The Basic Logic of Post-Tinker Jurisprudence

dc.contributor.authorWright, R. George
dc.contributor.departmentRobert H. McKinney School of Lawen_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-03T18:00:04Z
dc.date.available2016-02-03T18:00:04Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.description.abstractTinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District1 is rightly regarded as a landmark student speech case. At this point, however, it is fair and important to ask about the likely consequences of radically abandoning Tinker and the succeeding case law.2 What might it mean, at this historical point, to abandon Tinker along with its qualifying and limiting cases? The discussion below briefly pursues this question and endorses a radical abandonment of Tinker and the succeeding cases as binding case law.en_US
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen_US
dc.identifier.citationWright, R. G. (2014). The Basic Logic of Post-Tinker Jurisprudence. Cardozo L. Rev. de novo, 138.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/8239
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.relation.journalCardozo Law Reviewen_US
dc.sourcePublisheren_US
dc.subjectstudent speechen_US
dc.subjectFirst Amendmenten_US
dc.titleThe Basic Logic of Post-Tinker Jurisprudenceen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
Wright_2014_basic.pdf
Size:
152.73 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.88 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: