, while the radio show transcript is informal with flexible sentences because of the conversational manner of the situation.

# data[].attributes.body
The three texts discussing the Tinker vs Des Moines case have different types of diction.  Each text uses a different way of describing the events.  Abe Fortas spoke in an intelligent way when delivering his opinion on the case, “that is 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.”  Fortas used extended vocabulary and often used adjectives throughout the text and uses this to make his points sound official and backed up with evidence.  Hugo Black often references other court cases to prove his point on Tinker v Des Moines, “In Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 554 (1965), for example, the Court clearly stated that the rights of free speech and assembly “do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time.” Black references other court cases to show that his evidence and points are credible.  Professor Ross does not seem to use evidence to why the decision is important.  Ross provides strong claims with weak evidence, “It’s a landmark case because it made very clear that we need to take the civil liberties of students seriously while they’re in the schoolhouse.” Even though it makes sense to take the liberties of students seriously, Ross has no statements saying how or why to take the liberties of students.

# data[].attributes.body
Two out of the three sources come from Supreme Court Justices, while the other is a simple conversation on a radio show. In the texts from the justices, there was a higher level of vocabulary, to better appeal to their audience. In the majority opinion by Fortas, he claims that the “Independent examination of the record fails to yield evidence that the school authorities had reason to anticipate that the wearing of the armbands would substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students.” While defending his claim, Fortas uses higher levels of diction, to show the sincerity of his ideas to his audience. Likewise, Justice black suggests the idea that “The Court brought this particular case here on a petition for a certiorari urging that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of school pupils…” Black, alike Fortas, uses a complex choice of words, to cater to his audience. On the contrary, the radio talk mentions the Supreme Court was “to make a very broad statement(Ross).” The conversation continues to have a lack of rich diction, which contributes to the informality of the text, compared the the two justice opinions.