 |
 |
 |
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concurring.
MR. JUSTICE FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
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
cannot share the Court's uncritical assumption that, school
discipline aside, the First Amendment rights of children are co-extensive
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.
|
|
|
© 1995 - 2009, Touro Law Center