<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) by Zulyneishka Velazquez Ramirez</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/velazquezramirezz1/1ngrd55y8ybko4mg</link>
      <description>United States Supreme Court that defined the First Amendment rights of students in public schools in the U.S.</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2022-09-13 14:53:05 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2025-12-08 17:35:34 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Context of the time period/Background</title>
         <author>velazquezramirezz1</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/velazquezramirezz1/1ngrd55y8ybko4mg/wish/2294508151</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><br>The Vietnam war was currently happening and it was a conflict that pitted the communist government of North Vietnam against South Vietnam and its Ally, the United States. The Supreme Court case was in 1969 during the Vietnam war was ongoing and the students of Des Moines Independent Community School District were protesting the fighting.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ieALJjxaZcQ/VjZad-58DfI/AAAAAAAAAaI/ERACKPQ8JH8/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-11-01%2Bat%2B1.29.32%2BPM.png" />
         <pubDate>2022-09-13 15:07:39 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/velazquezramirezz1/1ngrd55y8ybko4mg/wish/2294508151</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Constitutional Rights at Issue</title>
         <author>velazquezramirezz1</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/velazquezramirezz1/1ngrd55y8ybko4mg/wish/2296654183</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>The Constitutional Right being violated is the first amendment. It is being violated because the Principal banned wearing black armbands to school. This defies the amendment because it not allowing freedom of expression and freedom of speech.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="http://aliyahgonzalez.weebly.com/uploads/9/0/2/9/90290517/speaker-fol-marytinker-bw_orig.jpg" />
         <pubDate>2022-09-14 16:06:46 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/velazquezramirezz1/1ngrd55y8ybko4mg/wish/2296654183</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Main Arguments </title>
         <author>velazquezramirezz1</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/velazquezramirezz1/1ngrd55y8ybko4mg/wish/2298469041</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>The Principal banned wearing armbands because he thought the protest might cause disruption in the learning environment. The Students didn't agree and still wore them to school and got sent home. The parents of these students went to court because they found the banishment to be violating their freedom of speech and freedom to protest. The armbands were used to silently protest the fighting of the Vietnam war. They lost the first court case because the Judge and Jury agreed with the principle. Then the students asked for an appeal, they lost the appeal because the Judge agreed with the principle that schools can ban items that principles think are disturbing the learning environment. Then the student took the case to the Supreme court.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="http://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.timetoast.com/public/uploads/photos/8475289/Screen_Shot_2016-05-24_at_8.27.13_AM.png?1478534737" />
         <pubDate>2022-09-15 15:03:26 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/velazquezramirezz1/1ngrd55y8ybko4mg/wish/2298469041</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title> Supreme Court&#39;s decision</title>
         <author>velazquezramirezz1</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/velazquezramirezz1/1ngrd55y8ybko4mg/wish/2298601316</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>The Supreme Court decision was a 7-2, the majority ruled that students and teachers do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The reasoning in the court was that school officials can not prohibit only on suspicion that speech could disrupt the learning.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/kCbKznH0V8FYbFGBDeuf8mI34Pw=/4668x3101/filters:fill(auto,1)/supreme-court-west-entrance-564091971-crop-595477603df78cdc29d6e89e.jpg" />
         <pubDate>2022-09-15 16:16:51 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/velazquezramirezz1/1ngrd55y8ybko4mg/wish/2298601316</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Long Term Effect</title>
         <author>velazquezramirezz1</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/velazquezramirezz1/1ngrd55y8ybko4mg/wish/2298608713</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>The long term effect of the court case Tinker v Des Moines is that school officials could no longer censor student speech unless it has disrupted the learning environment.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="http://www.iptv.org/sites/default/files/story/thumb/tinker_1920x1080.jpg" />
         <pubDate>2022-09-15 16:21:15 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/velazquezramirezz1/1ngrd55y8ybko4mg/wish/2298608713</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
