| Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
(No. 21)
383 F.2d 988, reversed and remanded. |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syllabus
| Opinion
[ Fortas ] | Concurrence
[ Stewart ] | Concurrence
[ White ] | Dissent
[ Black ] | Dissent
[ Harlan ] |
| HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version |
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.
Although I agree with much of what is said in the Court's opinion, and with its judgment in this case, I [p515] cannot share the Court's uncritical assumption that, school discipline aside, the First Amendment rights of children are coextensive with those of adults. Indeed, I had thought the Court decided otherwise just last Term in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629. I continue to hold the view I expressed in that case:
[A] State may permissibly determine that, at least in some precisely delineated areas, a child -- like someone in a captive audience -- is not possessed of that full capacity for individual choice which is the presupposition of First Amendment guarantees.
Id. at 649-650 (concurring in result). Cf. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158.