In both “Protect student speech — even 'unwise' bong banner” and “Policy reflects common sense,” two authors argue whether school interfere students’ rights to speech freely. This case took place where Juneau High School principal Deborah Morse suspended Joseph Frederick after he displayed a "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" banner. “BONG HiT” is a slang word refers to smoking marijuana. Deborah Morse believes that she has the right to stop and suspend Joseph Frederick because his banner violated school’s policy. However, Frederick claims that his rights to free speech was violated.
In “Protect student speech — even 'unwise' bong banner,” the author argues that the court’s decision of Joseph Frederick’s speech rights should be settled in the student’s favor. People believe that even at the schoolhouse…show more content… C: Therefore, the court should in favor of student due to the fact that school have no right to intervene his freedom of speech.
This argument is a deductive argument because two premises are both supporting the conclusion. Also, the argument is valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, there is a fallacy in this article, which is appeal to pity. The article comments that student’s way to express themselves is "the kind of speech we must tolerate, no matter how unwise it is." Appeal to pity is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by using opponent's feelings of pity or guilt.
In “Policy reflects common sense,” the author states that educators should not be punished by doing their job – keep school environment safe. In the article, the author comments that Joseph Frederick’s drug-promoting action violated school policy which should be suspended. Also, it is common sense to avoid pro-drug message appears in school environment. Therefore, the argument of this article can be simplified in following
