This Court acknowledged in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., supra, that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Cf.

The morning after the assembly, the Assistant Principal called respondent into her office and notified him that the school considered his speech to have been a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule," which prohibited conduct that substantially interfered with the educational process, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures. 1. Respondent contends that the circumstances of his suspension violated due process because he had no way of knowing that the delivery of the speech in question would subject him to disciplinary sanctions. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969), and concluded that the School District had not demonstrated any disruption of the educational process. The Court of Appeals read that case as precluding any discipline of Fraser for indecent speech and lewd conduct in the school assembly. 77-81. See Thomas v. Board of Education, Granville Central School Dist., 607 F.2d 1043, 1057 (CA2 1979) (Newman, J., concurring in result) ("[S]chool officials . If this be true, and if respondent's audience consisted almost entirely of young people with whom he conversed on a daily basis, can we—at this distance—confidently assert that he must have known that the school administration would punish him for delivering it? 438 U.S., at 732, 98 S.Ct., at 3031. The Manual of Parliamentary Practice, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the House of Representatives to govern the proceedings in that body, prohibits the use of "impertinent" speech during debate and likewise provides that "[n]o person is to use indecent language against the proceedings of the House." This respondent was an outstanding young man with a fine academic record.

The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order. At Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington, senior student Matthew Fraser used a series of sexual double entendres in a speech that nominated one of his classmates for the position of Associated Student Body Vice President. . Fraser was presented with copies of five letters submitted by teachers, describing his conduct at the assembly; he was given a chance to explain his conduct, and he admitted to having given the speech described and that he deliberately used sexual innuendo in the speech. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 269, 279, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment) (footnotes omitted). 158-159 (1982); see id., at 111, n. a (Jefferson's Manual governs the House in all cases to which it applies). In our Nation's legislative halls, where some of the most vigorous political debates in our society are carried on, there are rules prohibiting the use of expressions offensive to other participants in the debate. Fraser’s speech, nominating a classmate to a student elective office, referred to the student as “firm in his pants,” who would take it to “the climax.” After school officials suspended Fraser, he sued in federal court. P. 686. § 1983. In my opinion, therefore, the most difficult question is whether the speech was so obviously offensive that an intelligent high school student must be presumed to have realized that he would be punished for giving it. The District Court and Court of Appeals conscientiously applied Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. “We find it significant that although four teachers delivered written statements to an assistant principal commenting on Fraser's speech, none of them suggested that the speech disrupted the assembly or otherwise interfered with school activities. . We have also recognized an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language. 680-686. 2799, 2814-2815, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982) (plurality opinion); id., at 879-881, 102 S.Ct., at 2814-2815 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring in part and in judgment); id., at 918-920, 102 S.Ct., at 2834-2835 (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting). Two days' suspension from school does not rise to the level of a penal sanction calling for the full panoply of procedural due process protections applicable to a criminal prosecution. Respondent read his speech to three different teachers before he gave it. One teacher reported that on the day following the speech, she found it necessary to forgo a portion of the scheduled class lesson in order to discuss the speech with the class. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions. 247, 249, 63 L.Ed. Even the most heated political discourse in a democratic society requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other participants and audiences.
Some of the students at the assembly hooted and yelled during the speech, some mimicked the sexual activities alluded to in the speech, and others appeared to be bewildered and embarrassed. We granted certiorari, 474 U.S. 814, 106 S.Ct. 766, at 769, 86 L.Ed. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 97-271, pp. See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. This Court's First Amendment jurisprudence has acknowledged limitations on the otherwise absolute interest of the speaker in reaching an unlimited audience where the speech is sexually explicit and the audience may include children. The hearing officer determined that the speech given by respondent was “indecent, lewd, and offensive to the modesty and decency of [p679] many of the students and faculty in attendance at the assembly.” The examiner determined that the speech fell within the ordinary meaning of “obscene,” as used in the disruptive-conduct rule, and affirmed the discipline in its entirety.
In Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76-77, 99 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971). 114, 118, 71 L.Ed. In contrast, “[i]n our Nation's legislative halls, where some of the most vigorous political debates in our society are carried on, there are rules prohibiting the use of expressions offensive to other participants in the debate.” See ante, at 3164. There is no evidence in the record that any students, male or female, found the speech "insulting." See App.

The court awarded respondent monetary relief and enjoined the School District from preventing him from speaking at the commencement ceremonies. A federal district court and federal appeals court ruled in Fraser’s favor, finding that school officials viola… I discuss each theory in turn. 47. It is against this background that we turn to consider the level of First Amendment protection accorded to Fraser's utterances and actions before an official high school assembly attended by 600 students. For example, the Court notes that "[n]othing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions." Thus, the evidence in the record, as interpreted by the District Court and the Court of Appeals, makes it perfectly clear that respondent's speech was not "conduct" prohibited by the disciplinary rule.4 Indeed, even if the language of the rule could be stretched to encompass the nondisruptive use of obscene or profane language, there is no such language in respondent's speech. The Court of [p680] Appeals also rejected the School District's argument that it had an interest in protecting an essentially captive audience of minors from lewd and indecent language in a setting sponsored by the school, reasoning that the School District's “unbridled discretion” to determine what discourse is “decent” would “increase the risk of cementing white, middle-class standards for determining what is acceptable and proper speech and behavior in our public schools.” 755 F.2d, at 1363. See Arnold v. Carpenter, 459 F.2d 939, 944 (CA7 1972) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). 755 F.2d 1356, 1361, n. 4 (CA9 1985). Approximately 600 high school students, many of whom were 14-year-olds, attended the assembly. Under the circumstances of this case, however, I believe that school officials did not violate the First Amendment in determining that respondent should be disciplined for the disruptive language he used while addressing a high school assembly.3 Thus, I concur in the judgment reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals. And in addressing the question whether the First Amendment places any limit on the authority of public schools to remove books from a public school library, all Members of the Court, otherwise sharply divided, acknowledged that the school board has the authority to remove books that are vulgar. The Manual of Parliamentary [p682] Practice, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the House of Representatives to govern the proceedings in that body, prohibits the use of “impertinent” speech during debate and likewise provides that “[n]o person is to use indecent language against the proceedings of the House.” Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice §§ 359, 360, reprinted in Manual and Rules of House of Representatives, H.R.Doc. 92-7, pp. In New Jersey v. 303 (1926). 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 distinguished. Id., at 508, 89 S.Ct., at 737. McLaurin and Tillman); id., at 152-153 (Sen. McCarthy).

" 755 F.2d 1356, 1357, n. 1 (CA9 1985). Justice BRENNAN, concurring in the judgment. In its opinion today, the Court describes respondent as a "confused boy," ante, at 683, and repeatedly characterizes his audience of high school students as "children," ante, at 682, 684.

733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). Petitioner School District acted entirely within its permissible authority in imposing sanctions upon respondent in response to his offensively lewd and indecent speech, which had no claim to First Amendment protection. [p692] The interest in free speech protected by the First Amendment and the interest in fair procedure protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment combine to require this conclusion. 247, 249, 63 L.Ed.