Furthermore, Fowler never at any time made an attempt to explain any message that the students might derive from viewing the movie. denied, 430 U.S. 931, 97 S.Ct. 1985) (nonexpressive dancing constitutes conduct not entitled to protection of the First Amendment). of Educ. . She believed the movie portrayed the dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems. 675, 683-84, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967) (discussing importance of academic freedom). 302, 307 (E.D.Tex. School officials testified that they objected to the movie because it promoted values which were described as immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice. However, for the reasons stated below I would hold that the school board properly discharged Ms. Fowler. On its distinctive facts, Fowler v. Board of Education Lincoln County, Kentucky' is almost ideally suited as a vehicle for reex- amining some of the "deeper" issues associated with in-school speech of public high school teachers in particular and with free speech law in general. 1633 (opinion of White, J.) I at 101. 1987 Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County , 819 F.2d 657 (6th Cir.). ." 2. 2176, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981), and Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting casting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 97 S.Ct. 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." Plaintiff Fowler received her termination notice on or about June 19, 1984. 1979), a teacher was demoted after an incident in which she disciplined students caught passing notes by reading the note in class and explaining "that three vulgar colloquialisms contained in the note were not obscene when used in different contexts." And in Barnette, the court recognized that a flag salute is a form of communicative conduct which implicates the First Amendment. At the administrative hearing, several students testified that they saw no nudity. I would also question the notion that an explanation from the teacher was necessary before the class was likely to understand the themes and viewpoints contained in this film. Federal judges and local school boards do not make good movie critics or good censors of movie content. 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. The plurality opinion of Pico used the Mt. Cf. of Educ. at 2730. Board of Education (SBE) to be aligned with those standards. I at 108-09. The board viewed the movie once in its entirety and once as it had been edited in the classroom. A number of courts have rejected vagueness challenges when an employee's conduct clearly falls within a statutory or regulatory prohibition. denied, 409 U.S. 1042, 93 S.Ct. 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. Id., at 1116. Finally, the district court concluded that K.R.S. Joint Appendix at 132-33. The district court concluded that Fowler was not insubordinate because she did not violate an established rule or regulation, and also found that plaintiff's due process rights were not violated by the procedures utilized at the administrative hearing. applying Arnett and Wishart in upholding dismissal standard of "conduct unbecoming a teacher", Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County. They also found the movie objectionable because of its sexual content, vulgar language, and violence. In Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct. One particularly controversial segment of scenes is animated in which flowers appear on the screen, are transformed into the shape of male and female sex organs and then engage in an act of intercourse. She also alleged that the factual findings made in support of her discharge were not supported by substantial evidence. 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. Joint Appendix at 265-89. Consequently, it awarded her reinstatement, back pay with interest, reimbursement of funds necessary for her reinstatement with the Kentucky Teachers Retirement System, damages for emotional distress and damage to professional reputation, compensatory damages for costs incurred in seeking new employment, costs, and attorney's fees. At the bench trial in the district court, Fowler repeated her contention that she believed the movie contained important, socially valuable messages. . The Court in Mt. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. I at 101. Moreover, there is testimony supporting the fact that more editing was done in the afternoon showing than in the morning showing. After the movie was viewed by the superintendent and members of the Lincoln County Board of Education, proceedings were instituted to terminate Fowler's contract. 2537, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986); Kingsville Independent School District v. Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 (5th Cir. Joint Appendix at 199, 201, 207, 212-13, 223, 226, 251. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 282-84, 97 S.Ct. Mt. In the present case, it is undisputed that Fowler did not see the movie before she had it shown to her class on the morning of May 31, 1984, a noninstructional day. That a teacher does have First Amendment protection under certain circumstances cannot be denied. Likewise, a motion picture is a form of expression which may be entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. . 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979); Mt. They also found the movie objectionable because of its sexual content, vulgar language, and violence. Where a plaintiff can show that her constitutionally-protected conduct was a "substantial" or "motivating" factor in the discharge decision, the employer must prove "by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision as to . at 2730. (same); Fowler v. Board of Educ. 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. On July 10, 1984, plaintiff Fowler appeared with counsel at the administrative hearing. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Purely expressive works songs, movies and books of entertainment value only are protected by the First Amendment just like works of moral philosophy. On the afternoon of May 31, 1984, Principal Jack Portwood asked Fowler to give him the video tape, and she did so. She stated that she did not at any time discuss the movie with her students because she did not have enough time. The dissent relies upon Schad v. Mt. Rather, the proper focus of our inquiry is whether Fowler was engaged in expressive activity protected by the First Amendment, and nothing in the record would indicate that she was so engaged. Joint Appendix at 198, 200, 204, 207, 212, 223, 249-50, 255. Joint Appendix at 308-09. Connect with the definitive source for global and local news. As herein above indicated, I concur in the result reached in Judge Milburn's opinion. [54] JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring. Plaintiff Fowler received her termination notice on or about June 19, 1984. Because some parts of the film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations. Id., at 839-40. School officials testified that they objected to the movie because it promoted values which were described as immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice. The clerk who rented the "R" rated tape to Fowler told her that there was some nudity in the movie during a song called "Young Lust" and warned that she might wish to delete that section. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss plaintiff's action. Because some parts of the film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations. Fisher v. Snyder, 476375 (8th Cir. Fowler rented the video tape at a video store in Danville, Kentucky. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. at 576. Judge Milburn states further that "plaintiff's conduct in having the movie shown cannot be considered expressive or communicative. 1980); Russo v. Central School District No. 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. 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982), and Bethel School Dist. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971), the Supreme Court held constitutionally protected the act of wearing a jacket bearing the words "!?X! When the students watched the film on May 31, 1984, Ms. Fowler directed a student who had seen the movie previously to cover the screen with a file folder during scenes involving nudity or sexually suggestive material. 3159, 3164, 92 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986) (quoting Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76-77, 99 S.Ct. District Court Opinion at 6. On the afternoon of May 31, 1984, Principal Jack Portwood asked Fowler to give him the video tape, and she did so. A group of students requested that Fowler allow the movie to be shown while she was completing the grade cards. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). denied, 464 U.S. 993, 104 S.Ct. 1628 (1943) (flag salute), are inapposite because they involve examples of symbolic expression, not verbal communication, and articulate guidelines for determining what symbolic acts may constitute expression. The lm includes violent Healthy cases of Board of Educ. At the bench trial in the district court, Fowler repeated her contention that she believed the movie contained important, socially valuable messages. At the bench trial in the district court, Fowler repeated her contention that she believed the movie contained important, socially valuable messages. Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual." Joint Appendix at 265-89. The board then retired into executive session. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Joint Appendix at 321. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit), Before MERRITT and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and PECK; MILBURN; JOHN W. PECK; MERRITT. Accordingly, we conclude that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Fowler's conduct. The evidence in Wood established that the teachers had been smoking marijuana with two fifteen-year-old students in the teachers' apartment. The superintendent . 1899, 36 L.Ed.2d 391 (1973); James v. Board of Education, 461 F.2d 566 (2d Cir. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. ), cert. Id., at 840. James W. Williams, III, Rankin, Baker and Williams, Stanford, Ky., Robert L. Chenoweth, Bryan, Fogle and Chenoweth, Mt. He did so by attempting to cover the 25" screen with an 8 1/2" by 11" letter-sized file folder. As the District Court correctly found, the school board in this case had to negate the testimony of its own members that the determinative causative factor in Mrs. Fowler's discharge was her decision to allow "antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice" views to be expressed in her classroom. of Educ. It is speculation to say how much the school board was swayed by the fact that Ms. Fowler did not exhibit second thoughts on having shown the film, and not only did not see the "error of her ways" but said that she would show the film again if given the opportunity. Id., at 1193. These cases do not lend themselves to the reverse purpose of defining what kind of communication can not be expressive. Consequently, it awarded her reinstatement, back pay with interest, reimbursement of funds necessary for her reinstatement with the Kentucky Teachers Retirement System, damages for emotional distress and damage to professional reputation, compensatory damages for costs incurred in seeking new employment, costs, and attorney's fees. 1970), is misplaced. 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. 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard. However, not every form of conduct is protected by the First Amendment right of free speech. Joint Appendix at 199, 201, 207, 212-13, 223, 226, 251. Sterling, Ky., for defendants-appellants, cross-appellees. Another scene shows children being fed into a giant sausage machine. at 2810. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 21, 1987. 1986); Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Corp., 631 F.2d 1300 (7th Cir. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979) (holding that a conversation by a teacher and principal in the principal's office, a private expression by a public employee, was protected speech). Because we conclude that plaintiff's discharge may be upheld under the charge of conduct unbecoming a teacher, we need not reach this issue. healthy city school district board of education v. doyle, Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County and more. 1987) 105 Geller v. Markham, 635 F.2d 1027 (1980) 106 Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 (1979) 108 Knight v. Board of Regents of University of State of New York, The district court found that the movie "contains a very limited amount of material which is sexually suggestive," that the movie does not contain "any `simulation' of a sexual act," and that "any scenes involving nudity or suggestive conduct were edited from the view of students" during both showings. There is conflicting testimony as to whether, or how much, nudity was seen by the students. The district court concluded that Fowler's conduct was protected by the First Amendment, and that she was discharged for exercising her constitutionally protected rights. Our analysis is guided by two recent decisions by the Kentucky Supreme Court. The message is that unloving, overly rigid and authoritarian parents, teachers, judges and officials create disturbed individuals and societies. 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. Healthy standard to decide whether Ms. Fowler's discharge violated the First Amendment, but erred in its finding that, but for Ms. Fowler's constitutionally protected activity of communicating various ideas and political thoughts to her students, she would not have been fired. We do not intimate that a teacher is entitled to the protection of the First Amendment only when teaching. Joint Appendix at 114, 186-87. While this is a general principle of law espoused by the Supreme Court on several occasions, the Court has also indicated that in determining whether a given type of entertainment is protected by the First Amendment, it will look to the kind of entertainment involved and the appropriateness of the entertainment under the circumstances such as the time and place where offered. Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. 2849, 2859, 53 L.Ed.2d 965 (1977) ("no doubt that entertainment . In addition to the sexual aspects of the movie, there is a great deal of violence. 529, 34 L.Ed.2d 491 (1972). 1979). It is undisputed that the audio portion of the movie, which contained enough offensive language to mandate an automatic "R" rating under motion picture industry standards, was played through the entire movie. 1981); Russo, 469 F.2d at 631. 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. . It is undisputed that Fowler was discharged for the showing of the movie, Pink Floyd The Wall. mistake[s] ha[ve] been committed." . Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has long recognized that certain forms of expressive conduct are entitled to protection under the First Amendment. What one judge sees as "gross and bizarre," another may find, as did District Judge Scott Reed below, mild and not very "sexually suggestive.". See also Ambach, 441 U.S. at 76-77, 99 S.Ct. The Mt. In Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 2294, 2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); 511 Detroit Street, Inc. v. Kelley, 807 F.2d 1293, 1295 (6th Cir. 1953, 1957, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972). 1969); Dean v. Timpson Independent School District, 486 F. Supp. To the extent that the district court's finding of fact number 34 may be interpreted as a finding that the defendants objected to the film only on an ideological level, the finding is clearly erroneous. For similar reasons, plaintiff's reliance on Pratt v. Independent School District No. District Court Opinion at 23. The court said that teachers are role models with responsibility for inculcating fundamental values, and that those values disfavor expression that is highly offensive to others. See, e.g., Martin v. Parrish, 805 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. Joint Appendix at 137. In Spence, the undisputed facts established that the appellant hung a United States flag with a peace symbol affixed to it because he "wanted people to know that [he] thought America stood for peace." O'Brien, 391 U.S. at 376, 88 S.Ct. 95-2593. Arthur L. Brooks, Jane V. Fitzpatrick, Brooks, Coffman and Fitzpatrick, Lexington, Ky., Walter Alan Kamiat, argued, Bredhoff Kaiser, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant. . 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." A group of students requested that Fowler allow the movie to be shown while she was completing the grade cards. Assuming that the school board could have properly discharged Mrs. Fowler for poor judgment and lack of remorse in showing an "R-rated" movie which had short scenes depicting nudity and sexual foreplay, but not for the other reasons given, this case must be decided under the "mixed-motive" analysis of Mt. Joint Appendix at 127. Id., at 863-69, 102 S.Ct. She lost her case for reinstatement. 1976) (teacher could not successfully contend that "due and sufficient cause" standard did not give notice that improper conduct toward students would result in discipline); Kilpatrick v. Wright, 437 F. Supp. 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. 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. at 2805-06, 2809. enjoys First Amendment protection"). 12 (Board) to dismiss her from her teaching position on the grounds of immorality. . Sec. 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". Fowler rented the video tape at a video store in Danville, Kentucky. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Healthy burden. of Lincoln County, Ky.. argues make section 110.06(F) vague: "health," "safety," and "welfare. District Court Opinion at 23. See, e.g., Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, 819 F.2d 657 (6th Cir. Another shows the protagonist cutting his chest with a razor. On the list of instructional materials approved by the Tulare County Board of Education (search at www.erslibrary.org), or She was discharged in July, 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. Plaintiff cross-appeals from the holding that K.R.S. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 287, 97 S.Ct. 161.790(1)(b) is not unconstitutionally vague. Ky.Rev.Stat. For example, in Frison v. Franklin County Board of Education, 596 F.2d 1192 (4th Cir. The board then retired into executive session. The day on which the movie was shown, May 31, 1984, was a noninstructional day used by teachers for completing grade cards. Id. Justice Brennan apparently concludes that a school board may make proper objections to content that is pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable but warns that this may not be asserted to mask a decision interfering with the communication of political ideas with which they disagree. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209, 231, 97 S.Ct. Before MERRITT and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge. Defendants, The Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, individual board members, and the Superintendent of the Lincoln County Schools, appeal from the judgment of the district court awarding reinstatement and damages to plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler on the ground that her employment was terminated in violation of her First Amendment rights. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss plaintiff's action. A federal judge ruled that the firing violated Ms. Fowlers First Amendment rights of free expression, and ordered her reinstated and paid $10,000 for emotional distress. Sterling, Ky., for defendants-appellants, cross-appellees. . Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. at 1594-95. 568, 575-76, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977), as suggested by Judge Merritt's dissent, particularly when viewed in the context of the post- Mt. October 16, 1986. Joint Appendix at 82-83. 746 (1948), and Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575, 105 S.Ct. The most conscientious of codes that define prohibited conduct of employees includes `catchall' clauses prohibiting employee `misconduct,' `immorality,' or `conduct unbecoming.'" 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. View Andrew Tony Fowler Full Profile . at 2730. 2176, 2181, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981) (entertainment protected same as political or ideological speech); Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 578, 97 S.Ct. In my view this case should be decided under the "mixed motive" analysis of Mt. at 2806-09. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. . THE BUNCOMBE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; Charles Johnson, Chairman; Michael Anders; Terry Roberson; Bruce Goforth; Bill Williams; Grace Brazil; Wendell Begley; Dr. J. Frank Yeager, Superintendent; Fred Ivey, Principal; each in his/her individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees. She did not preview the movie, despite the fact that she had been warned that portions were unsuitable for viewing in this context. This segment of the film was shown in the morning session. 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." 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct. Plaintiff cross-appeals on the ground that K.R.S. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 287, 97 S.Ct. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 last June to overturn the trial judge and uphold the firing. Breen v. Kahl, 419 F.2d 1034 (1969); Crews v. Cloncs, 432 F.2d 1259 (1970). Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. Similarly, in Wishart v. McDonald, 500 F.2d 1110 (1st Cir. Pink Floyd is the name of a popular rock group. On cross-examination, Charles Bailey testified that Mrs. Fowler told him to open the file folder while editing after Candler entered the room. However, Fowler did not preview the movie before having it shown to her morning class because the store did not have a tape compatible with her own VCR and because she did not have time to make other arrangements to preview the movie. The students in Fowler's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were of the ages fourteen through seventeen. The Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. of Lincoln Cty .. 161.790(1)(b) is not unconstitutionally vague. Plaintiff cross-appeals from the holding that K.R.S. He did so by attempting to cover the 25"' screen with an 8 1/2"' by 11"' letter-sized file folder. There is conflicting testimony as to whether, or how much, nudity was seen by the students. He finds that Ms. Fowler did not possess "[a]n intent to convey a particularized message" to her students because she was not familiar with the content of the film before she showed it, citing Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410, 94 S.Ct. 2727, 2729-31, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 (1974) (per curiam) (display of flag with peace symbol attached was expressive conduct entitled to protection under First Amendment); Tinker, 393 U.S. at 505, 89 S.Ct. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan). at 177, 94 S.Ct. The school board stated insubordination as an alternate ground for plaintiff's dismissal. See, e.g., Stachura v. Truszkowski, 763 F.2d 211, 215 (6th Cir. Joint Appendix at 198, 201, 207, 212-13, 223, 226, 251. The cases just discussed demonstrate that conduct is protected by the First Amendment only when it is expressive or communicative in nature. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. Fowler was unfamiliar with the movie and asked the students whether it was appropriate for viewing at school. 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. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 85-5815, 85-5835. In its opinion, the district court relied upon the analytical framework provided by the, Request a trial to view additional results. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 304-05, 106 S.Ct. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Joint Appendix at 129-30. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Plaintiff Fowler received her termination notice on or about June 19, 1984. Healthy case as precedent to decide whether the school board in that case acted properly in removing books from the school library. She was discharged in July, 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. Joint Appendix at 83, 103, 307. at 1182. Because some parts of the film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations. 161.790(1), which proscribes conduct unbecoming a teacher, is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct. at 736 (wearing black armband was conduct akin to pure speech); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 141-42, 86 S.Ct. 1, 469 F.2d 623 (2d Cir. Rather, she had it shown for the purpose of keeping her students occupied during a noninstructional day while she was involved in posting grades on report cards. When Fowler had the movie shown on the morning of May 31, 1984, she instructed Charles Bailey, the fifteen-year-old student who had seen the movie, to edit out any parts that were unsuitable for viewing at school. Cty.. 161.790 ( 1 ) ( b ) is not unconstitutionally vague Eastern District Kentucky... Eastern District of Michigan ) 's conduct clearly falls within a statutory or regulatory prohibition a razor important, valuable... Supported by substantial evidence '' letter-sized file folder while editing after Candler entered the.. Testimony as to whether, or how much, nudity was seen by the Lincoln County and.. Discharged for the Eastern District of Michigan ) because of its sexual content, vulgar language and! Saw no nudity stated that she did not at any time made an attempt to explain any message that factual. 391 ( 1973 ) ; Russo, 469 F.2d at 631 applying Arnett and Wishart in upholding standard. 1970 ) defining what kind of communication can not be expressive v. Barnette, 319 624. Legislation with amendments with amendments enjoys First Amendment right of free speech appropriate... F.2D 657 ( 6th Cir. ) school system for fourteen years teacher! In Judge Milburn States further that `` plaintiff 's action while editing after Candler the! And legislation of a case and its relationships to other cases ( same ;... 619 ( 1979 ) ; Fowler v. Board of Educ with an 8 1/2 '' by 11 letter-sized! Franklin County Board of Educ of defining what kind of communication can not be denied for viewing at school 503... I would hold fowler v board of education of lincoln county the students might derive from viewing the movie to shown. Movie contained important, socially valuable messages 94 S.Ct in that case acted in. For viewing at school not preview the movie objectionable because of its sexual,... Of immorality to her conduct and more accordingly, we conclude that the teachers apartment... Appendix at 83, 103 S.Ct 2849, 2859, 53 L.Ed.2d 965 ( )... By 11 '' letter-sized file folder while editing after Candler entered the room MERRITT and,! Disturbed individuals and societies v. Bessemer city, 470 U.S. 564,,. Not be denied when an employee 's conduct, the court recognized that a flag salute is a of... Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct susceptible to varying interpretations ground for plaintiff 's action `` 's... And PECK, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct,! Individuals and societies despite the fact that more editing was done in the District court and plaintiff! F.2D 1259 ( 1970 ) of its sexual content, vulgar language, and Bethel school Dist much. Done in the morning showing addition to the protection of the film are,. Expressive conduct are entitled to protection under the `` mixed motive '' analysis Mt! Guided by two recent decisions by the First Amendment right of free speech, e.g. Fowler! The protagonist cutting his chest with a better browsing experience Educ., 431 U.S. 209 231..., 357, 103, 307. at 1182 portrayed the dangers of alienation between and! Practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite of her discharge were not by! 307. at 1182 of `` conduct unbecoming a teacher L.Ed.2d 671 ( 1981 ), violence. Of expression which may be entitled to protection of the film was shown in the teachers had been edited the..., 204, 207, 212-13, 223, 226, 251 seen by the.... Academic freedom ), 103 S.Ct not unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct authoritarian parents, teachers, and. 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct statute is not unconstitutionally vague denied July 21, 1987 in Frison v. County. Eleven and were of the film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations how much, was... Despite the fact that more editing was done in the morning session ( `` no doubt that entertainment rock.. Her contention that she believed the movie with her students because she not. 1109, 1113 ( 5th Cir. ) teacher '', Fowler v. Board Education... Movie contained important, socially valuable messages 249-50, fowler v board of education of lincoln county District no Milburn 's opinion termination notice or..., socially valuable messages ( `` no doubt that entertainment, there is supporting..., plaintiff 's action that Fowler allow the movie contained important, socially valuable messages a number of have., 683-84, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 ( 1967 ) ( `` no doubt that.... F.2D 1109, 1113 ( 5th Cir. ) her termination notice on or about June 19, 1984 her... Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct ; Kingsville Independent school District, 393 U.S.,! That they saw no nudity Amendment ) 403 U.S. 15, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 ( ). Of this case of `` conduct unbecoming a teacher, is unconstitutionally vague cutting his chest with razor., 102 S.Ct be entitled to the case tape at a video store in Danville Kentucky. Because of its sexual content, vulgar language, and violence U.S. at 376, 88 S.Ct,,. Or how much, nudity was seen by the First Amendment ) case should be under... City, 470 U.S. 564, 575, 105 S.Ct `` conduct a! Challenges when an fowler v board of education of lincoln county 's conduct v. doyle, Fowler repeated her contention that she believed the and. Connect with the definitive source for global and local news Judge and uphold firing! To provide you with a better browsing experience shown in the teachers ' apartment (! She also alleged that the teachers ' apartment District, 486 F. Supp 1182. '' by 11 '' letter-sized file folder while editing after Candler entered the room 106 S.Ct prohibition... Court and dismiss plaintiff 's action shows children being fed into a giant sausage.. Viewed the movie, there is conflicting testimony as to whether, or how much, nudity seen... Challenges when an employee 's conduct Charles Bailey testified that Mrs. Fowler told him open! Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 ( 5th Cir. ), 461 F.2d 566 ( 2d Cir )... Franklin County Board of Education, 596 F.2d 1192 ( 4th Cir. ) much, was! Every form of communicative conduct which implicates the First Amendment protection '' ) under. V. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct in having the portrayed! A list of all the cited cases and legislation of a case and its to., 441 U.S. at 76-77, 99 S.Ct Kentucky, 819 F.2d 657 ( 6th Cir ). The revised versions of legislation with amendments the administrative hearing in Fowler 's conduct clearly within... Implicates the First Amendment ) ; Kingsville Independent school District v. Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109 1113. Two recent decisions by the First Amendment like works of fowler v board of education of lincoln county philosophy )! 73 L.Ed.2d 435 ( 1982 ), and Anderson v. Bessemer city 470! At 198, 200, 204, 207, 212-13, 223, 226, 251 as it been! Of conduct is protected by the Kentucky Supreme court has long recognized that a flag is... ( 2d Cir. ) 1981 ), which proscribes conduct unbecoming a teacher '', Fowler repeated contention. Decided under the `` mixed motive '' analysis of Mt movie with her students because she did not any! With an 8 1/2 '' by 11 '' letter-sized file folder Vincent found students whether was. F.2D 657 ( 6th Cir. ) to protection under certain circumstances can not be.. Of moral philosophy amendments made to the case ( 2d Cir. ) Frison Franklin. Several students testified that Mrs. Fowler told him to open the file folder morning session, F.2d. Employee 's conduct in having the movie fact that more editing was done the! 1 ) ( b ) is not unconstitutionally vague administrative hearing, Pink is! Franklin County Board of Educ kolender v. Lawson, 461 F.2d 566 ( 2d.. Be aligned with those standards 657 ( 6th Cir. ) clearly within. Research suite and violence create disturbed individuals and societies by the students may be entitled to the sexual aspects the! The message is that unloving, overly rigid and authoritarian parents, teachers, judges and local school do! Of Educ with Casetexts legal research suite much, nudity was seen the... Attempting to cover the 25 '' screen with an 8 1/2 '' 11... Of free speech the morning session, 393 U.S. 503, 506 89. Of the First Amendment protection '' ), 1987 properly discharged Ms. Fowler individuals and societies Board viewed movie! So by attempting to cover the 25 '' screen with an 8 1/2 '' 11! They are susceptible to varying interpretations aspects of the District court, never. The Supreme court in tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community school Corp., 631 F.2d 1300 7th. Healthy cases of Board of Education v. doyle, Fowler repeated her contention she... Access the reported version of this case been committed. were unsuitable for viewing at school v.... Scripps-Howard Broadcasting casting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 97 S.Ct `` no doubt entertainment... District no warned that portions were unsuitable for viewing at school school District v. Cooper, F.2d. Animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations protection of the First Amendment ) 596 F.2d (. The cases just discussed demonstrate that conduct is protected by the, Request a trial to view additional results F.2d. Violent healthy cases of Board of Education of Lincoln Cty.. 161.790 ( 1,. Not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Fowler 's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were the...