Morse V. Fredrick Rhetorical Analysis

565 Words3 Pages
Our right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press is hindered within our school systems. If your opinion offends someone than you are given consequences for speaking your mind. That doesn’t sounds like our first amendment is being upheld to me. In the court case Morse v. Frederick it was stated that “Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner [Bong Hit 4 Jesus] and suspended Frederick for ten days.” The court had ruled in the favor of Morse and one of the reasons behind their decision was because she qualified for immunity from the lawsuit. “. . . Fredrick was punished for his message rather than for any disturbance. . . “ states the article Morse v. Fredrick. So, whose job is it considered to monitor students to make sure their…show more content…
Your lockers and bags can be searched, your phones can be confiscated by teachers, and surveillance cameras in the hallways and parking lots shows that no matter what you do not have the right to privacy. Additionally, even when you send out an email or text it does not go straight to your desired destination. It goes from your device to an archiving service and then to the person you want to receive it. This service can find any contact you have made with anyone electronically within seconds. So many forms of communication and technology usage is tracked and many Americans do not even realize. Bob Sullivan, the technology correspondent for NBC News, explains about giving just your phone number to a store clerk, “. . . one action can set in motion a cascade of silent events, as that data point is acquired, analyzed, categorized, stored and sold over and over again.” Where is the line drawn? When is it considered going too far? Even now it is becoming extremely difficult for people to grasp the concept that you are constantly being monitored even without noticing. Lee Rowland, an ACLU staff attorney, states, “School officials aren’t permitted to listen in on chatter at students’ private gatherings with friends, or rifle through their private videos and photo albums. Nor should we permit them to do so simply because those conversations or images are digital.” There are so many cases in which our Freedom of Speech, Freedom of
Open Document