1st Amendment Case Study

Ellsworth, J. E. (1988). Censorship in secondary school newspapers: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. BYU Journal of Public Law, 2, 291–306.

This document supports limiting online student speech because the court ruled that even though it happened out of school, the school’s reason was strong enough to justify their actions toward K.K.

Kuhlmeier case in that Spectrum was part of a class, and the students involved received credit and a grade for it. A class activity could more easily be censored by the school, as a controversial article could totally polarize the classroom environment. This would disrupt the learning process, and therefore it would make sense for the school to sensor it. It was also largely school sponsored because it was part of a class, so the school deserves a say in its publications. Crow’s Nest, on the other hand, was a completely extracurricular school activity. It was not part of any class, and it was not run by the school in any way other than the terminated faculty advisor. The school could not censor this student publication; it was not part of a class and therefore could not directly negatively impact the learning environment. The only thing censorship of the Crow’s Nest would do was impede the First Amendment rights of those students either working for the paper or submitting material to

     The first and inargueably the most significant of the amendments to our Constitution is the First Amendment. The amendment that established our freedoms as citizens of our new confederation. The First Amendment insured, among other things, freedom of speech and of the press. Since the establishment of these rights, they have often been in question. People have debated over, "What is too much freedom?", and "When is this

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier was a lost fight for the First Amendment rights in schools. When a couple of school journalists’ articles were blocked by the principal of Hazelwood East High School, the students decided that they needed to take their case to the courts. One of the articles was a story about

The decision in this case seems to have left public school students’ free speech rights in an ambiguous state. The Justices in support of the majority opinion—Justices Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia—were thus

In this case, the Principal of Hazelwood east high, Principal Reynolds, reviewed the school paper before it was published. He thought two articles were inappropriate for school, one on some of the student’s pregnancies and experiences while pregnant, and one person’s experiences through her parent’s divorce. ("Facts and Case Summary: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier."1 ) Even though all of the names were changed, the principal was worried that the students may be identified. Also, the father in the divorce article was not reached for comment, so the article had not been unbiased, as should be expected in a newspaper.("Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier"1) The principal removed these articles, causing the paper to miss a

Kuhlmeier (1988) Holding: Administrators may edit the content of school newspapers. The principal of Hazelwood East High School edited two articles in the school paper The Spectrum that he deemed inappropriate. The student authors argued that this violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that administrators can edit materials that reflect school values. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression. The case concerned the censorship of two articles in The Spectrum, the student newspaper of Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis County, Missouri, 1983. When the school principal removed an article concerning divorce and another concerning teen pregnancy, the student journalists sued, claiming that their First Amendment rights had been violated. A lower court sided with the school, but its decision was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which sided with the students.(wiki) In a 5–3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the circuit court's decision, determining that school administrators could exercise prior restraint of school-sponsored

The case of Morse et al. v. Frederick was argued by the Supreme Court in 2007. This was a First Amendment case, centered on the basic right of freedom of speech as defined in the Constitution of the United States. The facts that contributed to the issue took place during a High School assembly event. A group of students had displayed a banner that read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” The High School Principal (Morse) saw this as an illegal drug reference, and was responsible for eliminating such references as outlined in the school’s policy. That being taken into consideration, Principal Morse promptly demanded the students to take down banner, upon which one student who brought the banner (Frederick) refused. Principal Morse confiscated the banner and additionally suspended Frederick from school. The school superintendent and the school board both supported the suspension by Principal Morse, under the premise that Frederick was suspended for violation of school policy which occurred when the words that were displayed on his banner supported illegal drug use.

Unlike the Tinker case, where the student dealt with public policy, the Fraser case (1986) dealt with vulgar speech at school that did not meet educational values, hence, the court ruled in favor of the school to prohibit such disrespectful behavior and to limit 1st Amendment rights of students. However, the court noted that if Fraser gave that speech outside of school, he would be protected. Even though initially the State Supreme Court ruled that Fraser’s 1st Amendment rights were violated, the US Supreme Court overturned that decision because the court felt there should be some limitations to students’ free speech at school and they do not hold the same liberties as adults. Moreover, this ruling

The Supreme Courts court's 7–2 decision held the First Amendment which applied to public schools. The administrators would have to establish "constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom". The court said you can't expect students or teachers to "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate". They felt that school district's actions evidently stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference. The court ruled that the actions of the students did not disrupt school and their activity was "constitutionally protected symbolic speech".

478 U.S. 675, 683 (1986). In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the Court found that schools may restrict school-sponsored speech when the regulation is done in line with the school’s educational mission. 484 U.S. 260, 273 (1988). In the latest student speech decision, Morse v. Frederick, the Court found that a student may be disciplined for speech outside of the schoolhouse gate, at a school-endorsed function for speech promoting the use of illegal drugs. 551 U.S. 393, 397 (2007). Without a bright-line ruling from the Supreme Court, the circuits split on whether Tinker and its progeny are applicable to off-campus speech. Thomas v. Bd. of Educ., Granville Cent. Sch. Dist., 607 F.2d 1043, 1053 (2d Cir. 1979)(finding school authorities may not discipline students for satirical speech done outside of school); Boucher v. Sch. Bd. of Greenfield, 134 F.3d 821, 829 (7th Cir. 1998)(finding that the relevant test of applying Tinker is whether administrators believe the speech will disrupt school activities).

A Case precedent that has amended the constitution for the second amendment would be Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S . in which the supreme court has ruled all forms of arms are bearable because back when the amendment was created those arms were not in existence, so this is an example of how laws have changed to cater to our

In the ruling of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court established a new standard of protection for student expression, by ruling that schools may limit the personal expression of students if their speech can be perceived to bear the imprimatur of the school.Writing for the majority, Justice Byron White said "censorship of school-sponsored student expression is permissible when school officials can show that it is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical

Consequently, the Plymouth Superior Court of Massachusetts must find if the Brockton Public School suppressed Pat Doe’s freedom of expression. “According to federal analysis [federal free speech], this court must first determine whether the plaintiff’s symbolic acts